Kevin's Watch

Zarathustra wrote:I didn't really see this as a debate thread, or a thread to discuss the meaning of agnosticism or sin. I just wanted to talk about the experience of raising atheist children. There are plenty of other threads where you guys can sharpen your swords, in Rus's words.

Stonemaybe wrote:A question for you Z, from someone who was indoctrinated as a child.

I have vague memories of occasionally being terrified as a child (usually while trying to get to sleep), due to my overly fertile imagination (and quite possibly, fever). Not by going to hell or anything directly related to my RC upbringing, but by vampires or The Omen or The Devil Rides Out.

I would draw on my RC education to feel safe again - chanting the 'Hail Mary' or some other prayer, over and over again til I fell asleep.

What do atheist children use to get over an attack of the heebie jeebies?

Funny you should ask right now ... my 10-yr-old was playing a video game that's probably too mature for him (Left For Dead 2, I think), and he started having trouble going to bed at night. We cut out the violent video games, bought him a nightlight, and it seemed to do the trick.

I've always let my kids self-censor. They know how much they can take better than I do. For instance, the Ark of the Covenant scene in Indiana Jones freaked me out as a kid. But my kids thought it was so fake, it was hilarious to them. So I can't use my own experince as a guide.

One of the scariest things I remember as a child was my own parents' fear. They took it seriously that demons could possess you, that demons could appear at any time, that witchcraft was real, that ghosts were real. My kids don't have those terrors. They're scared of real things, like car wrecks and child molestors. Or asking girls out on a date (for the older one). There is enough to fear in the world without inventing an entire realm of spooky nonesense. The spookiest of all, to me, was an all-powerful man in the heavens who could read my thoughts and knew when I was masturbating or any of the other 1000s of "sins" I was supposed to feel guilty about. My kids don't don't have that sense of paranoia.

Well, Z,
It looks to me like you're priding yourself on how sophisticated your kids are because they are free of "paranoid...fears" and so on. How much better...
I was saying to you that it's going to backfire. Even Fist is a little better off in that category because he's willing to risk his kids learning what a faith REALLY teaches. If YOU are their prime source ion what Christianity is, then there's a good chance that when they go off to college, they might discover one of the more sophisticated faiths (not necessarily Christianity) and you could find that your children have abandoned your worldview because what you gave them really was too simplistic.

So what sin is does matter. If all he has is your version - which may be widespread, but is not the only version - even in western Christianity, the more traditional faiths do have more sophisticated understandings than what you expressed.

If all you want to do is say how great it is that your kids aren't getting any religious indoctrination (and don't want to hear anything else) then fine. I'd just say (in that case) that you are giving them another form of indoctrination, and run the risk that they may learn that (or come to that conclusion) someday and then it'll backfire.

On self-censoring, I have a different take on your kids being jaded to Indiana Jones. It's not "different personal reactions". It's that they have gotten exposed to a much higher level of violence and nastiness then we did as children, and so are correspondingly more jaded. This is actually a bad thing, because that means their sensitivity to things that OUGHT to shock people has also been lowered. I learned that lesson for the first time in 1991 Moscow, when I saw people simply stepping over bodies in the streets, not bothering to see if they needed medical assistance or anything. The fact is, that they had gotten used to seeing them, and people had become jaded over seeing drunks and people down on their luck and so just stopped having that adrenaline rush to react, to help. I remember one time when I saw one that looked pretty bad and there was a policeman standing maybe 15 yards away. I told him and pointed, and he just shrugged his shoulders. Where I come from (in the old days) it would've gotten (at the very least) a phone call and he would've been hauled away to a drunk tank or the hospital. And being jaded is something I see everywhere. There has always been social sickness, I'm not trying to pretend that things were perfect in "the good old days". But the sheer scale and number of copy-cat crimes, where people first see ideas in fantasy and then put them into practice and then others see them in the news, etc. really multiplies actual wickedness. And we get used to it. "Jerry Springer" would've raised a public outcry in 1980, even, but by 2005 he had become rather run-of-the-mill. Because people, once they begin to tolerate these things (an example of negative toleration), they get used to them. They become jaded where they ought not to be. And that means degradation, not positive growth, of a society.

Adrenaline actually serves a positive purpose and deadening it where it ought to serve its positive function is likely to be disastrous or even fatal.

On "demons, etc..."...
Kids are always afraid of monsters, and this is actually normal and right. Because there ARE real monsters, demons, etc - and I don't even need to refer to either imaginary or real spiritual phenomena - I can speak about monstrous men that kidnap, rape and murder little kids (see above). Fairy tales don't tell kids about the existence of monsters - they tell us that the monsters, dragons, etc can be defeated. The Gospel doesn't invent evil - it tells us that it can (and ultimately will) be defeated.

I won't comment on your characterization of God, except that it leaves out everything of importance.

I don't think your kids have any special advantage for being indoctrinated in your worldview. I think it will eventually backfire. (And that will be a good thing, like I said.)

Rus, I have absolutely no desire discussing my kids--or anything else--with someone like you.

