This is the real goal of the New Atheists: no indoctrination, just kids questioning their indoctrination. Keep on asking those questions!
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
This is the real goal of the New Atheists: no indoctrination, just kids questioning their indoctrination. Keep on asking those questions!
True, just ask Woody Allen.
Good for him! Although I love how no one takes him seriously and everyone just laughs like he’s a cute kid who just doesn’t get it yet. He’s probably the smartest one in the room.
Nice; I love his candor and honesty.
Maybe it is more so for Judaism, but it seems to me that religion in general is primarily about culture and is only secondarily (at most) about actual god-belief.
If only more religionists could be so open about their agnosticism/atheism, religion might not be so destructive.
He’s just a kid. Give him a few more years of cultural brainwashing and peer pressure and he’ll cave just like almost everyone else.
But hopefully not!
This is bright kid, but his speech is only shocking to non-Jews, as evidenced by the light-hearted reaction from the audience. Non-orthodox Judaism is really more of a culture than a religion, and questioning god is very acceptable.
michael, good point. In most church situations I know of, this kid’s remarks would have elicited deep concern and much fervent praying. Belief in God being far too serious a matter to make insouciant comments about.
I did something akin to this at my (Jewish) confirmation. Only I was far less diplomatic. He does a great job of reconciling the cultural aspects and the religious aspects of Judiasm.
I’m not sure if I can give him enough high-fives.
Whoa…really loud video that autostarts!!
I went to a temple once, to see what sorts of mysterious goings on happen. A kid had his Bar Mitzvah that day, and in his speech, he brought up the story of creation, and how there was no way it was literal, but dove into the excuse that “who knows how long a day is to God?” From that one service, I got a sense of the questioning nature I’ve seen from Jewish friends. It was refreshing to hear speculation about stories, like Adam and Eve, to try to determine the meaning behind the stories. It was refreshing to hear different interpretations, but it felt shallow, in that these alternatives were showcased to be put down by the real interpretation, the real meaning of the passage. It still seemed better then my Lutheran services which consisted of some personal story from the pastor which never happened, had no basis in scripture, were totally irrelevant to anything talked about that day and could usually be boiled down to, love one another, don’t sweat the small stuff, and try to give more money to the church.
This clip didn’t surprise me. Jewish thought has always, as I’ve understood, allowed great room for doubt, as well as humor about that doubt, in a way that Xianity never has. Xianity may be the least humorous religion ever. Someone mentioned Woody Allen above–he’s the perfect example of the “atheist Jew.” Despite that contradiction, we all know what that means. But try to imagine an “atheist Xian.” Somehow, it doesn’t work.
The religious would scare me far less if they adopted an attitude closer to the Jewish community. Most are not interested in converting you or forcing their beliefs into public schools.
Christians and Muslims could learn a lot from their Jewish roots.
-OEJ
I disagree with a lot of what this kid said. Mainly his statement near the end; ‘If there is a god he would want us to be good’.
What? How can you say that? That is an enormous thing to say, without any evidence whatsoever!
“atheist Xian.”
John Shelby Spong. May he start a movement that completely changes the face of Christianity.
God is a nerd!
Good kid.
I questioned my atheist indoctrination and came to the conclusion that atheism is wrong. Is that okay, or is questioning only acceptable when someone comes to the conclusion that there is no God?
“atheist Xian.”
John Shelby Spong. May he start a movement that completely changes the face of Christianity.
I dunno, until he makes a movie as funny as Annie Hall or Hannah and Her Sisters, he’s got his work cut out for him.
But in all seriousness, yes, Spong fits that category. I’ve enjoyed the books of his I’ve read, particularly The Myth of the Resurrection. Still, he does have a long way to go. Best of luck to him. But the very fact that he’s got so much work to do actually illustrates my point, that Judiasm embraces doubt (& humor) in a way Xianity never really has. Spong is the exception that proves the rule.
Re: dsmvwld
The unexamined life is not worth living.
SG
I questioned my atheist indoctrination and came to the conclusion that atheism is wrong. Is that okay, or is questioning only acceptable when someone comes to the conclusion that there is no God?
It is okay, but you have to show your work!
How can one be indoctrinated by something in which indoctrination is impossible? There is no creed or belief system to indoctrinate one into.
Among “modern Orthodox” Jews there is also a lot of room for basic questions. I was talking with a woman from my community in a grocery checkout line about some incredibly arcane point having to do with what was permissible to eat on Passover, and she said, “Well, I don’t even know if I believe in God.” I said, “What does that have to do with anything? You’re changing the subject!”
(We were both Orthodox; OK, we were in Berkeley.)
Actually, even within the most traditional orthodox there is a good amount of argument that goes on, although you have to be pretty versed in the culture to see it sometimes. There is a concept of “argument for the sake of heaven” which I would guess is harder to find in nonjewish orthodoxy. Also, there are numerous places in the Talmud where an argument is never finally decided.
