Dawkins and childish assumptions

@xris,

I would never want to sum someone up by their faith alone - but I suspect Dawkins' goal is a quixotic one.

EDIT: Actually I suppose it does have some results - I watched him on Bill O'Reilly recently, and even Billo admitted that he wasn't sure if his faith was the right one, or that evolution didn't happen.

And I doubt you'd have seen that were it not for the recent media hype over atheism, which is partly down to Dawkins.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

I think his motives are more likely to be introducing societies questioning the idea that, children should not be brain washed by their parents. I think its well overdue that this question be asked by society as a whole. Why should Muslims breed muslims and Catholics breed catholics etc. Any logical conclusion would confirm we brainwash our children. That fact must be examined.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;121181 wrote:

Why should Muslims breed muslims and Catholics breed catholics etc. Any logical conclusion would confirm we brainwash our children. That fact must be examined.

Well I think it's easy to answer.

By doing so sincere believers think they are:

a) Saving their children from Hell (or other crap afterlife).
b) Inducting into them a correct standard of behaviour and/or morality.
c) Announcing them as members of a community who share (in theory at least) that standard.

Now - like you - I think the world would be a much better place if people were allowed to develop individual concepts relating to spirituality without parental bias or peer group pressure.

But whilst the threat of hellfire is real for some people - they can hardly be expected not to seek to save their loved ones from it.

Which is why the threat of Hell is the greatest recruiting tool of the evangelical nutjob.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Muslims breed Muslims, and Catholics Catholics for the same reason that English speakers breed English speakers, and Russian speakers breed Russian speakers. It is not brainwashing when we teach our children a language before they are "capable of independent thought" (although I'm not quite sure what that means; at what age are children able to think independently? at what ages are they unable to think independently?).

Introducing a child to the family's faith, to the community's spiritual rites is quite different from brainwashing the child. It is one thing to explain to a child a particular religious perspective and nurture them in a particular religious environment, and quite another to systematically impose certain beliefs upon the child with such intensity that contrary thought becomes psychologically painful and nearly impossible for the child. Brainwashing occurs, but it is far from the norm. Sunday School and Confirmation Classes are not brainwashing.

Throughout mankind's history, in every society, where ever man has traveled, there have been community spiritual practices. This is universal to humans. Look at Lascaux, for example. Spirituality is natural to our species, however we may express it.

Like you, Dave, I think each person should investigate spirituality for themselves. That each person should take responsibility for his or her spiritual life, and not submit unquestioningly to another's authority on spiritual matters. But let us be careful - do we rely want to deny people spiritual guidance? You use the phrases "parental bias" and "peer pressure", which are certainly at play in the lives of many people. But is it possible for people to influence other people's spiritual lives in positive ways? Is a parent reading to her child the Sermon on the Mount necessarily an act of "parental bias", or could it be a positive bonding experience between parent and child that helps to nurture positive moral values in the child?

When I was young my family would often go to church. I was typically reluctant, and sometimes I was given no choice but to go with them. Was this brainwashing? Or was it my parents understanding that sometimes children just do not want to do what they should do, like come home and do homework before playing outside? At every church service a collection plate was passed around - donations for the church to maintain the facilities and pay bills, sometimes a special collection for a particular cause, or maybe around Christmas money would be collected specifically to raise money for a food drive. Before each service my parents would give me five dollars, and they would tell me that it was for the collection plate. Once, I did not put the money in the plate and for this I was grounded for a whole week - I was not happy. Were my parents brainwashing me? Or were they trying to instill in me the value of charity over the instinct toward greed?

But let's also think about the influence of others on a larger scale. Let's use art as an example. While it is wonderful to find untrained geniuses, people who without formal training manage to produce brilliant and timeless works of art. But these people are rare. Typically, our great artists spend years training with teachers, studying the works of other masters. Is it possible that religion works in much the same way? That religious people can in fact benefit from the guidance and teachings of others? That spiritual education can very often benefit the spiritual life of the student? The Buddha had many teachers. Jesus learned the Hebrew scriptures well. Being a student of religion is typical among the esteemed religious figures of human history.

