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

[NERVUN]

No, it's not. It's noting that many of the things that you will be imparting your child is probably something you haven't even thought about because they come part and parcel with your cultural make-up.

And, once more, I never have stated that one should, only that one should be allowed.

I don't believe in telling your child your "beliefs," but raising them to be ethical based on societal standards and not hurting people - which, I think we all agree that "hurting people" is inherently bad and something you should teach your children. My child doesn't need me to indoctrinate them into my political beliefs or my belief on this or that. What they need to grow up learning is not to hit, not to lie, not to be mean, not to hurt people, to be kind, to place value on thinking before doing, to be patient, to learn all they can, to value those around them, etc. My child doesn't need to be told from two years old that I think socialism is great and that religions suck hairy cabbages, but once they are old enough to ask those questions and want to know how I feel, then we can explain to them and encourage them to ask more and learn more and choose for themselves and to not be afraid to be fluid and change.

*sighs* And a lot of that is based off of your cultural ideals, different cultures would have a different point of view, or reasons for them.

[Norstal]

So that they can have a property of their own, attract a mate, and perpetuate their gene.

I don't know any girl who likes a guy who lives in their mom's basement.

There are cultures where this does not hold true at all. Why is this way better, especially given the current economy?

That's true. I guess it would depend on the culture and their socioeconomic status.

[Free Soviets]

i don't deny that people can break the authoritative chain of transmission. i deny that they do to any significant extent. see the map.

such events are rare, and the ones that work at all follow a fairly standard pattern of innovation on the part of charismatic individuals who then gain followers on the basis of others adopting that charismatic individual as a new source of authoritative revelation. in this sense its not really much of a break at all, because the methodology is the same in both cases. and charisma isn't a rational process.

That would only hold true if the major religions were of one piece, since they are not, obviously we have more than you give credit for.

in what sense? this is the pattern of the major and minor religions whose origins are attributable to a particular source. and i see no other method for religious innovations to be adopted or incorporated (forming from the aether? even the slow accumulation of folk beliefs must have their start from somebody relating a revelation they think they experienced and being charismatic enough to be listened to), so it is presumably the case for all but the most trivial points of the development of religions.

and missionaries are just part of the historical process of conquest.

Oddly enough, a number of missionary works have been conducted without conquests.

well, i'm using conquest in a broader cultural sense.

the only religion which has experienced significant growth through converts that isn't linked to cultural dominance (or in some cases, as a reaction against, such as islam in the prisons of the US) is buddhism. and that's a weird outlier presumably having to do with the decline of religion in the western world and buddhism's fairly odd nature. and it is still a very small player.

[NERVUN]

But when teaching it to a child? As stated, it cuts both ways. Faith rewarded is applauded, faith taken to extremes is not.

I cannot for the life of my figure out what you think this addresses... In any case, there is no way to know in advance if faith will be rewarded if you happen not to live in a Disney movie. A better life-lesson would be to be proactive in achieving one's goals.

I think you missed the point there. We hold a number of ideals, faith, loyalty, love, up in contradictory ways.

In Japan, in front of Shibuya Station, is the famous statue of Hachiko, a dog whom, after her master died, would return to the station every evening as she did when he was alive waiting for him. It was obviously a hopeless, futile effort. Perhaps if it was reversed, the master would be derided as a fool, perhaps not.

But it's worth noting that the nation of Japan celebrates that faith and loyalty in the face of repeated failures by a statue.

Which is not an argument for the value of faith so much as an observation that some people do value faith. Also, you just said, "faith taken to extremes is not [applauded]." And then give an example of extreme faith that is... which is it?

Both, thus the statement about humanity and why denying it is removing a chunk of it.

Also, I have to say, this story of yours takes the form of a tragedy. The dog in question is enduring perpetual suffering as a result of its 'faith,' and while we may in some sense admire the thing's devotion, it would unquestionably be better off without it. I use the scare quotes because, not being privy to the dogs inner-life, I'm not sure if we can say that this is faith; just as easy to say that we have bred the poor thing to be dependent and mentally ridged to the point of absurdity.

And yet it is STILL applauded. That is humanity in a nutshell.