I questioned my atheist indoctrination and came to the conclusion that atheism is wrong. Is that okay, or is questioning only acceptable when someone comes to the conclusion that there is no God?
Well, it’s better you came to that conclusion on your own, as opposed to being brainwashed into it.
But there’s really no such thing as atheist indoctrination. It’s just proper critical thinking skills, really.
OT, but another good start:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/table-for-one/
That just provides more proof that, on average, Jews are smarter then the Gentiles, eh. Nicer, too, but that could be cultural.
dsmvwld , … questioned my atheist indoctrination and came to the conclusion that atheism is wrong. Is that okay, or is questioning only acceptable when someone comes to the conclusion that there is no God?
Reminds me of a story a friend told me once.
He grew up Jewish and was marrying a Protestant. They didn’t want to have the whole Jewish wedding thing and his father was pissed off about it. In the middle of their impassioned argument my friend said “Look Dad, I don’t even believe in god.” To which his father said “Well, hell. Neither do I, but that doesn’t mean we can have the wedding on a Saturday!”
Laughed my ass off the first time he told me that.
Oh, no. I assure you that I was very much indoctrinated into atheism. There’s nothing impossible about it. And if you think atheists don’t have beliefs or creeds, you’re deluding yourselves. Just because they’re not religious beliefs or creeds doesn’t mean they’re not beliefs or creeds.
“Show your work.”
Don’t see that expectation placed on this kid or any other atheist. Imagine that.
dsmvwld,
this kid isn’t making incredible statements, and neither do deniers of any gods. You want to make an incredible statement (i.e. there is some form of a deity somewhere, doing something), and that requires some evidence. Otherwise, I can make up any remark and insist on it’s legitimacy, without evidence. Like “the universe was created by an invisible pink unicorn”, and we don’t want to go there.
“Show your work.”
Don’t see that expectation placed on this kid or any other atheist. Imagine that
Atheists love to show their work, i.e., how we “deprogrammed” ourselves from religious beliefs of any kind. But that’s just anecdotal and personal. The burden of proof is not on atheists to show there is/are no god(s); it’s on theists to show why they believe there are. Or is. Or whatever.
Are you kidding? Then you’re not paying attention. Imagine that.
The topic of deconversion is discussed rather frequently, and in great detail, right here on this board.
“I questioned my atheist indoctrination and came to the conclusion that atheism is wrong. Is that okay, or is questioning only acceptable when someone comes to the conclusion that there is no God?”
There is no “doctrine” in atheism to indoctrinate with. Atheism means that you don’t believe in god(s). If you believe in a god, you’re not an atheist. “Is that OK?” you ask. Well, I think it’s a rather naive conclusion, but wrong? You seem confused on the idea of what atheism is. We don’t have sets of rules and laws about what you can and can’t choose to question. We don’t take things on faith, so your question doesn’t make much sense.
You sound more like someone who is going by what theists say atheists are like.
dsm-
You conflate indoctrination with someone asking you to back up what your saying?
Again the point stands you can’t be indoctrinated into something with no creed. You are being intentionally clueless.
Ah, the creativity of the rubber-glue troll.
In my experience most of the atheist indoctrination stories come from households wherein the family was once religious or was generationally religous. The generation in question would then stray from the flock so to speak. When a member of the family returned to the flock, this was seen as returning to theism from a “morally devoid” atheistic lifestyle.
Also, the kid did show his work. He laid out a philosophically logical viewpoint in his words. To me that’s doing the long division.
Finally, shedding one belief system through a consistent and logical process of analysis does not constitute taking on a brand new belief system. Contrary to most people’s opinion, a lack of belief is not a belief. Hence the use of the word “lack”.
Individual atheists have beliefs. Atheism does not consist of a set of beliefs or creeds, which is what is relevant.
dsmvwld,
What you are describing is exactly what most of us are trying to avoid happening. Atheism propagated as a belief system does nothing to change the world. It’s just the same old same old. If atheism were to become dogma, with authority figures and tenets to be followed then people will be no more free than they are now, and the “sheep” mentality will continue.
It is rational, critical thinking that needs to be embraced, the love of truth over belief. Pure observation and investigation over dogma and mind-numbing rituals.
It is possible to make “no belief” a dogma, but that is the opposite of what we are trying to achieve.
Kseniya is right. The topic of deconversion often proves to be a popular one. At the recent Pharygulite meetup in Cambridge, it was actually one of the ice breakers for many of us.
The frustrating thing for me, upon leaving my religion, was in fact, showing my work, so to speak, and being told over and over and over that this was “just a phase” “I don’t understand your need to rebel” or “have you tried praying about it more?” Considering I was a devout little bugger who about broke her head trying to reconcile scripture, doctrines, cultural attitudes, personal feelings, science, and logic, I think I’ve more than done my share of “showing my work”. But usually very few people within my old community paid attention to it. They seemed to think I’d done all this on a whim.
(.)(.)
dsm,
Perhaps you can share with us the doctrine that was forced on you. Next, I would love to hear about the thought process that led you to break from that indoctrination. I’m not being sarcastic, give us some details so we can understand what you’re talking about.
