Why shouldn't you raise your children to be faithful?

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

So the OP says that brainwashing a child into a belief system will not affect their judgement?
I happen to disagree.
Have you ever interrogated a child? They confidently state beliefs, but when you pursue the reasoning, they have no idea. Because of how their parents raised them, they find controversial concepts axiomatic.

[The Jahistic Unified Republic]

My parents are secular humanist xD I turned out fine, eventually finding my own religion. I understand both sides of the issues, but if I do have children (rue that day), then I will raise them to find their own faith.

[AiliailiA]

A number of posts in the "What do you find unattractive?" thread peaked my curiosity....

Why shouldn't you raise your children to adhere to your faith?

Raising a child capable of critical thinking is a part of parenting. The relevance of faith in that act is not a limit upon that act, nor is it a facilitator. The unfaithful who claim that a child should be raised free of faith in order that he might decide for himself is, indeed, making the very same argument that they condemn the faithful for perpetuating. They proclaim a child is indoctrinated by faith to be faithful. Are they presuming that a child is somehow less indoctrinated by unfaith to be unfaithful?

Are they doubting their own abilities as parents? I'm honestly perplexed by the inconsistency in the anti-religion for children advocates.

Honestly, my own opinion is that neither faith nor unfaith affects the ability of a child to think for themself. Those children incapable of independent thought were not stymied by the prevalence of faith, or lack thereof, in their developing minds but were, rather, stymied by improper parenting. In other words, if you are a dumbass parent then the likelihood of having a dumbass child increases whether your dumbassedness is influenced by your faith or not. I think that those who doubt the value of religion in the developing years of a child and seek to replace it with science (as if the two were somehow contradictory) are themselves guilty of advocating a doctrine, a dogma - a religious perspective.

What say you NSG? Why shouldn't you raise your children to be faithful? Is religion so dominating a factor in reality (assuming that it is a mythos granted far to great a position in society) that a well developed child cannot escape its grasp? Are those condemning those of us who would/do teach our children to be faithful themselves guilty of being inconsistent and - ironically - dogmatic in their position on this matter?

Given "Critical Thinking" as a set of rules the child can actively learn to make judgements from as questioning what is given to them... it becomes a choice as to whether they are "faithful" in choosing a religious path for themselves or not.

Well, hello.

First time I've ever seen your name, and I hit Quote after reading just that.

Personally I found my own parents kept up with some religious views however my own choices on the same matters are profoundly different...

Making the assumption that whatever is taught will stay is not actually true...
It is what is taught with a strong emotional memory that is remembered...

I'd be talking about "learning habits of thought" but yes to what you said too.

There are memories preceding a method of thought, and methods of thought preceding the memories they formed (a very gnarly bootstrap situation) but broadly "what we remember is what we understood".

Memories aren't video. Memories are at least partially constructed

I can still quite calmly describe events from *before* I went to school with enough recall to actually state with quite a significant accuracy as to events of the days remembered.

the only basis for any of these strong memories at the time are entirely emotional events attached to the memories.

If you or myself or any other parent gives the child a strong positive or negative emotional response to any situation to our children... THOSE are the days remembered.

I'm glad I chose to reply to your post.
I'm nodding my head in real life. Like some kind of long-necked wading bird trying to swallow a big fish it caught.

So irrespective of faith or lack thereof, any parent or teacher has to provide a stable environment but also allow for events to have significant emotional value in a positive way with the children being taught.

I have developed this line of thinking *prior* to becoming a parent and I have actively been a teacher in a classroom for the experience of Assisting other teachers and being the primary teacher concerned for ESOL classes.

Don't sell the "dogmatic concept"s as being the primary focus for the children, a strong sense of fun and enjoyment will enhance the learning experience,
A strong negative feeling for any reason WILL affect the student equally the same as an overriding joy.

Now I'm torn. I want to encourage you to hang around NSG. But that seems selfish of me: your time is better spent with children.

there is always a question of balancing these and a lot of critical thinking is based around rules that are defined and can be adhered to, Faith based rules can be considered abstractions of the same, so anyone saying science and faith have to be a dichotomy is restricting their worldview in as much the same way as any other dichotomous thought processes.

Ah, now that I will argue with. Rules are part of the stable environment which is good for children, I agree. But those rules should be tailored to children (and a parent's rules should be particularly well tailored to their child: schools need more general rules both for student-to-student and year-to-year equity ... though they can still be tailored somewhat).

Religious rules which you say are "abstractions" are not tailored to children. In fact, it's hard to escape the impression that religious rules are what escaped the practical criticism of adults (yeah, you say I shouldn't eat anything but manna from heaven, but dude! I'm hungry and that fish smells good!) and the ability of sketical adults to refute them. If they're too hard for adults over generations to disprove, then they're not suitable fare for a child's mind to test its curiosity on.