[Tlaceceyaya]

that's a whole other thread. but i'd do it in terms of human flourishing. there are other plausible justifications though. that's the thing - it's a fairly low bar to clear. religion just don't cut it.

Uh-huh... I see, so it's all about humans flourishing...

So you mean for the last few million years, or whatever it is, that humanity has religion, we HAVEN'T been?

We have, but religion was not the cause. If anything, it was holding us back.

Codified law began in a time where cutting the hands off of thieves was not abhorrent. Does that mean that cutting the hands off of thieves is good, because things happened when we did that?

When it was proposed that the earth was not the centre of everything, what was the primary opposition? Religion.
When it was proposed that creatures had slowly changed over millions of years, what was the primary opposition? Religion.
When something taken to be true in a religion is proven wrong, the religion can concede, undermining itself by showing that it is not infallible, or it can resist, causing a divide, with the fundamentalists opposing scientific advances.

[Distruzio]

Uh-huh... I see, so it's all about humans flourishing...

So you mean for the last few million years, or whatever it is, that humanity has religion, we HAVEN'T been?

We have, but religion was not the cause. If anything, it was holding us back.

That is not verifiable, is it?

Codified law began in a time where cutting the hands off of thieves was not abhorrent. Does that mean that cutting the hands off of thieves is good, because things happened when we did that?

It means that social norms change as the cultures grow and expand.

When it was proposed that the earth was not the centre of everything, what was the primary opposition? Religion.

Do you know why it was opposed? B/c the theory was presented as FACT without proper verification - without consulting the greater scientific community that the Church fostered.

When it was proposed that creatures had slowly changed over millions of years, what was the primary opposition? Religion.

Do you know why it was opposed? B/c the theory was presented as fact without proper verification - it ignored the effect of evolution, presuming it were true, upon the history of human ideas and concepts including those concepts involving God. Instead, the theory's adherents began to dismiss Religion as barbaric and outdated.

When something taken to be true in a religion is proven wrong, the religion can concede, undermining itself by showing that it is not infallible, or it can resist, causing a divide, with the fundamentalists opposing scientific advances.

True. But one can also try learning about why the religion opposes those proofs from the religious perspective as well as from the critique itself.

[Felkonberg]

I watched a discussion programme on TV one day, strangely enough the question was exactly this.

In my opinion, religion should not be forced upon a child either through parenting or school. My friend has been raised in a religious family for two decades and was forced to believe in God, if he spoke otherwise, he parents would tell him he was 'going to hell' - now, this is an extreme case, another more extreme case would be a Muslim woman who recently killed her daughter for secretly adhering an Atheist faith.

However, the fact is that both of these people came out of their religious families atheists or, at the most, deists. Religion teaches some things about morals that we can figure for ourselves, like the Good Samaritan - it shows that anyone should help anyone, regardless of their personality or physical status.

In other words, it does not harm to have a little bit of religion fed through to children, specifically through education or through their own initiative. But to force children to be faithful, only creates a sense of angst amongst the parent and the child, who is most likely to rebel.

Actually, a good book to read regarding why religion is good foundation for society would be Lord of the Flies.

[Tlaceceyaya]

I watched a discussion programme on TV one day, strangely enough the question was exactly this.

In my opinion, religion should not be forced upon a child either through parenting or school. My friend has been raised in a religious family for two decades and was forced to believe in God, if he spoke otherwise, he parents would tell him he was 'going to hell' - now, this is an extreme case, another more extreme case would be a Muslim woman who recently killed her daughter for secretly adhering an Atheist faith.

However, the fact is that both of these people came out of their religious families atheists or, at the most, deists. Religion teaches some things about morals that we can figure for ourselves, like the Good Samaritan - it shows that anyone should help anyone, regardless of their personality or physical status.

In other words, it does not harm to have a little bit of religion fed through to children, specifically through education or through their own initiative. But to force children to be faithful, only creates a sense of angst amongst the parent and the child, who is most likely to rebel.

Actually, a good book to read regarding why religion is good foundation for society would be Lord of the Flies.

Lord of the Flies has nothing to do with religion. There is a lack of social order and anarchy ensues among children who are not mature enough to handle not having rules enforced by others.

[Forsher]

I watched a discussion programme on TV one day, strangely enough the question was exactly this.