Thanks.
Evidence, please?
Define “indoctrination.” Were you threatened with eternal torture unless you were skeptical? Were you told “there is no god, and you’d better not question that” by an authority figure once a week at a big meeting? Did you have to memorize “God isn’t real. I have no god(s). There’s no such thing as god(s). May the invisible Pink Unicorn save me from God(s)”? Did you learn an anti-believer catechism?
Tell us all about this indoctrination. I’ve never heard of such a thing (which I assure you dosn’t mean it can’t exist, it just means I’m skeptical in regards to it’s existence).
I am very, very curious about this atheist indoctrination – I might want to apply it to my children, whom my wife seems hell bent on turning into bloody Catholics. So far I’m content with being open about my disbelief, and helping them to question everything they see, hear and read; to find multiple sources and think. But golly, if I can indoctrinate them into atheism it will be so much easier. So please, let’s hear all about this atheist indoctrination.
If after your “indoctrination” into atheism, you were able to break free of it and find god, I’d have to say you are not so bright. Or just a rebel without a clue. “I’ll show those damned indoctrinating atheist swine! I’m going to IGNORE them and BELIEVE in GOD!”
What a maroon.
Hey. It’s not hard to imagine a kind of atheistic indoctrination. All it takes is an inquisitive young mind, and an authority figure whose responses to the young person’s questions about religion and the existence of god are nothing more than one-dimesional dismissals of all aspects of theism that discourage, rather than encourage, learning and critical thought. There’s no formal creed, of course, but the possibility of any given individual adopting a dogmatic approach to “teaching” atheism does exist.
Allow me a rough-and-clumsy analogy: The Soviet Union as the authority figure, and two or three generations of Soviet citizens as the inquisitive child. I don’t believe the government encouraged a lot of reasoned discourse one way or the other. The approach was dogmatic and the mindset was enforced, even if the dogma and doctrines being enforced were exceedingly thin.
The backlash to those decades of authoritarian oppression is that now, in many parts of the former USSR, people are flocking – somewhat mindlessly, I fear – to various forms of religion, some of them quite cultish. That is part of the price a society pays for discouraging the rational acceptance or rejection of an idea.
However, a patient perusal of the deconversion stories found here and elsewhere will paint a very different picture. As has been stated, most atheists are more than able and willing to show their work.
I’d give the guy a break re: atheist indoctrination. I can easily imagine a family which inculcated ideas like there is no god, there is no afterlife, there is no soul, there is no greater meaning to the universe, without encouraging a critical examination of these ideas or brooking a debate about it. In that way one could call it atheist indoctrination.
Kseniya, nicely put.
Julia Sweeney talks about being a “cultural Catholic” — going to church, performing the rituals, and celebrating the holidays as community traditions involving friends and family, without any underlying religious belief. This is similar to what is going on with Humanistic Judaism. I suspect that any time you get a close-knit community bound together by faith, the faith tends shift towards those who are loved and how you live together, instead of the doctrine. There is even a branch of Mormonism which admits and agrees that the Book of Mormon is a pseudohistorical mess invented by Joseph Smith — but there’s real value in being Mormon anyway. That’s the price religions pay for trying to make themselves reasonable and relevant and helpful.
Atheists come in all types — I don’t find someone claiming they were raised by one of the raging “Don’t mention God in THIS house!” hardliners to be an incredible or impossible claim. Madelyn Murray O’Hare once publicly stated that “if one of my children said they believed in God, I’d kick them out!” — and apparently followed through. Atheism can be as dogmatic as religion, just like democracy can be imposed on people by threat of force. The theory may be consistently against that, but people aren’t necessarily consistent.
Dan Barker, a former fundamentalist, said that when he lost his faith and became an atheist, virtually none of his former apologist Christian friends — who spent their lives giving ‘reasons to believe’ — were interested in the specific arguments for why he no longer believed in God. Every time he tried to tell them, they would switch topics to personal issues like “why are you so unhappy” or “what horrible thing must have gone wrong in your life for you to leave God?”
Atheists, on the contrary, are usually very interested in the apologetics and rational reasons. Oh, so you used to be an atheist and now you are ‘convinced’ that God exists? What’s the argument? Trot it out, lay it out — in numbered form if possible. We’re going to analyse and scrutinize and take it apart like a science theory. See if it stands up. We don’t give a crap how your belief is “working” in your life. Very nice. Not the point.
None of this “you rejected atheism? Oh, you poor baby — something must have hurt you so much…We’re going to be nice to you so you come back.” I actually like that. I think it shows a kind of pure integrity that can be just as hard to find as the “supportive community.”
Let us also remember that the child in the video isn’t being praised on his religious conclusions. As he pretty well explained even he isn’t sure of what his is. Instead, he is being praised for his willingness to question.
But if he ever does come to a conclusion, in order to be intellectually honest, he will show the rational that that conclusion is based on.
