Atheist Children

[Zarathustra]

It's an amazing thing watching children grow up without indoctrinization in supernatural beliefs. I intend to use this thread to chronicle all the ways my children continue to blow my mind, but for the opening post I'll simply relate the latest example.

My family and I were driving around town the other day, and we saw a bumper sticker that read, "The wages of sin are death." The word "death" was written in red letters, to be extra scary and threatening, I suppose. The driver of the car was an obese person talking on his cell phone. I cracked a joke about the wages of not treating one's body as the Temple of God is a heart attack, but given that both of our cars' windows were rolled up, the irony was wasted on the fat man who chose to use his vehicle to preach scary death threats to me and my family. ["Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body," (1 Cor. 6:19-20).]

However, I was much more impressed by my child's innocence than my own wit. In a curious tone, he asked me, "Dad, what is sin?"

What is sin? I don't think I've ever heard a more beautiful question in my life. As the son of fundamentalist parents, I have been intimately familiar with the concept of sin all my life. My earliest memories are filled with the same "death threats" this driver chose to preach with his car--given to me from own parents. For instance, I thought I'd go to hell for cracking my knuckles, because my parents told me not to do it, and the Bible says I'm supposed to honor my parents. So I lived in mortal fear of popping my knuckles, even though there is no medical reason for my parents to tell me this, and I can't imagine any God so cruel as to punish a child with eternal torment merely because his parents were ignorant of simple medical facts such as this. Nevertheless, I popped them in secret and repented every time afterwards--my own private religious ritual. My own burden of guilt.

And yet, even for one so versed in the severity of sin, I had trouble finding the words to express to my ten-year-old son exactly what sin was. He simply had no frame of reference to understand that some people think there is a whole class of actions which are worse than merely "bad," no, they are an existential category of action, the performance of which has the power to damn one's eternal soul ... or indeed, all humanity and even the physical world itself. I had to go all the way back to Garden of Eden to convey the severity of this concept.

When you try to explain this story to a child who has never been indoctrinated in these beliefs--with the threat of eternal damnation hanging over his head if he doubts them--he reacts as a child would react to any story about talking animals and magical fruit. For one thing, the story didn't make him feel the need to repent merely because he was born, much less cringe in fear and guilt for popping his knuckles. In fact, his reaction to this story was, "Grown ups actually believe this stuff?!?"

And now I'm feeling a bit guilty again. Not for sinning, but for giving my son the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God had the right idea: such knowledge isn't meant for humans. We--and especially our children--should never have had to bear such guilt. It is enough that my son knows the difference between "good" and "bad." He's very good kid. There is not a single thing about him that requires salvation, much less damnation.

[Avatar]

Great story. I used to have a sign on my door that read "If the wages of sin are death, so too is the salary of virtue."

Interestingly, my GF was raised without any noticeable religious instruction/indoctrination and as a result, she finds the whole idea of religion quite baffling...she knows the basic concepts, but she still can't fathom the differences between the many branches of christianity, for example.

(Interestingly, she's also much more agnostic than me usually. She's fine with the idea that there might be something out there, but it doesn't affect her, so...)

--A

[Fist and Faith]

The wages of sin are death. But after taxes, it's just kind of a tired feeling, really. -- Paula Poundstone


I guess the easiest answer to "What is sin?" is "Doing what God says not to do."

(Interestingly, she's also much more agnostic than me usually. She's fine with the idea that there might be something out there, but it doesn't affect her, so...)

Yes! She's a keeper!

[aliantha]

And now I'm feeling a bit guilty again. Not for sinning, but for giving my son the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God had the right idea: such knowledge isn't meant for humans. We--and especially our children--should never have had to bear such guilt. It is enough that my son knows the difference between "good" and "bad." He's very good kid. There is not a single thing about him that requires salvation, much less damnation.

This is great stuff. Thanks for posting it, Z.

[stonemaybe]

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?

[rusmeister]

The wages of sin are death. But after taxes, it's just kind of a tired feeling, really. -- Paula Poundstone


I guess the easiest answer to "What is sin?" is "Doing what God says not to

The easiest answer to "what is agnosticism" is " ignorance", but actual agnostics might object to such a characterization.
If you propose to speak of a concept that refers almost exclusively to its understandings from a historically Christian context, then you have to get a historical Christian answer, not merely an easy (and somewhat stupid) one, that mischaracterizes the people who do take the concept seriously as simplistic or stupid. Put the best possible face on what you would attack. It makes your victories - or perceived ones - more complete.