I like everyone's definition of indoctrination - learning something you don't agree with. Of course, we never indoctrinate others ourselves, b/c we're only telling them the truth. Its everyone else saying something different that indoctrinates. I find it a bulletproof concept, and I'll take it and run with it.

rusmeister wrote:I was saying to you that it's going to backfire. Even Fist is a little better off in that category because he's willing to risk his kids learning what a faith REALLY teaches. If YOU are their prime source ion what Christianity is, then there's a good chance that when they go off to college, they might discover one of the more sophisticated faiths (not necessarily Christianity) and you could find that your children have abandoned your worldview because what you gave them really was too simplistic.

I think your view of how people come to their beliefs is a little simplistic, too. Finding out that religious beliefs are more detailed and comprehensive than you had known before does not really do much when you've developed the implicit understanding in childhood that God is no more real than Santa Claus.

(And I really think that comparison is apt: there was no more a moment when someone said to me "Santa Claus isn't real" than the was one where someone said "God does not exist": By the time I became aware of these things, I realised I'd already felt it to be the case for some time.)

Zarathustra wrote:Rus, I have absolutely no desire discussing my kids--or anything else--with someone like you.

So you want a yes-man's club.
Great minds think alike, eh?

Murrin wrote:

rusmeister wrote:I was saying to you that it's going to backfire. Even Fist is a little better off in that category because he's willing to risk his kids learning what a faith REALLY teaches. If YOU are their prime source ion what Christianity is, then there's a good chance that when they go off to college, they might discover one of the more sophisticated faiths (not necessarily Christianity) and you could find that your children have abandoned your worldview because what you gave them really was too simplistic.

I think your view of how people come to their beliefs is a little simplistic, too. Finding out that religious beliefs are more detailed and comprehensive than you had known before does not really do much when you've developed the implicit understanding in childhood that God is no more real than Santa Claus.

(And I really think that comparison is apt: there was no more a moment when someone said to me "Santa Claus isn't real" than the was one where someone said "God does not exist": By the time I became aware of these things, I realised I'd already felt it to be the case for some time.)

The comparison leaves a LOT to be desired, Murrin. In fact, an equation with Santa Claus is precisely the thing that leads to backfire should someone discover that there is a good deal more to the worldview than mere fantasy and wishful thinking. An awareness of the extent of theology tends to cure such simplistic views of faith. Ever try Aquinas? (never mind our own native English Lewis and Chesterton). I guess not.

If there were no God, there would be no Murrin.

Z -- I don't agree with rus on much, as you know. But I do agree with him on exposing kids to violence before they're ready. I believe that a steady diet of graphic violence inures people to it, no matter how old they are. But you and I have had this disagreement before.

Murrin wrote:(And I really think that comparison is apt: there was no more a moment when someone said to me "Santa Claus isn't real" than the was one where someone said "God does not exist": By the time I became aware of these things, I realised I'd already felt it to be the case for some time.)

This is probably apropos of nothing, but what the heck. I recently caught up with a friend whom I hadn't seen in, oh, probably 30 years at least. We grew up together, about a block apart. She was brought up Catholic (7 kids!). My parents didn't go to church at all. She's two years younger than me.

While we were talking last month, she told me that I was a big part of the reason that she broke with the RCC. First, her mother told her matter-of-factly that I was going to Hell. My friend couldn't understand why a nice person like me (aw, shucks...) would go to Hell just because I didn't belong to the right church.

Second, my friend said that I was the one who told her there was no Santa. I apologized as soon as she said it, of course. But she said it got her thinking -- her parents said there was one, and the nuns at school said there was one. And here I was, with no reason to lie to her, telling her there wasn't. And she thought, "If the nuns lied to us about Santa, what else aren't they telling the truth about?"

Who knew I was such a radical revolutionary at the age of 8?

For what it's worth, I think Fist's raising of kids seems good as well because he can discuss things with them. He seems to have a personality that appears open enough that the kid would find a discussion with him useful, and not a waste of time.

To illustrate: my father is the opposite. I know exactly how he would respond to any moral quandary. This leads to discussing spiritual matters with him pointless, because I am not having a discussion exploring the reality and metaphysics around us, I'm in an apologetic session. The worse thing about it is that his reasons for believing things are pathetic because it ultimately boils down to "God said so."

Of course the opposite is true if a father is just as predictable on the other side of the belief spectrum.

Orlion wrote:
Of course the opposite is true if a father is just as predictable on the other side of the belief spectrum.

You mean like this?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmHzYWO6b0k&feature=related

rusmeister wrote:

Orlion wrote:
Of course the opposite is true if a father is just as predictable on the other side of the belief spectrum.

You mean like this?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmHzYWO6b0k&feature=related

That's one spectrum end I was thinking in more of a Richard Dawkins end spectrum, but that works also.

rusmeister wrote:

Orlion wrote:
Of course the opposite is true if a father is just as predictable on the other side of the belief spectrum.