Sastra: Atheists, on the contrary, are usually very interested in the apologetics and rational reasons.
Which brings us back again to the topic on an earlier thread: are we mutants? LOL!
Because, seriously, most people are not interested in whether something is true or not; they’re interested in believing that something is true or not.
Thanks, RamDude, but I realize now that I spent a bunch of words saying something that others said more succinctly. It’s particularly heart-warming to note that these comments stress the importance of critical examination of the questions and issues that arise when a person is examining their faith (or lack of), for that is the only way a person can honestly arrive at a supportable conclusions either way. The authors of those comments know this, because they took that same journey themselves.
I too am interested in dsmvwld’s story, for if (s)he was truly indoctrinated into atheism without being encouraged to take his own journey, then he was mistreated.
Because, seriously, most people are not interested in whether something is true or not; they’re interested in believing that something is true or not.
Maybe it was presumptuous to say “most”, but certainly “a large number.”
Whenever theists claim they were once atheists, I take it with a grain of salt. I think they just mean they never had an ounce of critical reasoning skills and didn’t know anything about religion and its trickery, so when religious proselytizers came to them and told them about Jesus and hell and sin and redemption and creation and good religion makes you feel, they just went “Well, that makes sense to me!” See Ray Comfort, Lee Strobel, C.S. Lewis.
I applaud the kid for speaking his mind, but he really needs to work on his presentation. Is it just me, or does he sound like a young Stephen Hawking?
You don’t have to have critical reasoning skills to be an atheist, you just don’t believe in gods. Remember that a lack of belief in gods says nothing more about a person’s reasoning than a lack of belief in celestial teapots.
Take it with a grain of salt, but for the reason that it is utterly irrelevant as to whether they’re now right, and can show they’ve done their homework.
Oooh, story time!
Those of you who read far enough down in the comments to get to my 2 cents (I tend to comment quite late), have heard me refer to myself as a “third generation atheist” a few times.
However, I did not know I was an atheist until about seventeen, didn’t know I was a second generation atheist until twenty, and didn’t know I was a third generation atheist until twenty-five.
You see, my parents were very anti-indoctrination, and taught me critical thinking skills, and scientific methodology only (my mom was a teacher), and sent me out into the world.
So, it wasn’t until I was confronted head-on with the strangeness of being treated differently by my peers (and their parents) for not believing in an invisible sky-man that I really came to understand myself as an atheist (well, agnostic at first, but it is more a matter of definition when you understand the (lack of) evidence and the burden of proof in regards the existence of any particular god), and I had to ask my mother, father, and grandfather directly to get their views (they almost seemed to have a secret-ballot philosophy about religion).
Anyway, all’s well and good right? Well, on the other hand, my sister who was not as naturally inquisitive, who didn’t try to understand the nature of the universe, and who socialized heavily with the regular religious kids in school, wound up adopting those beliefs as her own.
She is, at least, a “meh”-Christian, rather than a fundamentalist, but because of this I seek some middle ground between basically passive parenting on this topic (and thus leaving your children open to social pressures, not to mention anyone else’s evangelical urges) and a kind of “atheist indoctrination”, the idea of which I am clearly not alone in abhorring.
Thoughts, anyone? How do you ensure that critical thinking “takes” in every one of your children, so that you can inoculate without having to indoctrinate?
The former USSR was an interesting case, and of course I deplore its ham-fisted “official atheism”-as-state-policy.
Remember, though, that plenty of Orthodox Church officials were also aristocrats & landholders and therefore tied by family relation to reactionary, counterrevolutionary forces hostile to the Bolsheviks and the common people of the former Tsarist empire. It’s a complicated history that goes beyond some kind of cartoon image of an anti-religious crusade of pure Godlessness for its own sake.
I’ve heard it said that the real tragedy of the USSR was not the communization of Russia, but the Russianization of Communism. Marxism-Leninism became in effect, “official dogma”, subject to capricious change by whomever was running the Politburo at any given moment, or the cult of personality surrounding and directed by Stalin, et. al., until his death in 1953.
I remember reading in Hendrick Smith’s THE RUSSIANS about a communist party official cautioning his eager, college age son in the 1970s to be cautious about “Learning the sayings of Lenin a little too well”. Or Marx. Don’t want to upstage the local party bosses or piss off the wrong Party bigwig.
As far as contemporary affairs go, I’m also dismayed at so many opportunistic American mission groups seeking new recruits in the Ex-USSR, as if there were not a robust native religious tradition already there and re-emerging from decades of repression. But that’s the marketplace of ideas for you.
Still, even with no USSR actively persecuting people, many former Soviet citizens remain secular and atheist for the same reason many of us here do. They simply don’t find the claims of religion credible or convincing, regardless who’s sitting in the Kremlin on any given day. Government repression notwithstanding, the USSR also achieved an admirably high rate of literacy, nearly 100%. Soviet citizens were on average extremely well educated and well read, and perfectly capable of rejecting religion and God-belief on their own, without official state sanction or Kremlin Ukaz, and many of them did and still do.