Edit: maybe if you presented the actual traditional understandings - and even compared western juridical with eastern medical views - I can totally do that with a 10-yr old - he might have a slightly different reaction than if you simply give Fist's easy answer. But if you tell him something that we do not actually believe or teach, then I am not very impressed, any more than I am with Jack Chick's idiot propaganda approach.

Consider me a whetstone to sharpen your swords on. If I fail to convince anyone, at least you may emerge as better debaters and better informed about the thing you attack - and maybe people on opposite sides of the fence will have a little more respect for each other, rather than merely being in a self- congratulatory yes-man's club.

[Fist and Faith]

The easiest answer to "what is agnosticism" is " ignorance", but actual agnostics might object to such a characterization.

No, that's a good definition. I don't know how the universe began. Could be an uncaused event; could be some creator did it. I don't know how life began. Could be random, events happened to work out just right; could be God did it. I don't know if there's a soul, or an afterlife. No way to know until I die. (Of course, if there's no soul and no afterlife, I won't know.) It's all unknown. Ignorance. I just act on what I do know.

As for my definition of sin, is it not accurate? I'm not claiming to know what God says not to do, just that God says not to do certain things. Do not engage in homosexual activities. Doing so is a sin, yes?

[rusmeister]

The easiest answer to "what is agnosticism" is " ignorance", but actual agnostics might object to such a characterization.

No, that's a good definition. I don't know how the universe began. Could be an uncaused event; could be some creator did it. I don't know how life began. Could be random, events happened to work out just right; could be God did it. I don't know if there's a soul, or an afterlife. No way to know until I die. (Of course, if there's no soul and no afterlife, I won't know.) It's all unknown. Ignorance. I just act on what I do know.

As for my definition of sin, is it not accurate? I'm not claiming to know what God says not to do, just that God says not to do certain things. Do not engage in homosexual activities. Doing so is a sin, yes?

It is not accurate as a definition.
I could say "Einsteinian physics is what Einstein says it is", and that would be true, in a sense, but not very helpful in understanding what the phenomenon is.

This illustrates the whole point. An intelligent kid asks an intelligent parent a question to which the parent has a fuzzy answer (and is unaware of how this definition is disputed/refuted in the eastern half of Christianity). Of COURSE the child reacts normally to such definitions. I myself do. But even if I insisted on the western Christian understandings, I would want to know the most intelligent version(s) available, not the one I hazily got impressions of from my (largely) childhood exposure to "religion". Saying, "I really don't have the best answers to that question" would be much more intellectually clear and honest. So what your child gets is a false version that, when he grows up, should he ever encounter a much more intelligent version, will backlash and could result in a conversion to faith and a rejection of the parents' worldview, just as Jack Chick's propaganda tactics backfired in my case. (Although in your case, I would see that as an ultimately good thing; the better thing still would be for you, the parent, to learn now that you rightly object to a completely third-rate understanding of the concept, and that transformative knowledge might shift something in your understanding of faith.)

[Fist and Faith]

I don't need to shift my understanding of faith. My worldview is good. No, I do not claim to have every answer to every question. But the answers I do have are accurate, and, they are sufficient. The fact that they do not suffice for one of your fears, needs, desires, etc (But mostly fears. Of death; meaninglessness; uncertainty...), does not mean they are objectively insufficient. When my kids ask a question I do not believe I have the answer to, I will not pretend I do. I will tell them I don't know, but that various other people think they have various different answers, and ask if they want to learn more about any of them.

If the day comes when someone says something that puts any of that in doubt, perhaps I'll have reason to look into faith. Maybe even to shift my understanding. But that day has not come. Not even for the very different, but admirable (to say the least) reasons that Tracey and Neale Donald Walsch offered.

[Vraith]

Rus:
Are you talking about this jack chick?
www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp
that just cracks me up [even if you aren't]

But, on what others said about defining sin...
You may believe it's incorrect, a wrong view, mistaken definitions, and in a real debate/philosophy of it, you might win/persuade/be right...except for one thing...their definitions ARE "real" definitions/understandings. Not only that, but the child in his/her growth/travels/life is far more likely to encounter people who believe that "wrong" definition. As a practical matter, it does/will mean those things.
I understand why you want others to understand your definition/meaning...but that doesn't alter that fact that the other meanings are actual definitions of the concept, definitions far more common than the one you claim. You can argue that people SHOULDN't define that way...but you cannot claim that they don't, that that definition doesn't exist.

