Dawkins and childish assumptions

I said that children are indoctrinated by the society around them. And they are. They are targets of a lot of messaging from commercial and other interests. Why not protest against that? Why is religious education any worse than convincing children to be consumers and all the rest of the indoctrination that they receive in modern society? How is it worse to teach children the 'traditional virtues' than to expose them to the 7,000-odd simulated acts of violence that they are going to watch on television in the time before they leave school? Do you think children really are taught to 'think for themselves' in a secular system, and brainwashed in a religious system? But then if nothing good can ever come out of any religion, then what is the point of arguing? There isn't any.

/unsubscribe

because training people in moral values is not indoctrination. What if you removed all reference to your dreaded GOD bogeyman and took all the essence of traditional morality - be kind to others, look after the ill, always be honest, respect your parents, and the many other lessons that they teach - would that still be indoctrination? For that matter, what about teaching them anything? It is just simply your strong aversion to anything religious Xris - honestly I think you are a very nice person and I agree with you on many things but every time the word GOD comes up, you just react. You are like the exact opposite of an evangalist - you are dogmatically anti-religious. I really must stop having this conversation, it does no good for either of us. PEACE AND BEST WISHES.

That's no reason to continue doing it.

And, personally, I believe it's the wrong way to go about things. And it seems others are taking this lead; I know many households which do not push any particular religion on their children (and I probably couldn't say this 100 years ago, you're right). They allow their children to grow up and decide for themselves if they wish to pursue spirituality. And this, I think, is the right way to do things.

Maybe it does help, I don't know (I can't really think of any reason why it would be a good way, or a better way than others).

But I also know there are other ways, and I also believe it's wrong to force a child to believe in some supernatural entity they aren't even mature enough to comprehend in order to reinforce how we ought to do things.

But don't think my stance here just concerns spiritual matters. I wouldn't force my child to be Democratic or Republican, for instance, or most other sorts of sets of beliefs or ideals which are traditionally passed down.

I would not suggest that we humans adopt any particular spiritual tradition, or practices, but it does seem to be the case that we do have spiritual needs - even if we wish to re-brand that need as existential, it is the same need. A need for direction and purpose.

But a parent can force a child to go to community events, like religious service, and they can do this without brainwashing

thank heavens for the voice of wisdom Thomas

I don't like your use of the word 'supernatural'. I think it is tendentious and prejudicial. It kind of equates the spiritual and moral heritage of the Judeo-Christian tradition with ouija boards and sideshow mediums and cheapens the whole thing. It is the kind of rhetoric trick that people of a scientistic persuasion use to disparage and denigrate spirituality.

I think that is about all.

I think one of the reasons I have turned to Buddhism rather than my traditional Anglicanism is because it is kind of a cool, non-dogmatic spirituality

I know you're frusterated. Sorry. I am rereading your posts, trying not to gloss over anything. I'll keep it short, don't worry.

Hm, it appears here you use the term "spirituality" more loosely than I had previously thought you were using it. You use it synonymously with, "A need for direction and purpose". So, there's no need for any supernatural beliefs of any sort in your conception of spirituality? I see.

Here's the problem. Religious service generally involves the preaching of a God, whatever that God may be. At least most of the religious services I have been to do. If it were just a neutral community event administered to foster growth, I'd be fine. But it's not just about that. It is about the praise and worship of God. And I do think when something is praised in your presence, and you're at a young age, you are influenced to praise that thing. Maybe not forced, but the want to fit in and please others can be of great influence. I know this firsthand.

So children enter the church

with the freedom to decide what they choose to believe? There is no pressure to attend the church? The community dont expect them to conform? I have been there, I know how it works. When you place your beliefs on your children's young and vulnerable minds you are taking away their choice.

now how faith is taught with certainty, to question an elder is to question your relationship with your family and community. You can have community without a religion , you can teach morality without the baggage of faith. Its the church that makes its community exclusive, not the heathens that live in its shadow. If you dont conform and walk the walk your not welcome.

I'm sorry, Xris, but did you have any questions that have yet to be addressed with at least three paragraphs of discourse? Do you have any complaints that have yet to be addressed with at least three paragraphs of discourse?

Here "church" is equated with "religion".

as always. we take away their choice to hit others. Even if we do not physically punish at 2yrs, we give a non approval face, a "NO !" - which has been used in classical conditioning mode for some time, and stands for a negative experience.
To the naive organism that is sentient , it is better to hit the other than to be hit.

However, in our society, worse damage can be done to the aggressor, than the "victim" received.

We do not like to go to court, lose freedom and money...so if there is society about, it's often less advantageous to hit than to be hit.

We force this view on the baby. We brook no bullshit. NO HITTING. You can say whatever you like, but there will be NO HITTING. Or sooner or later the police will take you away.
la di da di da dum diddle dee dum.