The subsequent growth of religion in post-Soviet Russia, such as it is, could also be a result of the collapse of the Soviet system of education; Literacy rates are declining, as is an interest in deep reading among younger generations, much to the dismay of older Russians.
Official Soviet repression as state policy probably backfired and insured the survival of underground Orthodoxy while benign indifference & neutrality towards religion and continued broadening of educational opportunities alone would’ve probably done far more to wither away religion there.
Anyway, that’s the end of my Russian history rant…thanks.
I think the short answer is “you can’t.” All you can do is your best at giving them the tools they need to think well and clearly. If they choose not to use them, what can you do? Not much. Keep trying. Stay calm. Love them anyway.
Interesting question Jason. I’m not a parent so this is merely hypothetical, but I’d encourage my kids to ask as many questions as possible. I would also try and answer them as rationally and honestly as possible in the given situation.
After all, you think it is because your sister isn’t naturally as inquisitive as you that she has embraced religion. I reckon any child who grows up encouraged to ask questions and get them answered will find ‘Goddidit’ a disappointment.
I think it all comes down to how you approach the unknown. If you approach it with fear and trepidation at what you might find, you might be more apt to cling to comforting conclusions no matter your intellect. If you approach it with curiosity, there is less likelihood that you’ll accept at face value a comforting but incomplete explanation.
Death is the ultimate unknown, and I don’t think I’m alone in saying I’m a bit fearful of it approaching middle age. But I have yet to let it get me to cling to another fantasy. It can be depressing to realize that your memories and thoughts and just about everything of who and what you are will just go away. But it makes everyone I know that much more precious rather than giving me some kind of immoral licensure. It makes me much more cognizant that what I do here will be all that remains, however brief. It makes me much less apt to waste what time I do have.
I find the idea of ‘atheist indoctrination’ as abhorrent as anyone – it misses the whole point, which is critical thinking. How, then, to proceed?
I am taking a pro-active approach with my son. I am teaching him as much as I can about as many different religions and philosophies and moral systems. Just facts, not editorials or heavy-handed preaching. I encourage him to read a wide variety of books – literature, science, fantasy, etc.,- and then ask questions to hone his thinking skills.
I think that the way to immunize against bad ideas is to expose children to many, many different bad ideas, so that they can grasp the abstract concept of logical reasoning.
Here’s a sensible thought from National Review:
It might be better to ask Obama, now (this was published c. Dec. 2), but I think Arthur C. Brooks does well to ask the same questions that PZ, Dawkins, Hitchens, and others have asked.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I think that the way to immunize against bad ideas is to expose children to many, many different bad ideas, so that they can grasp the abstract concept of logical reasoning.
Yes!
I’m not a parent, either, but I, also, would say that it is important to introduce children to as many experiences and ideas as possible.
PZ said one time that he encouraged his kids to attend church at the invitation of their friends. That it was, “good for their intellectual immune system.” I can’t think of a better way of putting it.
My children are exposed to plenty of theism, but I’ve given them the tools to question everything and the expectation of evidence based answers to those questions.
I’ve always answered whatever questions they’ve asked and nurtured the questioning process. I think all kids are inquisitive until their parents beat it out of them.
Great stuff, JJR. Thanks for enhancing and cleaning up my admittedly clumsy and simplistic take on that!
Ha, that was an awfully stiff-looking rabbi at the end. It’s good to see that modern education is just decimating the efforts of the religious to indoctrinating kids.
This is bright kid, but his speech is only shocking to non-Jews, as evidenced by the light-hearted reaction from the audience. Non-orthodox Judaism is really more of a culture than a religion, and questioning god is very acceptable.
Did you read the comments to the video? A lot of pissed-off Jews saying that the rabbi should lose his station and that his parents should be ashamed of themselves.
I’m not entirely convinced that those pissed-off people are actually jewish. “WeatherHatFox” in the comments appears to me to be particularly vocal example and includes this comment:
As I understand it, the Bar Mitzvah is simply the coming of age in Jewish society, much like ‘Seijin no hi’ (coming of age) in Japan. You come of age, you have a bar mitzvah; no religious connotations are necessary. If I’m right, then I’m going to assume that either WeatherHatFox is an extremist, or a racist. But I don’t think he’s a representative Jew.
This is a very interesting video, as it parallels my experience as well. I went to Hebrew school for 10 years (grades 1-10, Reform Jewish tradition), was Bar Mitzva, and at the end of 10 years was confirmed. The interesting thing about confirmation class (10th year) was that it was the only class that was taught by the rabbi. All the others were taught by lay persons. I had been in class with the same people for most of the 10 years. There was a major reduction in class size after the Bar Mitzva (13 yrs old), so we were down to the hard core, maybe 12 or 15 of us, by the time we reached the the confirmation year. During one class near the end of our 10th year, and after almost 40 years I really can’t recall the precipitating event, the rabbi asked how many of us believed in God (as opposed to Judaism). No one put their hand up. Perhaps thinking we had misunderstood, the rabbi rephrased the question and asked how many did NOT believe in God. We all put our hands up. 100% of the class. That was 40 years ago; my father was an American POW in Germany, my mother remembers being spit on in the street on in Eastern Europe (where she grew up) in the 1930’s because she was Jewish, and the Holocaust took almost my entire family on my mother’s side. My parents, and my family, did not take being Jewish lightly. Against this background, and speaking just for myself, and perhaps for my classmates back in the day, being Jewish has little to do with religious belief, and everything to do with cultural identity.