[rusmeister]

Rus:
Are you talking about this jack chick?
that just cracks me up [even if you aren't]
You may believe it's incorrect, a wrong view, mistaken definitions, and in a real debate/philosophy of it, you might win/persuade/be right...except for one thing...their definitions ARE "real" definitions/understandings. Not only that, but the child in his/her growth/travels/life is far more likely to encounter people who believe that "wrong" definition. As a practical matter, it does/will mean those things.
I understand why you want others to understand your definition/meaning...but that doesn't alter that fact that the other meanings are actual definitions of the concept, definitions far more common than the one you claim. You can argue that people SHOULDN't define that way...but you cannot claim that they don't, that that definition doesn't exist.

Yes, it's that Jack Chick. Be introduced. The sad thing for me is that he really is right on some things. That's how effective propaganda works - when it's mixed with truth.
You are right that the other definitions ARE definitions - no argument. But if there is an objective thing to be defined, there can be correct, inaccurate, and completely false definitions. And sin IS an objective thing. Selfishness that damages self or others, or that aims to fulfill perceived self- interest at the expense of others.
I also agree that the other definitions are common. I also assert that they are wrong. So I don't think we're actually disagreeing here.

[rusmeister]

I don't need to shift my understanding of faith. My worldview is good. No, I do not claim to have every answer to every question. But the answers I do have are accurate, and, they are sufficient. The fact that they do not suffice for one of your fears, needs, desires, etc (But mostly fears. Of death; meaninglessness; uncertainty...), does not mean they are objectively insufficient. When my kids ask a question I do not believe I have the answer to, I will not pretend I do. I will tell them I don't know, but that various other people think they have various different answers, and ask if they want to learn more about any of them.
If the day comes when someone says something that puts any of that in doubt, perhaps I'll have reason to look into faith. Maybe even to shift my understanding. But that day has not come. Not even for the very different, but admirable (to say the least) reasons that Tracey and Neale Donald Walsch offered.

I see that, Fist. I really feel that everything has been said, and can only wait for something to happen, and pray - something I am sometimes lazy about. So please forgive me for any offenses; none were intended. I do hope that you will remember both Tracy's appeals to the heart and mine to the mind if something should ever happen.

[Fist and Faith]

I see that, Fist. I really feel that everything has been said...

And yet, you're going to continue to say it. Over and over. You know what I think (After all, there's no difference between saying you know what I think, and you know what I haven't thought. You have to know what I've thought in order to know what I haven't thought.) better than I do. From the outside, you know my worldview better than I do.

[rusmeister]

I see that, Fist. I really feel that everything has been said...

And yet, you're going to continue to say it. Over and over. You know what I think (After all, there's no difference between saying you know what I think, and you know what I haven't thought. You have to know what I've thought in order to know what I haven't thought.) better than I do. From the outside, you know my worldview better than I do.

1)I don't know all of your thoughts and don't claim to.

2)From what you have stated, I do know how your worldview ends, that, from what you've stated, regardless of whatever thoughts you think and imagine, that yes, you indeed stop at the point of making the connection between the meaningless of your life in the future and any dead person's meaningless now. You don't see it. I do.

That's why I know you're worldview is wrong, and I don't need to know everything you think or imagine in order to see that. So yes, I do know your worldview (the theory you stand on, rather than "your thoughts about them") better than you because I can see the connection. I can see that we all might as well be dead right now and need to consider life from that perspective. From the perspective of already being dead.

That's all.

[Fist and Faith]

My worldview can lead you down that path, the one dominated by fear, if that's the one you choose. I've chosen another. The fact that I've taken it means it exists. The fact that you can't see it, because you're outside of the system, is not relevant.

[rusmeister]

My worldview can lead you down that path, the one dominated by fear, if that's the one you choose. I've chosen another. The fact that I've taken it means it exists. The fact that you can't see it, because you're outside of the system, is not relevant.

You see? Stalemate.

[Zarathustra]

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.

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.

[aliantha]

Stalemate.

"Agree to disagree" sounds so much more...agreeable...than stalemate.