2 Replies

@xris,

Great post DT.

I also have another way of looking at the whole brainwashing concept displayed here, even though I do believe brainwashing does happen, it is not always the case.

If brainwashing your child was always the case, then by all means a child born into a family that was racist would probably more than likely be racist. If it works for one line of thinking, wouldn't it work for every line of thinking?

I know this doesn't happen because I am proof of it.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Muslims breed Muslims, and Catholics Catholics for the same reason that English speakers breed English speakers, and Russian speakers breed Russian speakers. It is not brainwashing when we teach our children a language before they are "capable of independent thought" (although I'm not quite sure what that means; at what age are children able to think independently? at what ages are they unable to think independently?).

Introducing a child to the family's faith, to the community's spiritual rites is quite different from brainwashing the child. It is one thing to explain to a child a particular religious perspective and nurture them in a particular religious environment, and quite another to systematically impose certain beliefs upon the child with such intensity that contrary thought becomes psychologically painful and nearly impossible for the child. Brainwashing occurs, but it is far from the norm.

Heh, I started to post with exactly the same first sentence (with French instead of Russian) but decided not too. One has to teach your child a language, but one can teach morals without teaching religion. Your parents could have taught you charity on its own. A better comparison would be Democrats raising their children as Democrats. Except not, since you don't have to vote until you are 18 which leaves you some time to make decisions on your own, while you need morals from a younger age. So really the question is: is religion the best framework for teaching morality? I think it's too dogmatic...

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;121210 wrote:

If brainwashing your child was always the case, then by all means a child born into a family that was racist would probably more than likely be racist. If it works for one line of thinking, wouldn't it work for every line of thinking?

Good points, though I have a couple of (very vague and not particularly strongly held) objections.

a) Inept brainwashing is still brainwashing.
b) I suspect that whilst many offspring of racists will decide for themselves not to be racist (and I think such people are to be commended) a greater proportion of racist children are raised by racist parents than non-racist parents.

0 Replies

@Jebediah,

But how can we generalize so grandly about religion? 'Oh, it's too dogmatic', but what are we talking about? Surely each tradition is a bit different, surely each denomination a bit different, each Bishopric, each individual parish, each set of parents.

And if religion is not so good for teaching morality, what is? Should our children study Mill at age five to learn morality? That seems a bit much. Wouldn't it be better to have a set of morally didactic stories through which they come to understand moral principles in practice, which they can use throughout their lives, and continue to cultivate deeper understandings of those stories throughout their lives? Ah, but that is a great deal of scripture right there. So we're back to religion.

I do not think the question is 'should we teach morality through religion, or through something else?' We should teach morality to children through whatever is most effective, whatever helps them be better people. Sometimes religion fails miserably, yet other times religion manages to produce incredibly loving people. Obviously, then, we cannot say religion in or out. Instead, we have to ask ourselves what is it about the religious teaching that allows the teaching to work, and what is it about the teaching that causes the teaching to have negative results?

It's the difference between positive religion and negative religion. For example, one Catholic priest says "My country right or wrong" while another says "stop bombing Vietnam into the stone age". Both are words from religious leaders, but one is horribly violent, the other remarkably compassionate. One Muslim Imam says "kill the Jews!" while another says "love the Jews because they are your brothers and sisters". One violent, another compassionate. One negative, another positive.

I would suggest that religion, when practiced with understanding and wisdom, is a great way to teach morality. Similarly, religion, when practiced with hatred and ignorance, is a great way to teach immorality. The question isn't whether we should use religion or not: we should use religion to teach morality. We just have to know how to do that.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;121207 wrote:

Sunday School and Confirmation Classes are not brainwashing.

I would suspect that they can be - my own (minimal) sunday schooling only presented one story, and presented it as true and rewarded those who affirmed it as true.

That said I'm currnetly involved in voluntary work at a local YMCA that is very "hands-off" in terms of evangelicism - apart from some quotes on the wall.

