Integrity

[rusmeister]

Well yes, it DOES belong everywhere.

If that's what you think, I'm not so sure about you teaching my kids

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Yes I do. And I think (in the case of Math and litterature) that you would be overstepping the line if you were trying to teach truth.

Personally, I would not do that.

and it is both possible and necessary to determine what it [truth] is.

You would have done that allready. You wouldn't teach them to determine, because you know the truth.

Starting with the last point first, it looks like you haven't connected it to what I've said before. Sure, I hold that there ARE truths, and I teach them. That doesn't mean that I don't invite inquiry or fail to teach to think. But if you're teaching math, you can invite your students to examine why 2+2 doesn't equal 5 or 3, and still be sure of the answer of 4.
In faith (which is something you can't 'teach' in the way we're talking about), there is a point where you can't calculate or examine. You have to make a choice. That's something I can't help anyone with - not my students, not my children - it's a personal choice, to accept or not accept. But in my English (ESL) classes, if a discussion comes up about the nature of man (for instance), I will surely invite examination of human nature, and how it leads to the clear conclusion that there IS such a thing as sin - however you care to name it. (FWIW, Western understandings of the word tend to be in terms of crime and punishment - Orthodoxy sees it much more as a matter of disease and cure.) The fact that some call it "ego", "selfishness" or whatever are just euphemisms for our self-centeredness (again, a euphemism!). I'm teaching English, AND leading a talk about an important truth (for which English is a vehicle of expression). That's hardly "overstepping lines". (If I made that the criteria for passing the course that would be overstepping bounds, so to that extent, I agree with you.) The same thing would be true if a discussion in physics on the nature of entropy touched on philosophy. Etc.

Everything comes back to the meaning of "it all". Why should I study history, or math, or French? As a child keeps asking "why" questions - searching for that meaning in his childish way, so all subjects lead back to what you ultimately believe about the world, via your faith/philosophy. It does affect everything, and so ought to be considered.

Facts are fine, and of course should be taught - but they are useless if they are not connected to any truth.

[Prebe]

As a child keeps asking "why" questions - searching for that meaning in his childish way

And you are ready to give it to him.

you haven't connected it to what I've said before

Sure. If a student asks you for the Truth (with a capital T), you'll give him your version. I'm talking truth-truth here. I should have anticipated the 2+2 diversion.

[SoulBiter]

But you have to be careful about limiting yourself to 'proven' facts. Most discovery is made by two things..

1. total accident.

2. thinking outside the given 'truths' or facts. If I only think in terms of 'facts' then I lose that level of creativity that allows discovery.

[Prebe]

There is no such thing as Truth in science. There are proven facts, and these facts are based on axiomes. As long as your axiomes remain, then so does your facts.

[rusmeister]

I think the charge that perhaps can be fairly brought against you, Prebe, is that of limiting human understanding of existence to science and the scientific method. Science is a part of our lives, where our ultimate faith is about the whole life. So anything can be referred to your faith/philosophy, but not everything can be referred/reduced to science. As soon as you admit that there is something about our lives that cannot be dealt with via the scientific method, then the scientific box no longer works. Allow some mysticism into that one area of your life, and everything else becomes rational, makes sense, acquires meaning, and ceases to be just random movements and random destinies. Even science makes sense and fits into the overall scheme.

[Zarathustra]

Russmeister, I think is IS crappy that two kids who make friends in the same class can't go to the same club whatever after school (without swearing false, i.e. breaking their integrity) because the one kid is an atheist and the other is religious. Apparently you think that's cool.

Don't give me the public service routine. I haven't been talking legislation here; I said I think it's crappy. That's an opinion. You think it isn't crappy, that's yours.

Got it. But the question is, which of the parents are right? The atheists, or the Christians? Obviously, in either event, the worldview they are busy indoctrinating in their children is opposed (witness the cheering that Malik's poor kid got), and so they cannot share a club that espouses one view or the other. They could meet only in a place that says, "it doesn't matter what you believe". Since we (serious atheists and serious Christians) happen to think that what you believe is the most important thing, the first thing that determines our worldview and how we approach everything in life, we wouldn't want our kids to be taught that, either. The one club they COULD share would be one that debates who is right - a "Socratic Club" along the lines of the one at Oxford organized by CS Lewis - one that really did play fair to the two sides (it lasted some 15 years, I think - and was a remarkable testament to top-level thinking and debate). Of course, not knowing or having any depth of understanding of the issues such a club for kids would not get very far - so we're back to the parents and their indoctrination/dogma.