In my opinion, religion should not be forced upon a child either through parenting or school. My friend has been raised in a religious family for two decades and was forced to believe in God, if he spoke otherwise, he parents would tell him he was 'going to hell' - now, this is an extreme case, another more extreme case would be a Muslim woman who recently killed her daughter for secretly adhering an Atheist faith.

However, the fact is that both of these people came out of their religious families atheists or, at the most, deists. Religion teaches some things about morals that we can figure for ourselves, like the Good Samaritan - it shows that anyone should help anyone, regardless of their personality or physical status.

In other words, it does not harm to have a little bit of religion fed through to children, specifically through education or through their own initiative. But to force children to be faithful, only creates a sense of angst amongst the parent and the child, who is most likely to rebel.

Actually, a good book to read regarding why religion is good foundation for society would be Lord of the Flies.

Lord of the Flies has nothing to do with religion. There is a lack of social order and anarchy ensues among children who are not mature enough to handle not having rules enforced by others.

Simon is home. Not LOTF, but it works well enough. Aso useful in the sense that some interpret Simon as being a Christ-like figure...

[Felkonberg]

Lord of the Flies has nothing to do with religion. There is a lack of social order and anarchy ensues among children who are not mature enough to handle not having rules enforced by others.

Simon is actually presented as a religious character. There are several biblical connotations in the book regarding Simon, including his descent from the mountain - Golding acknowledges this.

His death is symbolic of how anarchy and political instability crushes religion, and from that point, everything starts to collapse. It may be a small point in the book, but it is definitely there.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Lord of the Flies has nothing to do with religion. There is a lack of social order and anarchy ensues among children who are not mature enough to handle not having rules enforced by others.

Simon is actually presented as a religious character. There are several biblical connotations in the book regarding Simon, including his descent from the mountain - Golding acknowledges this.

His death is symbolic of how anarchy and political instability crushes religion, and from that point, everything starts to collapse. It may be a small point in the book, but it is definitely there.

Ah. I haven't read it in a little over three years.
But regardless, religion is not a good thing to have as the backbone of society. Religion makes claims about the universe when the answers are unknown. If they become known, it becomes vulnerable. Religion opposes change. Besides, unless everyone follows the religion, having it as the basis of a society would be discriminatory. And if it is to ensure that people behave morally, laws work well enough. For most people, personal opinion works well enough. (Unless you are willing to argue that without religion or codified law, people will all engage in criminal behaviour)

[Free Soviets]

sure you could. it just would be harder to do and of very dubious moral standing. but yes, we clearly do have some level of leeway on children as a special class. but it seems to me that this specialness is linked more to the relative ignorance and helplessness of kids. which, if anything, makes childhood religious indoctrination all the worse.

we can properly force kids to do things 'for their own good', by which we mean something like that which they would choose to do if they were thinking properly and functioning fully, with the right sort of values, etc. but religious indoctrination in the abstract is quite obviously not for their own good, nor necessarily what they would choose if they were thinking properly. see: all doomsday cults ever. and saying that your particular religion is actually for their own good is just even specialer pleading.

I see, so a bad example makes a bad bunch. So you won't mind my forbidding you from breeding, ever, as obviously a number of philosophical schools have been bad.

I also enjoy your arrogance is assuming that someone who is "thinking properly" is someone who happens to agree with your point of view.

i wouldn't claim that it is morally permissible for me (or anyone else) teach my (or their) potential future-children to follow any philosophical system i please. some are clearly bad - and not just for failing the test of reason - and teaching them as being right is morally impermissible. you can't tu quoque me on this one.

the problem is that we are trying to carve out an exception to the principle that you presumably hold - that it is wrong to force your religion on others, and it is my contention that your example of food isn't helpful because the rule there is based on something being for the kid's intersubjective and rational 'own good'. if you were to force the kid to eat like shit, you would be failing, morally. since religious indoctrination in the abstract fails the 'own good' test, you'd need to come at it from a different angle. either counter my suggestion that the 'own good' rule is what is at play or narrow your exception to the no forced religion rule in a coherent way.

harm is the one where we have put the law down. but do you really want to restrict the class of wrongs in child-rearing to harms? so, adopting the principle, 'it is morally permissible to raise my kid however i want, provided that doing so causes them no tangible harm.' this seems implausible - wouldn't you say that a parent that taught their child to be mean-spirited or restricted their ability to socialize was doing poorly by their child, even if no harm results? or are we taking 'harm' to be broad enough to cover such intangibles? because that's a dangerous road to take...