Quote:

Like you, Dave, I think each person should investigate spirituality for themselves. That each person should take responsibility for his or her spiritual life, and not submit unquestioningly to another's authority on spiritual matters. But let us be careful - do we rely want to deny people spiritual guidance? You use the phrases "parental bias" and "peer pressure", which are certainly at play in the lives of many people. But is it possible for people to influence other people's spiritual lives in positive ways? Is a parent reading to her child the Sermon on the Mount necessarily an act of "parental bias", or could it be a positive bonding experience between parent and child that helps to nurture positive moral values in the child?

As in all things I think it's a case of how the story is presented.

The reason I referred to this as a "Quixotic" goal is that it is impossible, and that calling for total independence on the matter is (I think) hypocritical.

One cannot demand freedom from bias and pressure without applying such things.

However, I think such hypocrisy is required in order to level the playing field. Without a call for freedom for children to make their own mind up (however much this call is a quixotic attempt to persuade) people who might otherwise think about it won't.

Though I also accept there may be a polarising effect.

To return to the sermon of the mount. I learned about it in RE classes presented for their value as literature and moral teaching divorced of concepts of deity.

My mother also talks about Jesus - though she has decided that Jesus was a mortal with special insight into God's plan - and that the miraculous events normally ascribed to him weaken rather than strengthen his moral authority. To her the whole thing carries more weight shorn of the miraculous.

I think it carries more weight shorn of the divine. Moral philosophy is what it is whether it's the philosophy of a mortal man or not.

But my memories of religious teachers (not necessarily religious teaching) is that the message of the sermon on the mount didn't matter because of it's content so much as it mattered because the man sermonising was the son of God.

---------- Post added 01-20-2010 at 12:27 PM ----------

Didymos Thomas;121217 wrote:

And if religion is not so good for teaching morality, what is? Should our children study Mill at age five to learn morality? That seems a bit much. Wouldn't it be better to have a set of morally didactic stories through which they come to understand moral principles in practice, which they can use throughout their lives, and continue to cultivate deeper understandings of those stories throughout their lives? Ah, but that is a great deal of scripture right there. So we're back to religion.

Well why not teach them a bit of Mill, or point out that the golden rule was raised by Confuscious independantly of Jesus?

I wouldn't deny that religion provides moral lessons as an easy to digest apercus - but why append subjective metaphysical "truths" to these things?

2 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

I'm not criticising any singer but the songs they sing. If you cant instill a moral attitude into your child without convincing them of your own brand of religious belief, it is brainwashing. Just look at the percentages of Protestants that breed protestants, Im not going to water down my opinions just because faith can give a moral framework for the young. I'm not for making it illegal but It deserves to be debated and considered.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

But this all goes back to another point I made: you do not seem to be criticizing religion at its best, but religion at its worst.

For example, instead of saying the Sermon on the Mount is beautiful because it is good teaching, that it is so insightful that the man giving the sermon must be very holy (never mind exactly what that means right this moment), you heard something like 'He's holy, dammit, and that's final!' But that's unskillful religion. Instead of telling you that 'the Sermon is important because Jesus is authoritative', you should have been taught something like 'Jesus is authoritative because he gave great teaching like the Sermon'.

We have to get past our personal biases if we are going to get into these questions.

The Divine has become tough for many people. It's tough for everyone, but today we are encountering some new problems with the concept: so many religious people take it to be some kind of special science-fiction-come-to-life situation where God might as well be a super-advanced alien being rather than the spiritual God that man has sought for the past ten thousand years.

As for freedom and children making up their own minds: how is raising a child in your typical religious community restricting their freedom? I was raised in the Episcopal Church, yet managed to have ample freedom to reject all religion, look into Buddhism and other faiths, come back to Christianity outside of denominations. In other words, I was raised in a very normal religious community, yet I think I have as much religious freedom as a person can possibly enjoy. Is this a personal bias, or am I on to something: is it possible that raising children in a particular spiritual environment does not typically restrict their religious freedom?