Thoughts, anyone? How do you ensure that critical thinking “takes” in every one of your children, so that you can inoculate without having to indoctrinate?
your folks had it right, AFAICT.
teach critical thinking skills, and demonstrate the value and efficacy of evidence based logic.
past that, there is always a balance between what we know to be accurate, and what we are willing to compromise in order to interact socially.
you chose to set a different balance than your sister did.
the way to “fix” this early on is not to do anything different than your folks did from a teaching standpoint, bur rather to make sure that whatever your choices, you have access to peers that share them. However, I would also add a knowledge of how humans social bond to one another, so that my kids have some idea of the kinds of resistance they are going to run into, and be able to make informed decisions about how to balance their viewpoints with their wish to form relationships with others.
If all your peers are christiotards, it’s a hard thing to function in society and build healthy relationships if you insist on principled atheism, whether correct or not.
The hope is, eventually, that encouraging critical thinking and evidence-based logic will result in an ever growing body of like-minded peers, but we’re still quite a ways from that in this country.
It’s a tough thing to adjust one’s own life in order to make sure one’s kids have contact with peers that share their own viewpoints. The fact that your folks at least got one kid to abandon religiosity actually implies whatever they taught you was pretty damn successful, considering that ~90% of americans identify themselves as religious in one form or another.
So, to more briefly answer your question… there is no way to “ensure” anything you teach your kids will “take”, no matter what you do. You can only act to try and increase the level of probability. From my experience, to maximize those you have to not only expose your kids to critical thinking, you have to make sure they have access to friends/mates that also share similar mindsets.
How do you ensure that critical thinking “takes” in every one of your children, so that you can inoculate without having to indoctrinate?
That’s very well put.
My two strategies are ‘teach reason’ and ‘teach religion’. So far, it’s working.
More on this blog post I wrote.
A lot of good suggestions on children and religion (discussions and education) — and I’ll point out one positive which comes automatically to atheists who raise their children without religion, or who expose them to nontheistic alternatives.
No matter what your child later decides, there is little possibility that they will ever find “believing in God” to be as natural and normal as “breathing,” and as clear and obvious as the existence of the sun. They will not consider atheism to be “unthinkable” — literally beyond their ability to imagine. Even if they choose to become religious, it will be a choice. They will always be able to understand the other side. They will understand the difference between believing that there is a God, and deciding that they want to follow what they believe God wants. They’ll know not to confuse those who reject the first as really just rejecting the second.
To me, this is very important. I’ve spoken to people who were raised in religion who assure me, proudly, that they cannot envision the world without God. They can’t wrap their minds around it. “Might you be wrong?” I ask. “Is it possible, at least in theory, that there is no God, and the universe wasn’t set up as part of a plan, but just runs on, natural? Could atheists be right?”
And they laugh, blink, screw up their face, and go “No! I mean — well, yes, I might be wrong about anything, I guess, but — oh! No! I can’t IMAGINE being wrong about God! What if God doesn’t exist? That’s like asking me if I could be wrong about my own existence! ‘What if I don’t exist!’ See how silly that sounds? That’s what it sounds like to me. That’s how sure I am about God.”
And then they wait for me to express admiration, or envy, or something. And I am quietly appalled.
I can imagine being wrong. I can run through options, wrap my mind around the idea that some form of God exists, and think “ok, I can imagine that well enough.” And so I can respect the other side. I can see how a sensible person can believe something other than what I believe.
But how the hell would I feel about someone who holds a view I literally consider unthinkable? Rationally indefensible on any level whatsoever? And what would it say about someone who was incapable of thinking what it would be like to be a woman, or a black person, or gay, or a Republican, or from another country — not even as a thought experiment? It’s not just a failure of the imagination or intellect — it’s also a failure of empathy. It’s the foundation of bigotry.
Bigotry doesn’t just come from thinking the other side is “wrong.” It comes from thinking the other side is so obviously, clearly wrong, that no case needs be made against them. Their position can be dismissed as beneath consideration, for nobody reasonable could ever hold it. That is what makes an outsider. You cannot put yourself in their shoes, because you don’t think they have any. They don’t even have feet.
I am amazed that this is apparently what a lot of religious folks want for their children. They want them to be so soaked in God-belief from birth that not believing is never an option, even in the imagination. People who don’t believe as they do — atheists — should be incomprehensible. I find that chilling.
I did not want that for my children. If they ever decide to follow a religion, I want it to be an intellectual process. Not “what else is there? Hehehehe.”