Wait, wait. So we're going to go with it's wrong to teach children a religious faith, but we shouldn't take such dangerous roads? Just what are you attempting to argue here?

no, i'm saying that getting into intangible harms is going to make it significantly easier for the indoctrination=harm crowd to attack your position.

never. but intellectual consistency is one of those trivially obvious goods. holding the opposite is basically to reduce all discourse to literal nonsense.

You must have one hell of a time talking to anyone who is not a computer then.

nah, man. you hold that it is good to be intellectually consistent. so does everyone who thinks it is possible to hold productive discussions between people. i'm not making any grand claim about our actual beliefs being consistent. just that when an inconsistency is pointed out to us, we should recognize that as a problem to be fixed or a failing to apologize for. we quite regularly don't act that way. but responding to being shown a contradiction in our thoughts with defensive lashing out is an intellectual failure - its typicalness does not improve its virtue.

that's a whole other thread. but i'd do it in terms of human flourishing. there are other plausible justifications though. that's the thing - it's a fairly low bar to clear. religion just don't cut it.

Uh-huh... I see, so it's all about humans flourishing...

So you mean for the last few million years, or whatever it is, that humanity has religion, we HAVEN'T been?

quite obviously not, for much of it. life has sucked pretty bad until recently. especially since agriculture, but even before then there was a lot of dying of childhood diseases and shit. but more importantly, my claim is that
1) there are multiple independent justifications for the various things we should teach or children. it is not just about parental power or cultural demands.
2) there is no independent justification for childhood religious indoctrination.
and somewhat tangentially to this particular point, 3) religious indoctrination is not necessary for flourishing, and is often counterproductive to it. the fact that sometimes it can coexist with relative flourishing is no argument in favor of it.

[Felkonberg]

Ah. I haven't read it in a little over three years.
But regardless, religion is not a good thing to have as the backbone of society. Religion makes claims about the universe when the answers are unknown. If they become known, it becomes vulnerable. Religion opposes change. Besides, unless everyone follows the religion, having it as the basis of a society would be discriminatory. And if it is to ensure that people behave morally, laws work well enough. For most people, personal opinion works well enough. (Unless you are willing to argue that without religion or codified law, people will all engage in criminal behaviour)

Our laws are based on religious ideas. That's what I mean by a foundation.

As you say, religion is not a good thing in terms of answering some broader questions regarding creation, humanity, life, the universe, etc' - they are for everyone to make their own mind up about. However, without 'the older' religious ideals, we probably wouldn't have the laws we have today.

Or people could just be extremely clever and go 'Oh, murdering is bad' and 'I had that and now he has it'. We'll probably never know for sure.

[Yahkima]

I cannot for the life of my figure out what you think this addresses... In any case, there is no way to know in advance if faith will be rewarded if you happen not to live in a Disney movie. A better life-lesson would be to be proactive in achieving one's goals.

I think you missed the point there. We hold a number of ideals, faith, loyalty, love, up in contradictory ways.

Which is not an argument for the value of faith so much as an observation that some people do value faith. Also, you just said, "faith taken to extremes is not [applauded]." And then give an example of extreme faith that is... which is it?

Both, thus the statement about humanity and why denying it is removing a chunk of it.

Also, I have to say, this story of yours takes the form of a tragedy. The dog in question is enduring perpetual suffering as a result of its 'faith,' and while we may in some sense admire the thing's devotion, it would unquestionably be better off without it. I use the scare quotes because, not being privy to the dogs inner-life, I'm not sure if we can say that this is faith; just as easy to say that we have bred the poor thing to be dependent and mentally ridged to the point of absurdity.

And yet it is STILL applauded. That is humanity in a nutshell.

I'm sorry, but at this point it sounds like you are saying that there is no reasonable or ethical justification for faith at all, that faith is altogether indefensible, but that it is human nature to admire it.

Is that what you are arguing? It is the only conclusion that I can come with that makes any sense whatsoever. I mean, I dealt with your examples easily enough, I pointed out that the innate nature of faith does not imply its goodness, and now you come with me arguing... I don't know what.