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;121233 wrote:

But this all goes back to another point I made: you do not seem to be criticizing religion at its best, but religion at its worst.

I don't think so, I gave an example of a source I respect (my unorthodox Christian mother) and another I respect (my CofE Religious Education) and one I don't (my admittedly limited experience of sunday schools) and one I'm ambivalent about (the local YMCA - who seem to practice what they preach, and even lay off the preaching).

But I like this chap's attitude more than any of them, really:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cam2kK7J_8k

Dress sense aside.

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;121223 wrote:

Well why not teach them a bit of Mill, or point out that the golden rule was raised by Confuscious independantly of Jesus?

Yes! We should teach our children about that great Chinese philosopher, who's philosophy has been religious in China.

I'm not against teaching children some Mill, but we have to remember that we are talking about people at large. Can we really expect the vast majority of parents to know and understand Mill well enough to teach Mill to their children? I don't think so. But we can expect a majority of parents to understand morally didactic stories like Aesop or those found in scripture, and expect them to pass these stories on.

I'm not against using secular sources for teaching morals to children. We should use whatever works effectively. This means using spiritual sources, secular sources - the whole lot.

Dave Allen;121223 wrote:

I wouldn't deny that religion provides moral lessons as an easy to digest apercus - but why append subjective metaphysical "truths" to these things?

Because we all develop metaphysical understandings of things, even if we do not give them much thought. It's human nature, it's why there is a whole field of study called metaphysics. We're wired to think in metaphysical terms from time to time. Using a particular religious metaphysical perspective gives a group of humans, a community, a shared language through which we can more easily understand one another when we have the all too human metaphysical-existential crisis.

Besides, unless we are instilled with the belief that all other metaphysical perspectives are wrong, there does not seem to be much danger here. If we are taught to be understanding and considerate of different perspectives, then we can accept and welcome these different perspectives, learn from these different perspectives, and live harmoniously with these different perspectives. Instead of different perspectives being the catalyst of division, they become the banquet of friendship as we learn from one another with genuine, enthusiastic curiosity.

1 Reply

@xris,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Introducing a child to the family's faith, to the community's spiritual rites is quite different from brainwashing the child. It is one thing to explain to a child a particular religious perspective and nurture them in a particular religious environment, and quite another to systematically impose certain beliefs upon the child with such intensity that contrary thought becomes psychologically painful and nearly impossible for the child. Brainwashing occurs, but it is far from the norm. Sunday School and Confirmation Classes are not brainwashing.

Sunday school can of course be brainwashing. Imagine a young child of six years being told that believing in God is the only way to righteousness - and this being reinforced every single week. After a while, beliefs will be imposed. I've witnessed and been victim of this. Now don't get me wrong, I do agree that religious parables can be excellent tools used to instill morality in a young person, but from what I've seen, this often comes at a price. And this is because religion, at least the Christian denominations I've been exposed (and I speak of these because you noted Sunday school), focus not only on moral instruction but the worship of God. And I don't think anyone before the age of reason should be forced to worship a God. This is absolutely not necessary to expose and reinforce morals.

Most children are scared into acting the right way, because of this God element. And this is disgusting, we don't want submissive obedient worshippers. We don't want people doing the right thing because they're scared to go to hell, we want people doing the right thing because they want to do the right thing, don't we?

If we removed the God element in Sunday school, I'm all for it. Though, we probably wouldn't consider it religious per se anymore, would we? Moral integrity school, or something of the like.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;121236 wrote:

Yes! We should teach our children about that great Chinese philosopher, who's philosophy has been religious in China.

And, alike to my point regarding Christ, I think to affirm the stories regarding his position in a heavenly bureacracy alongside, or in preference to, what can be gleaned from his ideas is a mistake.

Quote:

Can we really expect the vast majority of parents to know and understand Mill well enough to teach Mill to their children? I don't think so. But we can expect a majority of parents to understand morally didactic stories like Aesop or those found in scripture, and expect them to pass these stories on.