(If it's not obvious: I'm an "I can't prove it" atheist. A non-believer. I have, if you will, my own kind of faith that Gods do not exist. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, but it's pretty damn persuasive to me.)

I have a personal hobby of computer programming and I enjoy it. However I have no consideration for the math behind it, I more enjoy that I can conceive an idea and make an expression of it to interact with... THAT is a power *anyone* can be capable of...
the only question is... how do you interact with and deal with the ideas?

That absolutely is the question. "Oh well, it just is, and no point in asking why" is the worst form of Faith. But "I won't believe it until it's proven to my satisfaction, and I'm so smart I doubt everything" may be almost as crippling. To self-actuation, to useful thinking (which advances the interests either of the individual or of others, or even just facilitates the communications of others), and indeed to original science.

Can you work in abstractions? or do you need what you sense to be "real"?
Faith or Athiest... some of the basic questions remain the same

Yes. We are small minds in a huge complicated world. To keep a healthy mind we must have both wonder and certainty.

There's a quote from Bernard Shaw. You know the one.

[Distruzio]

So the OP says that brainwashing a child into a belief system will not affect their judgement?
I happen to disagree.
Have you ever interrogated a child? They confidently state beliefs, but when you pursue the reasoning, they have no idea. Because of how their parents raised them, they find controversial concepts axiomatic.

Simon, that is not what the OP states.

[NERVUN]

Beyond the fact that shoving your views down someone else's throat isn't very moral, there is one biological fact that makes it completely morally wrong:


They aren't mentally developed yet. This makes kids very susceptible to brainwashing.

And so how do YOU plan to get your kids to choose good foods to eat?

[NERVUN]

So the OP says that brainwashing a child into a belief system will not affect their judgement?
I happen to disagree.
Have you ever interrogated a child? They confidently state beliefs, but when you pursue the reasoning, they have no idea. Because of how their parents raised them, they find controversial concepts axiomatic.

Yes, and when I ask my 4-year-old about why we shouldn't hit his brother, he will tell me that it's wrong, but not why.

He is just starting to grasp the concept of empathy and understanding that people outside of him have their own worth and lead separate lives.

I think I'll keep impressing upon him to not hit his brother though. I'd rather not have to worry about him hurting his sibling instead of presenting a logical argument about it to him that he is incapable of understanding.

[AiliailiA]

Beyond the fact that shoving your views down someone else's throat isn't very moral, there is one biological fact that makes it completely morally wrong:


They aren't mentally developed yet. This makes kids very susceptible to brainwashing.

And so how do YOU plan to get your kids to choose good foods to eat?

Wait until they're hungry, then put it on their plate.

I'm being ironical. That may be OK for food, but it is not OK for knowledge.

[Divair]

Beyond the fact that shoving your views down someone else's throat isn't very moral, there is one biological fact that makes it completely morally wrong:


They aren't mentally developed yet. This makes kids very susceptible to brainwashing.

And so how do YOU plan to get your kids to choose good foods to eat?

Educate them about each type of food. Once that is done, I let them choose. That's how it worked in my family, and I turned out alright.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Beyond the fact that shoving your views down someone else's throat isn't very moral, there is one biological fact that makes it completely morally wrong:


They aren't mentally developed yet. This makes kids very susceptible to brainwashing.

And so how do YOU plan to get your kids to choose good foods to eat?

[NERVUN]

And so how do YOU plan to get your kids to choose good foods to eat?

Wait until they're hungry, then put it on their plate.

I'm being ironical. That may be OK for food, but it is not OK for knowledge.

Oh... so you plan to not SPEAK to your child in order to allow them to decide what language to take up?

Educate them about each type of food. Once that is done, I let them choose.

I really, really, REALLY want to see you do this. Please, I really want to see this in action with a child starting solid foods. This would be fabulous.

[Divair]

Wait until they're hungry, then put it on their plate.

I'm being ironical. That may be OK for food, but it is not OK for knowledge.

Oh... so you plan to not SPEAK to your child in order to allow them to decide what language to take up?

Educate them about each type of food. Once that is done, I let them choose.

I really, really, REALLY want to see you do this. Please, I really want to see this in action with a child starting solid foods. This would be fabulous.

A child starting solid foods? No, nosense. Try a bit later on in life, when they can eat what they want (physically, of course). I personally was able to start choosing when I was about six or seven. I think that'd be a good age for my kids (if I have any).

[NERVUN]

And so how do YOU plan to get your kids to choose good foods to eat?

[NERVUN]

Oh... so you plan to not SPEAK to your child in order to allow them to decide what language to take up?


I really, really, REALLY want to see you do this. Please, I really want to see this in action with a child starting solid foods. This would be fabulous.

A child starting solid foods? No, nosense. Try a bit later on in life, when they can eat what they want (physically, of course)

No, no, no my friend. You stated:

Beyond the fact that shoving your views down someone else's throat isn't very moral, there is one biological fact that makes it completely morally wrong:


They aren't mentally developed yet. This makes kids very susceptible to brainwashing.