No one is denying faith. Saying it is not a good thing does not somehow banish it.

Now you call faith an "ideal," but that is the whole point I'm arguing against, because what faith really is - when you boil it down - is the antithesis of intellectual honesty. Intellectual honesty which is actually an ideal, is actually virtuous, and is responsible for what slim progress humankind actually has managed to achieve. And you cherish the thing that is its antonym.

[Forsher]

Lord of the Flies has nothing to do with religion. There is a lack of social order and anarchy ensues among children who are not mature enough to handle not having rules enforced by others.

Simon is actually presented as a religious character. There are several biblical connotations in the book regarding Simon, including his descent from the mountain - Golding acknowledges this.

His death is symbolic of how anarchy and political instability crushes religion, and from that point, everything starts to collapse. It may be a small point in the book, but it is definitely there.

It was already pretty rotten by the time Simon had died. He didn't even have to die, Jack was influential enough to be able to dismiss Simon's revelations about the nature of the Beast. Especially given that he was viewed as weird already...

[Free Soviets]

However, without 'the older' religious ideals, we probably wouldn't have the laws we have today

any of the good laws we have that we got by way of religion would have come up under any circumstances - they actually flow from our moral intuitions (+ reason) and religions just picked up on them. its our shitty religious-derived laws that are it's true legacy. all the laws based on crazy-ass revelations experienced by weirdos declaring that sex is sinful or burkas required or thou shalt not go dancing. those only exist thanks to religion and would not outside of the context of the particular culturally dominant religion around.

[Felkonberg]

It was already pretty rotten by the time Simon had died. He didn't even have to die, Jack was influential enough to be able to dismiss Simon's revelations about the nature of the Beast. Especially given that he was viewed as weird already...

Then perhaps Simon's timid persona and his 'weirdness' shows that religion is fragile. It shows from the beginning how authoritative the more controversial characters are regarding Simon, so it could be already said that religion was breaking away already.

[Felkonberg]

However, without 'the older' religious ideals, we probably wouldn't have the laws we have today

any of the good laws we have that we got by way of religion would have come up under any circumstances - they actually flow from our moral intuitions (+ reason) and religions just picked up on them. its our shitty religious-derived laws that are it's true legacy. all the laws based on crazy-ass revelations experienced by weirdos declaring that sex is sinful or burkas required or thou shalt not go dancing. those only exist thanks to religion and would not outside of the context of the particular culturally dominant religion around.

If you look further down my article, I acknowledge the fact that people may figure out their own morals, even if religion is not involved.

BTW, sorry if I double-posted.

[AbH Belxjander Draconis Serechai]

Our political and social systems involve abstract concepts, but which can be tested in the real world. Regarding..religious beliefs..I don't care if someone believes in something invisible just because, but I'd just prefer them to have come to that belief on their own rather than being raised into it.

And herein lies the problem Nervun and I are attempting to outline.

Religion and faith are a part of culture, as is language, tradition, etiquette, etc etc. If you, and the other anti-"indoctrination" crowd, truly wish to avoid indoctrinating your children and allowing them to grow into their own choices, then you, and the other anti-"indoctrination" crowd, will have to raise your children without actually raising your children at all.

You cannot teach them language, for that imposes upon their free will. You cannot teach them etiquette, for that imposes upon their free will. You cannot teach them morals or anything of any sort lest you violate their little minds immorally.

In fact, you cannot even send them to school, feed them, care for their scrapped knees, tell them stories good night, smile at them, or even accept them into your family b/c relation by blood is not something they freely chose.

You lot are advocating the atomized existence for a child in which they lie naked before the tumultuous winds of ideas and philosophy. Such an existence leaves them a blank slate and a zombie. They become indoctrinated by anything with this approach.

Worse still, Nervun has repeatedly pointed out how inconsistent the anti-"indoctrination" crowd is in their precepts and intended course of action. That alone undermines the claim they make and is an example of - gasp! - critical thinking!