In short, they can meet at a pluralistic school that teaches them that what you believe doesn't matter, but that philosophy does not satisfy either of us. We wouldn't want them to meet at a club that taught that, either. If you think THAT would be cool, then I have misunderstood you all along.

I've been out of this discussion for a while. Sorry for bringing it back to this topic. Honestly, I forgot about this thread with the conventions.

First of all, I want to be clear that I support the Boy Scouts right to have a private organization with their own rules. That's fine. I'm not trying to tell them how to run their group.

However, I agree with Prebe and others that it is indeed crappy. And I can judge it so without retracting my acknowledgment that this is their right. Sure, you have the right to be a dick. By why would you want to be? Especially to children?

I think it says something really bad about people who don't want you around simply because you believe differently. Notice that neither I nor my son had any problem with their beliefs. We wouldn't dare think of shunning them simply because of a belief. We uphold freedom and respect so whole-heartedly, that we can comfortably interact with and befriend people with whom we vehemently disagree. But apparently, the Christians can't. Or won't. It's rather pathetic.

Sure, you've got the right to be crappy to other people's children, but why would you want to? Is that what Jesus would do? I thought he hung out with whores and such, and loved everyone. If only his people would follow his example of love.

I do NOT indoctrinate my children. I've told them that if they want to be Christians, they can. (How many Christians give their children that respect and freedom?) There's a reason why you have to force your children to be a Christian and believe in an entity with which they don't know without you telling them about it. Kids don't naturally want to sit in church and be told how evil they are simply from being born. They don't naturally want to be spoonfed guilt. So, Christians force them, and make them declare pledges. And keep them away from "outsiders" who might break the spell of their indoctrination. My parents were the same way. They didn't even want me to go to college because they were scared my teachers would acquaint me with reason. They pulled us out of public schools and taught us at home, with the explicit rationale that we might be exposed to something that contradicted their religion at public school. They didn't even try to hide their brainwashing attempts, but painted these attempts as "holy."

Let me be clear: I've never told my son that there is no god. I simply didn't teach him that there is one. Just like I didn't teach him that there is a Zeus or Apollo. Was that "indoctrinating" him in an anti-Apollo worldview? Of course not. It's a worldview that is Apollo-neutral. Apollo indifferent. I also didn't tell him about sex at 2 or 3. Was I indoctrinating him in an anti-sex worldview? Of course not. Nor does he have a clue what calculus is (yet) . . . is that indoctrination too?

When children aren't forced to believe in a mythical entity, they become an atheist by default. This is the "natural" state of children who aren't indoctrinated. They naturally view beliefs in God as bizarre and transparently false when they haven't been forced to believe that. When their critical thinking hasn't been crushed by "believe this, or be punished," they begin thinking for themselves at a very young age.

When the subject of religious beliefs comes up, I do not ridicule them in front of my children. I explicitly tell my kids to respect others' beliefs, and that it's okay for their friends to be Christians. In fact, my 15-yr-old was dating a Christian girl . . . until her mother found out. Then she forbade her daughter from dating an atheist. I wanted to tell her: your daughter's religion never bothered us, so why did my son's lack bother you? We didn't discriminate--you did. My son's love isn't constrained by beliefs. He recognizes that love applies to a person, not a worldview.

So I'm getting tired of hearing how atheist discriminate or persecute Christians, when Christians won't even let their children date or play with mine. It's sad that their own indoctrination efforts are so apparently flimsy and threatened that church and home isn't enough. No, they have to extend this indoctrination and insulation even into their play and their friendships.

Do you guys really think you're going to win over any converts this way?

I do NOT think, as you've said Rusmeister, that what you believe is the most important thing. I think the fact that we're all human beings deserving love and respect is the most important thing. What you're failing to realize is that just because atheists don't respect your beliefs, doesn't mean we exclude or discriminate against you. We are able to see the person beneath the layers of propaganda. But, by your admission and the Boy Scouts policy, it's obvious that people are not the most important thing. Perpetuating your meme is.