He’s reading from a sheet. Look at his finger.
The first few words he says are Hebrew, right? It sounds exactly like English, but I don’t understand it, and it has too many occurrences of [ts] in it to be English… ~:-|
In 1968? Let me guess: 20 years ago it was 40 years ago? :-}
He’s reading from a sheet. Look at his finger.
The first few words he says are Hebrew, right? It sounds exactly like English, but I don’t understand it, and it has too many occurrences of [ts] in it to be English… ~:-|
In 1968? Let me guess: 20 years ago it was 40 years ago? :-}
Sastra wrote:
Well, if you believe that doubt is the path to hell and faith the only road to salvation, then not believing isn’t an option. These aren’t intellectually fulfilled, well-rounded individuals we’re talking about here. They are tiny, frightened minds. They fear knowledge because it leads to doubt, and doubt leads one away from God. For them, ignorance is the same as salvation, and they intend to fight to keep it.
How can you make critical thinking take? I’m not sure either, but I am encouraged by my 12 year old step daughter. I’ve been with her for half her life.
This morning, I was taking her to school and I had my I-pod plugged into the car stereo. ELO’s Fire on High came up and she asked me about the strange voice in the beginning of the song. I explained that it came from a time when some church leaders were claiming that rock songs contained backwards messages that were making people want to worship Satan even if they could not clearly understand the words. ELO had put the backwards message at the front of the song as a way to show what a backwards message would really sound like.
“That’s stupid” she said. “How can words you don’t understand make you do anything? And I don’t think Satan exist anyway.”
“I think you may be right” is all I said.
Both her mom and I are atheists. Me from a middle of the road Christian background. Her from a cultish, commune living new-age kind of group. But we have not told her ever what to believe. We have just tried to teach her to think and examine things for herself. Sometimes we are disappointed, sometimes we are proud
They are tiny, frightened minds. They fear knowledge because it leads to doubt, and doubt leads one away from God. For them, ignorance is the same as salvation, and they intend to fight to keep it.
just so; and I guess it’s upon all who have abandoned ignorance and fear to be responsible for those who have not.
much as it seems like a waste of time, most days.
No, it’s mostly English. He says: “My torah portion is ‘Tsav’. It comes from the book of Leviticus, and instructs the Israelites in sacrificial rites.”
You can see/hear that torah portion here, if you were so inclined.
“Tsav” means “command” or “orders” (from some hierarchical leader or organization). I suppose “instruction” is an acceptable translation, if a bit watered down. The Israelites were not just being told how to sacrifice; they were being told to do sacrifices.
The related word for the imperative verb form in Hebrew is “tsivuy”.
Whenever I think about religious indoctrination, especially the Xian version, I can’t help but think of it as a variation on the Stockholm Syndrome. “If you don’t obey me, I will torture you” shouldn’t make anyone love the speaker, but somehow this works in churches. Just because a mugger only asks for 10% of your money every week doesn’t make it any less robbery. Muggers also don’t get taxed on their swag, you’ll note.
I’m really glad that my dad’s minister tried to get a two-for-one deal on my baptism. He said he wouldn’t baptize me if he couldn’t do my dad at the same time, since he’d not been baptized as a child. Dad had finally had enough and left the church forever. So he told me, anyway. Whether it is true or not, he’s the one who instilled critical thinking and a love for science in me.
I’ve had brushes with all types of woo in my childhood and adolescence, but none of it ever was very satisfying, and all too often I’d find myself rolling my eyes or giggling over how ridiculous it all seemed.
I really need to remember to be grateful that I’m Jewish more often. Sure, the downside is that I totally can’t comprehend the mindset of people who never question their faith– but the upside is that I think and question and reconsider my beliefs all the time, and therefore I hope they’re tougher than they would otherwise be.
Of course, if you ask me whether I believe in a deity, you’re likely to get answers ranging from “I *think* I do” to “Sort of?” to “I don’t know!” depending on the weather and the time of day. Lately I’ve been thinking of myself as an Agent Mulder theist– I *want* to believe.
The thing I find a little confusing is that atheists want empirical proof from theists– that the onus is somehow on us to provide evidence. I feel like that’s missing the point, a little. If I had proof, I wouldn’t *need* to believe. If I know something exists, it keeps existing whether I believe in it or not. For me, belief is more a matter of hope– of holding on to faith *despite* the lack of evidence.
(Just don’t get me started on the Torah. The Sacrifice of Isaac came *thisclose* to making me an atheist for good.)
The thing I find a little confusing is that atheists want empirical proof from theists
well, let me help you with that.
atheists don’t care, but if you provide evidence of such, we’ll certainly take a look at it. I think you might be overextending the argument, as it is entirely a reactionary one on the part of atheists when confronted with:
“You can’t prove God doesn’t exist!”
which of course, is a silly postulate to begin with, and demands the correct response that the burden does not lie with the negative proposition.