Neither Nervun nor my OP suggest, however, that the flip to avoid this inevitability is to force faith upon them. We are saying that the reasoning used to protest faith is faulty and needs to be revisited b/c to protest the teaching of a faith is to advocate a dogma itself, which is indoctrination itself. Therefore, in order to remain consistent, the anti-"indoctrinationists" out there must be advocating a monstrous interpretation of parenthood.

We are saying that critical thinking is not something that undermines religion or faith in favor of science or skepticism, it undermines stupid fucking ideas be they religion, faith, science, or skepticism. Critical thinking is a skill, it is not a given. Being irreligious does not a critical thinker make. The men in the links I provide are atheists but are not known for their grasp of critical thinking. The same logic applies just as strongly to the religious.

One is an idiot with or without faith b/c one is an idiot.

Raising a child, at all, inescapably encourages "indoctrination" and that "indoctrination" is inherently valueless.

Well put!, any child needs to be provided some information and choices but in the end the primary experiences will either reinforce or modify the basic behaviours that are present as "built-in" material.

[Forsher]

It was already pretty rotten by the time Simon had died. He didn't even have to die, Jack was influential enough to be able to dismiss Simon's revelations about the nature of the Beast. Especially given that he was viewed as weird already...

Then perhaps Simon's timid persona and his 'weirdness' shows that religion is fragile. It shows from the beginning how authoritative the more controversial characters are regarding Simon, so it could be already said that religion was breaking away already.

Then you have to argue that Religion is only useful because of its fragility. Which isn't really good.

[NERVUN]

Uh-huh... I see, so it's all about humans flourishing...

So you mean for the last few million years, or whatever it is, that humanity has religion, we HAVEN'T been?

We have, but religion was not the cause. If anything, it was holding us back.

Right, and your proof there is...?

When it was proposed that the earth was not the centre of everything, what was the primary opposition? Religion.
When it was proposed that creatures had slowly changed over millions of years, what was the primary opposition? Religion.
When something taken to be true in a religion is proven wrong, the religion can concede, undermining itself by showing that it is not infallible, or it can resist, causing a divide, with the fundamentalists opposing scientific advances.

Modified history 101...

[NERVUN]

Simon is actually presented as a religious character. There are several biblical connotations in the book regarding Simon, including his descent from the mountain - Golding acknowledges this.

His death is symbolic of how anarchy and political instability crushes religion, and from that point, everything starts to collapse. It may be a small point in the book, but it is definitely there.

Ah. I haven't read it in a little over three years.
But regardless, religion is not a good thing to have as the backbone of society. Religion makes claims about the universe when the answers are unknown. If they become known, it becomes vulnerable. Religion opposes change. Besides, unless everyone follows the religion, having it as the basis of a society would be discriminatory. And if it is to ensure that people behave morally, laws work well enough. For most people, personal opinion works well enough. (Unless you are willing to argue that without religion or codified law, people will all engage in criminal behaviour)

Of course the fact that there has been societies that have functioned with multiple religions is of course something you do not want mentioned, correct?

[NERVUN]

I see, so a bad example makes a bad bunch. So you won't mind my forbidding you from breeding, ever, as obviously a number of philosophical schools have been bad.

I also enjoy your arrogance is assuming that someone who is "thinking properly" is someone who happens to agree with your point of view.

i wouldn't claim that it is morally permissible for me (or anyone else) teach my (or their) potential future-children to follow any philosophical system i please. some are clearly bad - and not just for failing the test of reason - and teaching them as being right is morally impermissible. you can't tu quoque me on this one.

the problem is that we are trying to carve out an exception to the principle that you presumably hold - that it is wrong to force your religion on others, and it is my contention that your example of food isn't helpful because the rule there is based on something being for the kid's intersubjective and rational 'own good'. if you were to force the kid to eat like shit, you would be failing, morally. since religious indoctrination in the abstract fails the 'own good' test, you'd need to come at it from a different angle. either counter my suggestion that the 'own good' rule is what is at play or narrow your exception to the no forced religion rule in a coherent way.

Except here's the problem though, you have yet to show how it's not for their own good in any meaningful way. You've repeated it, but have never shown it.

Wait, wait. So we're going to go with it's wrong to teach children a religious faith, but we shouldn't take such dangerous roads? Just what are you attempting to argue here?

no, i'm saying that getting into intangible harms is going to make it significantly easier for the indoctrination=harm crowd to attack your position.