We don't need a "Socratic Club" where they can debate who is right. What does that have to do with camping and fishing? Why can't they just BE, without being-at-odds? If you didn't teach children to discriminate, they'd never even know what each other believes. They'd play, have fun, and be kids. It's only the adults forcing their view upon them and teaching them to exclude people who are different that they learn this behavior. It's really sad.

[Prebe]

Good post Malik.

I think the charge that perhaps can be fairly brought against you, Prebe, is that of limiting human understanding of existence to science and the scientific method.

Well, that's a cross I'll have to bear.

[SoulBiter]

Malik that was a very well thought out post but I think it misses some important points.

A bunch of people who all have similar beliefs (in this case a belief in God) got together and said... I want to create a club where people that believe the same as I do, can send their children to learn some life skills and to just have fun. But along with that, this club will be about faith in God and reverence to God so we will make it part of our crede or motto.

The Boyscouts is not an outreach to find and convert others to religion. Its a club, as described above, where people of faith can send their kids and know that they are hanging out with others of the same beliefs in God.... and it doesnt even matter which 'God' you believe in, you just have to have a belief in a deity. So in that respect its inclusive to people of ALL religions. But its not totally inclusive in that if you join you must profess a belief in God but that was part of the reason for creating it.

There is alot in your post that shows the 'warped lens' of how you perceive Christianity. It makes it hard to see you as objective in your posts when you color it with things like "Spoon feed your kids guilt" , "make them believe they are evil just for being born", "believe this, or be punished". If you had been raised in a 'real' Christian environment, you might have a different view of Christianity and indeed might be a person of faith yourself right now.

[Avatar]

Well there's the rub, isn't it? Everybody thinks their version of Chirstianity is the real one.

--A

[wayfriend]

I thought everyone secretly knew that my version of Christianity is the real one!

Hmmm.... how to discuss without offending ... let me try ...

I find it very hard to believe that its possible to let ones child "naturally" decide that there is no god if their parents are athiests. Children are too good at picking up and mimicking their parents. Especially parents who are not shy of pronouncing their opinions.

Examples:

• What's church, Daddy?
  That's where people who believe in God go to worship.
  How come we don't go to church?
  Because your parents don't believe in that stuff.
  oh ...
  
  How come you don't believe in god, Mommy?
  Well, I think its a bunch of nonsense and only people who can't handle life believe in that stuff.
  oh ...

Its inherent in the early learning process to be like your parents. When there's nothing else in the way, they grow up to be the same, just by watching and asking. There's no need to "indoctrinate".

[Lord Mhoram]

wayfriend,

Yep, I agree. I know from experience that the only time you can really make an educated and rational decision about religion is when you're old enough to think for yourself. Children simply don't have that capacity. Not a parent obviously, but I'd hypothesize that the best method is to make clear to your child what your religious views are, don't push it on them, and when they're old enough, let them make that choice for themselves, and most importantly, respect that decision.

I've been fortunate to have parents who not only pretty much followed the plan outlined above, but respectively represented two opposite ends of the religious spectrum. My father is an atheist, a self-described "secular humanist." My mother is a Roman Catholic, like her entire family, an old Boston Catholic family. I grew up fully aware of both traditions.

[Prebe]

I agree. Only, there is no such thing as a rational decision about religion. If you think about it.

[Lord Mhoram]

Prebe,

Sure there is. You can reject it. That's rational.

[Prebe]

Thats the conclusion I have arrived at. Heh!

[Cybrweez]

malik, you don't indoctrinate your children. Yea, sure. I can tell by your posts about christianity, you are inable to represent it honestly. For instance, I'm not sure where the bible says anything about being born evil.

You wonder how many christians give their children the same opportunity you do? When you've done a comprehensive study, let me know. Until then, the accusations fall flat. Do you want the other side to talk about atheists who berate religious people and indoctinate their kids that religion = stupidity? Where does that get us?

And the point has been about Boy Scouts being a club. To equate that w/an unability to interact w/others of differing faiths is ridiculous. Any club formed around some belief, or any other thing, would fall under same accusation, which makes it useless.