So you're shoving your views about good food, literally, down your child's throat. You are laying patterns as to what foods they will develop a taste for, brainwashing them.

How unmoral of you.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

I would say it means that you pretty much took the thread to its logical conclusion and thereby won. Have a curry!

I am also wondering what the breakdown is between parents and non-parents on this thread.

I am a non-parent.

[Divair]

A child starting solid foods? No, nosense. Try a bit later on in life, when they can eat what they want (physically, of course)

No, no, no my friend. You stated:

Beyond the fact that shoving your views down someone else's throat isn't very moral, there is one biological fact that makes it completely morally wrong:


They aren't mentally developed yet. This makes kids very susceptible to brainwashing.

So you're shoving your views about good food, literally, down your child's throat. You are laying patterns as to what foods they will develop a taste for, brainwashing them.

How unmoral of you.

Until they're six or seven. There is no choice. They need food to survive. Last I checked, you do not need religion to survive.

[Corilias]

I would say it means that you pretty much took the thread to its logical conclusion and thereby won. Have a curry!

I am also wondering what the breakdown is between parents and non-parents on this thread.

I am a non-parent.

I'm a non-parent

[AiliailiA]

So the OP says that brainwashing a child into a belief system will not affect their judgement?
I happen to disagree.
Have you ever interrogated a child? They confidently state beliefs, but when you pursue the reasoning, they have no idea. Because of how their parents raised them, they find controversial concepts axiomatic.

Yes, and when I ask my 4-year-old about why we shouldn't hit his brother, he will tell me that it's wrong, but not why.

Yes, but you know why. You've given him the simplified version, fit for his simple mind.

If you were saying "you must not eat pork, that is, meat from a pig" when the only explanation YOU knew is "it is unclean", then you'd be teaching him a dead-end lesson.

It would be more honest to say "I don't know. Probably because some important person whose name we don't know, died after eating pork"

To which even an average 4-y-o (and I'm sure yours is outstanding) would say "why?"

He is just starting to grasp the concept of empathy and understanding that people outside of him have their own worth and lead separate lives.

I think I'll keep impressing upon him to not hit his brother though. I'd rather not have to worry about him hurting his sibling instead of presenting a logical argument about it to him that he is incapable of understanding.

Also, you're teaching him a habit of thought which will keep him out of trouble in future. "Hate person, hit person" probably made sense to him earlier, and maybe he'd form a resolution against it eventually. But if he didn't, and headed into adulthood getting better and better at hitting people he doesn't like right now, his life would turn pretty bad for him.

A stitch in time saves nine, eh?

[AiliailiA]

I would say it means that you pretty much took the thread to its logical conclusion and thereby won. Have a curry!

I am also wondering what the breakdown is between parents and non-parents on this thread.

I am a non-parent.

I'm a non-parent

Righteo, since we're having a mass role-call:

I am a non-parent.

[NERVUN]

No, no, no my friend. You stated:


So you're shoving your views about good food, literally, down your child's throat. You are laying patterns as to what foods they will develop a taste for, brainwashing them.

How unmoral of you.

Until they're six or seven. There is no choice. They need food to survive. Last I checked, you do not need religion to survive.

A 6-year-old is not known for their knowledge of nutrition.

And I wonder just when you think parents start teaching their children their values.

Oh, as for the mini-poll, I'm the father of two.

[Corilias]

And I wonder just when you think parents start teaching their children their values.

Straight after being with them really, isn't it? Just in the way you interact with them and stuff you're 'teaching' your child.

[Divair]

Until they're six or seven. There is no choice. They need food to survive. Last I checked, you do not need religion to survive.

A 6-year-old is not known for their knowledge of nutrition.

And I wonder just when you think parents start teaching their children their values.

Oh, as for the mini-poll, I'm the father of two.

Go out to a book store in a fairly religious area. There are plenty of books about religion aimed at babies or young children.

[Samuraikoku]

I find faith to be irrelevant (this is to say, neither good nor bad) as to the proper raising of children. It was for me, at least. There are other, more important things to teach a child before, and if, they are exposed to faith of any kind.

[Archonium]

I am raised in a secular family (very very rare for Indonesians) and my parents let me decide what faith I'd believe in. I chose to be an atheist, because I honestly don't care that much for religions (no offense to the other religions, though!), and I'll surely do what my parents did to me to my kids in the future, because kids, like adults, have their own will too.

[The USOT]

There is a distinct difference between indoctrinating a child to have no faith, and not teaching a child to have a faith.

The former forces on them a viewpoint, and is coercive. The latter does not, it just ignores the situation, in a similiar way that I have not been coerced into having an opinion on ancient mesopotamia, not having been raised to think one way or another.

[Distruzio]

A poll is up.

A couple of lady friends whom I have been speaking with for a while are parents. I have no children of my own but I am keenly aware of the joys of cleaning up food from the walls, nonetheless.