Notice that supernatural is your word here. Supernatural is beyond nature. I see nothing super-natural about the divine or those who are remarkably spiritual, holy people.

But each individual does have the option to accept or reject the ten commandments, et al.

You spoke of religion in general, as if all were just the same. But that is not true. With regards to "dogma", each tradition does have it's own established beliefs, that is true. But this does not necessarily mean that those established beliefs cannot be questioned - the Buddha, for example, explicitly states not to take anything on authority, including his teaching, but that each person should investigate matters for themselves. Hence Lama Yeshe's constant suggestion to "check up for yourself."

Let me ask you something: what makes a scholar authoritative? Or a scientist authoritative? Isn't it their understanding, and the usefulness of their understanding? So isn't it the same with a spiritual teacher? That the teacher, perhaps Jesus, is recognized as something of an authority because we have investigated the teaching and found it to be wise?

Are you comparing metaphysical disagreement, disagreement that involves a person's most fundamental understanding of reality, to the disagreement of people's taste buds?

As for expanding/watering-down the definition of religion, that all depends on what you think the definition is in the first place.

I don't like your use of the word 'supernatural'. I think it is tendentious and prejudicial. It kind of equates the spiritual and moral heritage of the Judeo-Christian tradition with ouija boards and sideshow mediums and cheapens the whole thing. It is the kind of rhetoric trick that people of a scientistic persuasion use to disparage and denigrate spirituality.

I am coming around to the view that Biblical Christianity is actually the bedrock of the Western moral system and if it is casually thrown away, the consequences will be calamitous.

Wow, you really seem to think I've said many things that I have not said. I think I see the pattern.

I have never said a word about your experiences in church. And it would be difficult for me to to say anything about them considering the fact that I do not know your experiences.

Nor have I said that church cannot be a place that promotes bigotry and exclusivity. In fact, I have said that religious practices can be harmful. Which brings us back to the last two questions I asked you... so let me rephrase: got anything new to add? Or did you just want to moan about how tough you had it in church?

You know, I'm sorry you had such a rough time. I'm sorry that your community was whatever it was, because obviously somehow, someway, that community repulsed you. And that's a shame. But what I can't understand is why you insist on taking your negative experiences and assuming that everyone else must have those same experiences in every other religious community the world over; why you insist on asserting that all churches suffer in the ways yours did, and that all people who attend them suffer in the way you have. It's a crude generalization.

well, xris, since you have not yet figured out what it is, that is not right...whether it is lack of a factual nature to what is being taught, or forced acceptance of it, or that questioning is not allowed, or that it's simply PLACING YOUR BELIEFS in the mind, that is wrong...you shouldn't expect much except commentary about your "not being able to say what the objection really is".

Try naming JUST one thing at a time and we can dispose of it cleanly for you.

is it that some things taught are not backed with any evidence ? Is that it ?

or is it that we demand certain behaviours ?

what ?

give us your biggie.

No its you that has used your community as an example of happiness and light, a crude generalization. I have no reason to complain to you but only to tell you your example is a fairy story , just like the little house on the prairie. Everything is just hunky dory.Wrap it up how you like with bows and pretty flowers but its still brain washing of the crudest kind.

I admit I don't understand exactly where you are coming from. If God isn't beyond nature, then there isn't any intervention from him,

there isn't a heaven or a hell,

and he didn't create the universe or have anything to do with the writing of the bible, and jesus was just a moral philosopher.

Buddha does say that (and buddhism is often taken as a philosophy rather than a religion). But as they say, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.

I don't believe people involved in a religious community can freely choose to reject the commandments, unless they also reject any rules about lying. People don't alienate themselves from their social group.

But unless you believe the person to be infallible, you shouldn't accept their claims on the basis of it being them who taught it, you should accept it on the basis of the quality of the claim.

Yes, in that I was pointing out how different they were. There are some things about which we cannot simply disagree.

Well, I'll try to summarize. I believe that I am wrong about some things. Probably many things. I don't think there is a person, belief system, philosophy, or religion that has all the answers, and I believe the correct answers change with time. Any children of mine would grow up in a different society, with some different moral rules.

Because of that, I would seek to instill in them critical thinking skills and open mindedness once they reach a certain age. At a young age you have to go with simple moral commands and stories.

But the end goal is open mindedness and critical thinking, and the teachings of, say, christianity work against that.

My observation of the world is that the religions have been the slowest to adapt to our modern ideas about what is moral (on issues like homosexuality). Here is where I feel you might disagree--you probably don't see christianity as clinging to moral concepts which have been shown faulty.

You are arguing that this is not an inherent feature. Religion can be taught in a certain way, people can retain their open mindedness and pick and choose. You can say "I did that myself". But you can't possibly know what your children will do. So it isn't an issue of whether it is inherent. It's an issue of whether it is "more likely".