[Avatar]

I think that children habitually pick up the religion of their parents. I suspect that a lot of people who call themselves christian or jewish or muslim are of that faith largely, if not solely, because their parents were.

I suspect it was rarer for children to be atheist because their parents are, but with more and more people becoming atheist, it will become more likely, and perhaps just as habitual as the reverse.

And yes, I'm sure that if Malik was religious, his children would share his denomination. (I would love to know if the children of atheists rebel in later years against their parents by taking up a religion. )

I think it's less likely that children are indoctrinated as atheists than as theists, for the simple reason that atheists are less likely to make atheism a fundamental part of home life, but it's still equally possible.

--A

[Prebe]

atheists are less likely to make atheism a fundamental part of home life, but it's still equally possible.

Correct. It seem that many religious people (zyberweez as one example) think that atheists build their life around atheism to the same extent that many religious people build their life around religion.

I may ask if Zyberweez would let his son join any club that explicitly demanded that you swear allegiance to Allah and his only profet? Since he seems to be interested in a little "who indoctrinates the most" game.

[Avatar]

Yes, but lack of indoctrination still doesn't mean it won't get picked up by simple osmosis though. Especially in communities where the opposite (theism) is very prevalent, the lack thereof at home could be quite obvious to the child. So I think that even in homes where religion (or lack thereof) is not an issue, the attitudes of the parents will still have an affect.

--A

[Prebe]

Correct. As wayfriend said:

Its inherent in the early learning process to be like your parents. When there's nothing else in the way, they grow up to be the same, just by watching and asking. There's no need to "indoctrinate".

To make it clear, I haven't been talking against indoctrination in this thread, simply because it is a loaded word, and we will never agree on how high to place the bar that separates upbringing and indoctrination.

I would, however, claim that an agnostic parent would generally be able to give a child a more balanced account of the concept of religion in general. And more certainly to describe specific religions with greater neutrality. I'm not saying that this is not indoctrination, but it does not favour one religion above another, which to me is the very essence of religious freedom.

[rusmeister]

atheists are less likely to make atheism a fundamental part of home life, but it's still equally possible.

Correct. It seem that many religious people (zyberweez as one example) think that atheists build their life around atheism to the same extent that many religious people build their life around religion.

I may ask if Zyberweez would let his son join any club that explicitly demanded that you swear allegiance to Allah and his only profet? Since he seems to be interested in a little "who indoctrinates the most" game.

Prebe, the key point is that we ALL (including YOU) build our lives around what we believe to be true. Most people believe that living well in the sense of material comfort in this life is important, and a great many people build their lives around the assumption that there is either no afterlife or there is nothing we can learn or do about it. Thus, everything in their lives are built around these assumptions, the central one being that this life is (for practical purposes - as they understand 'practical') all there is. This is what you evidently build your life around.

As to other clubs - they currently are free to form if they wish to do so.

You ought to know by now that people who believe that a proposition is true are likely to do everything they can to discourage alternate propositions - just as you would discourage Intelligent Design in schools, so we would discourage Muslim presence in our communities to the extent that our faiths allowed us to do so. (This requires qualifiers as some here would likely assume this means doing some kind of evil, which is not the case), but the point is our desire and goal would be to see 0% Islamic presence (mosques, official activity, convert seeking...) Obviously, we would not let our children go to such clubs - but as long as they exist and are allowed to do so by the government, they can do what they want as private entities as long as they do not violate the laws established by my community. If my community became hostile to my faith, it would be necessary to go underground (it would begin to cease to be my community) - a community ultimately supports one view and opposes others. What we see today is a view that opposes absolutes in truth, or more accurately, the absolute is that there are no absolutes.

Reminds me of the American Civil War. A house divided against itself cannot stand. There was an extended period before the war of lengthy compromises that ultimately failed to achieve their goal of accommodating contradictory views of slavery in one country. We are in a similarly messy period of attempts to reconcile faiths containing absolutes with ones that deny them. The situation can't last indefinitely. Fortunately for us Christians, we don't NEED victory at all costs because we believe that there is Someone who is ultimately in control of the situation.