You mean like this?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmHzYWO6b0k&feature=related

That's actually pretty funny as a caricature...and I actually know a professor that kinda aligns with the person portrayed [the person recently directed a post-modern and social justice conceptualized version of Hamlet...but in the process I, and a few others, became aware didn't understand Hamlet, or social justice, or post-modernism]. Nevertheless...well, NVM, I had a long post from here on, with lots to say...but deleted in hopes of not completely dismantling Z's thread. Especially since I'm certain Z's explanation/conversation made a f-load more sense, and was much closer to teaching, where you learn for yourself in the future, than the indoctrinating that starts earlier, and is much less amenable to discussion/reason.

This is actually a bad thing, because that means their sensitivity to things that OUGHT to shock people has also been lowered.

I would like to say that many kids I know who expect more violence in movies, etc - especially something like say, Fight Club, a popular film in my demographic - seem to be less violent anyway.

Where I come from (in the old days) it would've gotten (at the very least) a phone call and he would've been hauled away to a drunk tank or the hospital. And being jaded is something I see everywhere. There has always been social sickness, I'm not trying to pretend that things were perfect in "the good old days". But the sheer scale and number of copy-cat crimes, where people first see ideas in fantasy and then put them into practice and then others see them in the news, etc. really multiplies actual wickedness. And we get used to it. "Jerry Springer" would've raised a public outcry in 1980, even, but by 2005 he had become rather run-of-the-mill. Because people, once they begin to tolerate these things (an example of negative toleration), they get used to them. They become jaded where they ought not to be. And that means degradation, not positive growth, of a society.

I would say this is due, very basically, to the overextension of the human being. The violence in games, etc are just outlets.

aliantha wrote:Second, my friend said that I was the one who told her there was no Santa. I apologized as soon as she said it, of course. But she said it got her thinking -- her parents said there was one, and the nuns at school said there was one. And here I was, with no reason to lie to her, telling her there wasn't. And she thought, "If the nuns lied to us about Santa, what else aren't they telling the truth about?"

Great story, Ali. Thank you for sharing. Personally, I think the debunking of Santa is far more traumatic to children, because Santa is a completely benevolent force as presented. Taking him away shrinks the grandeur of the world, even as it comes with the realization that it's the good ole' parents that are manipulating the Christmas scene. Comparatively, and grossly oversimplifying, it seems to be almost a relief to be rid of God with his intrusive expectations, exclusions, fine print, blackout dates, and planar-delayed reward system. [/blasphemy]

dw

aliantha wrote:
Second, my friend said that I was the one who told her there was no Santa.

WHAT?????????????

Why would you lie to a kid like that?
WTF is wrong with you?

High Lord Tolkien wrote:

aliantha wrote:
Second, my friend said that I was the one who told her there was no Santa.

WHAT?????????????

Why would you lie to a kid like that?
WTF is wrong with you?

How much time have you got? It's kind of a long list.

She was on the verge of figuring it out herself anyhow. She said so. So there, nyah.

Personally, I think the debunking of Santa is far more traumatic to children, because Santa is a completely benevolent force as presented.

Oh? As presented by South Park? Moreover, few children remain stupid long enough not to notice that the quality of toys does not seem to match the children who are better or worse, and seems more likely tied to children who have rich parents.

Comparatively, and grossly oversimplifying, it seems to be almost a relief to be rid of God with his intrusive expectations, exclusions, fine print, blackout dates, and planar-delayed reward system.

God is immensely complex, very hard to debunk entirely, and a potentially fruitful source of morality in the meantime. Though, I do not think the religions extant today are particularly good messages...who am I to question them, let alone change them, but a tiny fragment of god?

I'd never thought about it before, but it's possible that I (don't want to speak for DW, or anybody else) don't have the need for the support some people believe comes from God, and, so, the bad things I see there stand out more easily.

I'd never thought about it before, but it's possible that I (don't want to speak for DW, or anybody else) don't have the need for the support some people believe comes from God, and, so, the bad things I see there stand out more easily.

That's possible! But I guess it depends on how you define god, isn't it!? Personally, I have some reason to believe that god has sent me messages through the internet, and gave me no commands whatsoever, merely allowed me to air out my voice and then gave me a negative response.

It was something like finding out god was listening, sending him a message, and getting told "no" in response. This was fair, as my message was quite selfish. I didn't really understand what the world had to gain or lose as a result. I was after all batshit insane at the time.

Holsety wrote:

I'd never thought about it before, but it's possible that I (don't want to speak for DW, or anybody else) don't have the need for the support some people believe comes from God, and, so, the bad things I see there stand out more easily.

That's possible! But I guess it depends on how you define god, isn't it!?

I suppose. But we're generally talking about the Biblical God when we talk about capital-G God here in the Close. That's what I meant. The thought came to mind while reading DW's post a few above mine, since ali's friend broke with the RCC.

I don't think kids should be told there is a santa. Or an easter bunny or anything like that.

And exposure to depictions of violence might desensitise people, but that's not the same thing as making them violent.

--A