You guys remind me of my parents. No matter what the discussion started out to be about, they always ended up arguing about the kitchen cabinets. (Dad built the house. Mom said he didn't put enough cabinets in the kitchen. Dad said she had too much stuff. Lather, rinse, repeat. )

I once called 'em on it. They got going on something and I started to laugh, which stopped them. Then I said, "Why don't you guys just cut to the chase, and move straight to the kitchen cabinets? That's where you always end up." And they both laughed sheepishly. And then Mom said, "Well, if you had put in enough cabinets to start with..." and off they went. They couldn't help themselves.

Of course, rus will now tell me that I'm trivializing his debates with Fist. Perhaps so. But as nobody knows for sure what's on the other side of death, and as storage space was pretty much a life-or-death subject for Mom, I'm sticking by my analogy.

EDIT to add: And Z's right, we should respect the topic of his thread.

[Fist and Faith]

You are right, Z. And apologies. But, despite the admitted stalemate, his purpose for posting is to tell others that their worldview is wrong. When he does it to me, I will tell him his knowledge comes from fear and ignorance.

My worldview can lead you down that path, the one dominated by fear, if that's the one you choose. I've chosen another. The fact that I've taken it means it exists. The fact that you can't see it, because you're outside of the system, is not relevant.

You see? Stalemate.

So then leave me alone. I don't tell you your worldview is wrong. Sloppy and morally bad, but I don't even bother you about that unless you start up claiming to know mine better than I do. When will you decide that you are accomplishing nothing by telling people they are wrong?

[Holsety]

For those addressing fears, you are probably not going to be particularly happy to hear my fears towards my parents, the people I normally trust most in this world.

Beautiful post, I appreciate it, resonates with some of what I'm going through atm.

I cracked a joke about the wages of not treating one's body as the Temple of God is a heart attack, but given that both of our cars' windows were rolled up, the irony was wasted on the fat man who chose to use his vehicle to preach scary death threats to me and my family.

At least you tried, and the joke sounds like it was funny. Does it frustrate you that the audience wasn't listening? I get the experience of being "tuned out" a lot and I just talk louder or alter my tune until people listen again. Or if I can't think of something that "should" be interesting, IMO, I shut up for a bit.

And now I'm feeling a bit guilty again. Not for sinning, but for giving my son the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God had the right idea: such knowledge isn't meant for humans. We--and especially our children--should never have had to bear such guilt. It is enough that my son knows the difference between "good" and "bad." He's very good kid. There is not a single thing about him that requires salvation, much less damnation.

God did have the right idea, but he gave us the option of choosing, though to understand the choice was beyond us, and for choosing our immortality was taken from us. Frankly, I believe that was a mercy.

Moreover, I believe that humans are, by evolution, naturally complex creatures, and in order to live in harmony in this day and age we need more messages than Hillel/Jesus's golden rule to be good humans. Then, when all those rules collapse, when meaning and nothingness become intertwined, we have a foundation to continue the good we have built for ourselves up to that point, and to change into something "better."

At my best, I am quite nontheistic, which I would describe as believing, in my own heart, that one should act against something that has control over you if you would find it immoral or in some way objectionable to act with it. But that is at my best as I see it.

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

Probably something they trust.

But even if I insisted on the western Christian understandings, I would want to know the most intelligent version(s) available, not the one I hazily got impressions of from my (largely) childhood exposure to "religion". Saying, "I really don't have the best answers to that question" would be much more intellectually clear and honest. So what your child gets is a false version that, when he grows up, should he ever encounter a much more intelligent version, will backlash and could result in a conversion to faith and a rejection of the parents' worldview, just as Jack Chick's propaganda tactics backfired in my case.

I agree, insisting on an intelligent understanding is good, but sometimes saying "I don't have the best answers" is unsatisfactory, especially if repeated too frequently.

Agreed, this is why I really have no interest in raising children in our current world, even though I would personally say that children are, empirically, the thing most worthy of praise, attention etc. I do not believe I will ever be satisfied with the way that circles of people tend to exclude each other (for instance, Jews do not often consider Jews for Jesus to be Jews), and at the same time I INSIST that this exclusion take place because people have carried it out for so long that to do otherwise is to collapse many worthy human institutions as well as unworthy ones, if indeed they can be neatly divided into the worthy and the unworthy. For example, I think that if we are going to take away various pensions etc we should create euthanasia programs for people who don't get enough support from the community to be happy, but I am against suicide so I can't support that idea.