Because they aren't in a child-friendly format.

The KJB isn't in a child-friendly format either.

Hence Children's bibles that focus on the more visual stories, avoid the more morally suspect bits (David killing Goliath is often featured, David forcing his lust object's husband to fight in the front rank of his armies is not) and difficult/boring stuff avoided or abbreviated.

And the same could easily be done for moral philosophers.

0 Replies

@xris,

This would seem to me to be the equivalent of teaching a kid about a mathematical formula without showing him the proof. I can give a kid the Pythagorean theorem(just for example) and it will work, but it might be important to know why it works.

We are spiritual beings. We have a spiritual nature. I would never advocate brainwashing children but to totally ignore an aspect of our nature would seem to be lacking. I was not exposed to Christianity until I was middle school so I can't rightly comment on what it's like to grow up in a Christian home from birth but I think to try and sidestep the idea of spirituality and the idea of God altogether is not the best approach. There is a big difference between presenting ideas and forcing a belief.

1 Reply

@Amperage,

Amperage;121250 wrote:

This would seem to me to be the equivalent of teaching a kid about a mathematical formula without showing him the proof. I can give a kid the Pythagorean theorem(just for example) and it will work, but it might be important to know why it works.

We are spiritual beings. We have a spiritual nature. I would never advocate brainwashing children but to totally ignore an aspect of our nature would seem to be lacking. I was not exposed to Christianity until I was middle school so I can't rightly comment on what it's like to grow up in a Christian home from birth but I think to try and sidestep the idea of spirituality and the idea of God altogether is not the best approach. There is a big difference between presenting ideas and forcing a belief.

The point is that the exposure and/or worship of God is not necessary for moral instruction.

And the thing is, I would be all for the presenting of ideas. But this is not how it goes down. If you go to Sunday school, they aren't just presenting the idea of God to you. They are imposing the belief that God exists and that you should worship him. It's not like a neutral theology class. If it were, once again, I'd have no problemo.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;121251 wrote:

The point is that the exposure and/or worship of God is not necessary for moral instruction.

And the thing is, I would be all for the presenting of ideas. But this is not how it goes down. If you go to Sunday school, they aren't just presenting the idea of God to you. They are imposing the belief that God exists and that you should worship him. It's not like a neutral theology class. If it were, once again, I'd have to problemo.

Well my sunday school classes were mostly what I would consider a bible study time. Everything must be given a context(even morality is taught through a frame of reference). If one wishes to study the bible, one might want to make certain concessions beforehand. It's no different from making an assumption before beginning a logical proof or any other proof for that matter where you say "assuming or given that some condition is true then it follows....".

I'm just a lowly college kid and I don't have any children of my own or anything but I don't think I would force them to go to church when they are young. I would do my best to present them with what I think and explain to them why I chose what I did and then leave it up to them. But at the same time I think that, I think about how the decision to attend regular school is not decided on by kids either.
If my child didn't think it was a good idea to eat his vegetables that would not make it so. The only thing that makes religious and spiritual matters difficult is the uncertainty. Obviously it's certain to me but by and large this is not the case and I freely admit to possibly being wrong. So therein lies the problem.

Can you "brainwash" someone with the truth? Or rather, is it considered "brainwashing" if you are teaching someone something true?

1 Reply

@Amperage,

Quote:

...I suspect that most of the sexual abuse priests are accused of is comparatively mild - a little bit of fondling perhaps, and a young child might scarcely notice that. The damage, if there is damage, is going to be mental damage anyway, not physical damage. Being taught about hell - being taught that if you sin you will go to everlasting damnation, and really believing that - is going to be a harder piece of child abuse than the comparatively mild sexual abuse.

Dawkins idiotically denies the existence of STD's in order to make his silly argument.
In essence he is saying that taking your child to church once a week is worse than taking him to be molested.

IN fact, most of the abused children have been in the 11-15 year old category.

dawkins is what we call a "liar"

2 Replies

Dawkins and childish assumptions

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know