... You have been reading the thread, right?

You must have one hell of a time talking to anyone who is not a computer then.

nah, man. you hold that it is good to be intellectually consistent. so does everyone who thinks it is possible to hold productive discussions between people. i'm not making any grand claim about our actual beliefs being consistent. just that when an inconsistency is pointed out to us, we should recognize that as a problem to be fixed or a failing to apologize for. we quite regularly don't act that way. but responding to being shown a contradiction in our thoughts with defensive lashing out is an intellectual failure - its typicalness does not improve its virtue.

You seem to be making an idealization instead of noting what actually IS.

Uh-huh... I see, so it's all about humans flourishing...

So you mean for the last few million years, or whatever it is, that humanity has religion, we HAVEN'T been?

quite obviously not, for much of it. life has sucked pretty bad until recently. especially since agriculture, but even before then there was a lot of dying of childhood diseases and shit. but more importantly, my claim is that
1) there are multiple independent justifications for the various things we should teach or children. it is not just about parental power or cultural demands.
2) there is no independent justification for childhood religious indoctrination.
and somewhat tangentially to this particular point, 3) religious indoctrination is not necessary for flourishing, and is often counterproductive to it. the fact that sometimes it can coexist with relative flourishing is no argument in favor of it.

Now prove your arguments.

[NERVUN]

I think you missed the point there. We hold a number of ideals, faith, loyalty, love, up in contradictory ways.


Both, thus the statement about humanity and why denying it is removing a chunk of it.


And yet it is STILL applauded. That is humanity in a nutshell.

I'm sorry, but at this point it sounds like you are saying that there is no reasonable or ethical justification for faith at all, that faith is altogether indefensible, but that it is human nature to admire it.

Is that what you are arguing? It is the only conclusion that I can come with that makes any sense whatsoever. I mean, I dealt with your examples easily enough, I pointed out that the innate nature of faith does not imply its goodness, and now you come with me arguing... I don't know what.

No one is denying faith. Saying it is not a good thing does not somehow banish it.

Now you call faith an "ideal," but that is the whole point I'm arguing against, because what faith really is - when you boil it down - is the antithesis of intellectual honesty. Intellectual honesty which is actually an ideal, is actually virtuous, and is responsible for what slim progress humankind actually has managed to achieve. And you cherish the thing that is its antonym.

See, this is where your argument fails though, it has not BEEN just "intellectual honesty" that has been the motivation of humanity, or its mover. Much the pity perhaps, but denying that is foolish.

[Free Soviets]

the problem is that we are trying to carve out an exception to the principle that you presumably hold - that it is wrong to force your religion on others, and it is my contention that your example of food isn't helpful because the rule there is based on something being for the kid's intersubjective and rational 'own good'. if you were to force the kid to eat like shit, you would be failing, morally. since religious indoctrination in the abstract fails the 'own good' test, you'd need to come at it from a different angle. either counter my suggestion that the 'own good' rule is what is at play or narrow your exception to the no forced religion rule in a coherent way.

Except here's the problem though, you have yet to show how it's not for their own good in any meaningful way. You've repeated it, but have never shown it.

religious indoctrination isn't 'for their own good' because religious indoctrination has no necessary relation to the good. at least some doctrine is inherently bad. some religions call for human sacrifice. some religions call for the oppression of women. some religions outlaw bacon.

basically, the existence of shitty religions means that religious indoctrination itself is not a good.

in order to legitimately claim that your particular religious indoctrination is for their own good, you'll need to present independent reasoning to demonstrate that your religious doctrine is good. but then we'll be in an even more interesting spot, since the whole point of this exercise is that we are trying to carve out a general rule that allows parents to make their kids be part of their religion while still protecting freedom of religion in general. and if we can provide independent reason to think one religion is good, why should we not force everybody's kids into it? or perhaps we could adopt something like islam's 'people of the book' concept and have a list of approved religions for indoctrinating kids? anything else would be to allow people to do things for their kids own bad. which is not at all what we were originally offering as a justification for the exception.

(also, note that this is very different from the questions we face about forcing kids to eat healthy, teaching them the language, telling them the social rules for when penis gourds count as appropriate clothing (not often), and explaining them how to go about changing stupid social rules.)