For me, belief is more a matter of hope– of holding on to faith *despite* the lack of evidence.
it’s a fine line to say you maintain *faith* despite no evidence in support, vs. saying you are maintaining a delusion, in spite of evidence to the contrary.
ask yourself:
do you NEED your *faith*?
why?
Is it a comfortable blanket, carried since youth like Linus in “Peanuts”?
why do you maintain your faith?
hope?
in what?
something that nobody in any lifetime has ever seen?
I’d like flying dragons and unicorns to exist too. Wouldn’t that be fun?
I don’t particularly NEED them to exist, though, in order to maintain a positive outlook for the future.
Well, it depends on the context.
If you want to argue that religion provides you with some personal satisfaction, we certainly can’t argue that that in itself is something that requires proof. If you really are satisfied, then… fine.
The problem arises when religious people want to argue that religion has an external truth, or that religion should be used as a basis for public policy.
If you therefore want to argue that religion has an external truth, then yes, the burden of proof is indeed upon you to provide evidence of that external truth.
Similarly, if you want to use religion as a basis of public policy, then the burden of proof is upon you to show that the policy is genuinely in the public good, regardless of the publics’ beliefs. If the policy is just some religious edict, then it should not be applicable towards those who do not voluntarily subscribe to that religion.
And not the story of the Flood?
But the Flood was justified! He only killed the non-believers and the false believers and every land animal but two of each kind on the planet. A lot of innocent plants must have died, and all the kinds of fish and other water dwellers for which the salinity was wrong.
He just had to. There was no other way for an omnipotent God to get what He wanted.
The thing I find a little confusing is that atheists want empirical proof from theists– that the onus is somehow on us to provide evidence. I feel like that’s missing the point, a little. If I had proof, I wouldn’t *need* to believe. If I know something exists, it keeps existing whether I believe in it or not. For me, belief is more a matter of hope– of holding on to faith *despite* the lack of evidence.
So in other words, people making a claim that there is an entity/being that actually acts in the world (or at least has in the past–useful dodge #1). But then, because it’s “faith” no evidence is necessary (useful dodge #2). And, because faith and hope make people feel good, they’re automatically good (dodge #3), so why question them?
Do I have that about right?
The Sacrifice of Isaac came *thisclose* to making me an atheist for good.
So, you still dig the monster with an insatiable blood-lust? And a father who lies to his son in order to get him up the mountain so he can be used to satisfy the bloodlust. OKay…..
Well, if you just keep your religion to yourself, live your own life, and let other people do likewise, you don’t need to offer proof that your god exists.
But if you expect to win converts, you need to give people some reason to believe you. If you expect to have your beliefs taught to my children at my expense, then you damn well better provide some evidence that those beliefs are correct. If you expect for your beliefs to be made into laws, then you’d better be ready to prove there’s some rational basis for doing so, in flagrant violation of the Constitution.
The problem is, too many theists want their beliefs to have special recognition, but they aren’t willing to provide any evidence for those beliefs. They want the power to spread and enforce their dogma at the expense of others, but they aren’t willing to do their homework. Weren’t greed and sloth supposed to be deadly sins?
The issue of theists demanding that atheists prove a negative has already been raised, but it bears repeating. It’s common for theists to shift the burden of proof, demanding proof that god does NOT exist, and then when it is pointed out that proving a negative is impossible, they declare victory, erroneously assuming that the failure to disprove ALL gods constitutes proof of their personal version of god (but, curiously, no other).
Of course, they don’t like it when this argument is turned around, they don’t like it when you point out that there isn’t the slightest shred of evidence for the existence of god, and this complete lack of evidence should at least be taken into account when assessing the validity of religion, because somehow a complete and total lack of evidence is actually just proof that god is hiding himself well, or some equally ridiculous handwaving. Is there anything, anything at all that would convince them to actually apply some critical thinking skills to this issue? Or do they even have any?
There’s also another reason atheists sometimes demand proof from theists. This is the case when some religious nut claims to have ABSOLUTE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, not just any god, but HIS personal version of god. They claim to have evidence, then refuse to provide it, or throw around rotten old bullshit. Keep in mind, this is in regard to people who have already said they HAVE proof, but who aren’t willing to subject that proof to any kind of scrutiny. Why should anyone believe them?
See, e.g., #63:
In Orthodoxy, the Bar Mitzvah ceremony is essentially superfluous. When boys turn 13 (and when girls turn 12), they are “bar mitzvah,” obligated in the 613 positive and negative commandments. On the most practical level, a male child of a Jewish mother over the age of 13 is obligated to pray at certain times of day and therefore is counted in a quorum for community prayer (a “minyan”). If a community needs a tenth man for prayer, there will not be the least interest in what he believes about God (or whether he was “bar mitzvahed”). (Similarly, if a woman has a reliable Jewish lineage, her children will be considered Jewish with no inquiry into what she believes or taught her children about God.)
I’ll admit that Orthodoxy has some big problems, but AFAIC, it has undeniable attractions.
#72:
And, of course, “bar mitzvah” means, roughly, “subject to the commandments.”