The world is complicated enough for children without feeding them fantastically bizarre stories about gods, demi-gods, heaven and hell. At the same time we as parents are responsible for nurturing a sense of right and wrong behaviour in our children without blackmailing them via the idea that their negative actions will result in reprisals from Beyond. People should act in a moral manner not because an ancient book tells them to, or because of a fear of a delusional God, but because it feels right in both heart and mind.
Indeed, as Richard Dawkins notes in his new book, teaching religion to children borders on abuse. On this point I agree. I can't help but feel that parents who proselytize their children are acting pathetically -- targeting those members of society who cannot yet formulate their own opinions or methodological frameworks that help them make sense of their world and existence. Religion deserves an R rating.
Well-said.
14 comments:
Mac:
Religion is a convenient meme for parents to teach their children morals. Just send the kids off to religious instruction and simple answers will provide them with easy-to-understand guidelines. "If you're a bad person, you will go to hell."
Now imagine if a parent had to sit down with a son or daughter and explain why morals are important while getting into all sorts of gray areas and not resorting to Church "Truth." Take issues like abortion and assisted suicide. If you as a parent have doubts, feeling there are no easy answers, trying to explain that to a child is much more difficult that pointing to a line in A Divine Book and saying, "That's the way it is; The Book says so."
Some parents are lazy. They take their kids to church, hoping some of that goodness stuff will rub off on their little rugrats. So what if what a church believes is illogical and even impractical? Just go with tradition, just like parents have always done.
Also, regilion can be a great socializing force, helping one meet like-minded believers. Your Belief can be part of your identity: "I'm a Baptist." "I'm a Scientologist." Of course, your religious affilliation is usually contrary to other faiths, but at least you belong to a "tribe." After all, you're not normal unless your belong to a number of tribes. "I'm a Met fans." "I'm a Yankees fan." "I'm a liberal." "I'm a Republican."
You have to have certain tribal labels as part of your identity. And people who want to be individualistic still cop out, feeling the pressure to go along with the prevalent God-meme. "Well, I'm not with one church; I'm like spiritual, you know..."
Me? I consult with a god-presence, an invisible purple elephant who spans across all dimensions and multiverses. Ray's Purple Elephant, the Ultimate In Truth.
Now you're probably saying, that Purple Elephant being doesn't exist. Well, prove it.
And you're also saying, how can that elephantine god be invisible and purple at the same time?
A Divine Mystery! So there!
Best,
Ray
I raised my child to be a responsible, moral person without invoking religion at all. It's not hard, and speaking as one who not only has a strong background in religious studies (and am legally a minister), I'd even go so far as to say it's no easier to teach morality by using religion as a crutch.
Religion is a drug. Just as giving alcohol, pot, or heroin to your child is abuse, so is giving religion. They will eventually, when they're ready, examine that line of thinking without the parent's prodding anyway.
Ray said "You have to have certain tribal labels as part of your identity." That's sortof true, but tribal labels will come about naturally on their own -- there's no need to specifically instill them. Generally speaking, it's necessary to keep a close eye on that tendency to keep it in check.
Stankan said "The heart is a muscle. Is it capable of feeling or thinking?"
Actually, the heart and the stomach are both surrounded by a dense net of neural tissue that appear to think (albeit at a low level) independently from your brain. THey both strongly react and can cause phisiological and emotional changes in the whole being. So, it seems that the heart (and stomach) are indeed capable of thinking and feeling -- or at least the brain that they are encased in.
I forgot to add -- people should act in a moral manner not only because it feels right (let's face it, to lots of people it doesn't feel right at all), but because it's the logical and intelligent way to act. Morals can easily be arrived at purely through logical thinking.
o, it seems that the heart (and stomach) are indeed capable of thinking and feeling -- or at least the brain that they are encased in.
What does the gall bladder have to say about this?
WMB--
I disagree that Dawkins is "preaching" in the sense that you imply. What, a guy can't espouse an idea he's passionate about without drawing all-too-easy scoffing comparisons to evangelical religion? Come on!
If Dawkins is "preaching" then so am I -- and so is everyone else with a perspective to share.
In our society, parents have a RIGHT to indoctrinate their children in religion pretty much however they wish.
Too true. The state assumes that parents are at least marginally competent care-givers when, unfortunately, they're all-too-often anything but.
I agree with Dawkins, incidentally, that heaping dogmatic, ignorant religious baggage on one's children is morally questionable ... but I'm going to side (reluctantly) with the state because personal freedoms are already at enough of a risk as it stands.
In our society, parents have a RIGHT to indoctrinate their children in religion pretty much however they wish.
That doesn't mean that it's necessarily the right thing to do.
W.M. Bear said...
I beg to differ (please, please may I differ?) with everybody on this.
Mr. Bear: Actually we don't differ. I agree with most of what you say in your two points. I hate it when any belief system is promoted as the ultimate truth, whether it is science or religion. Also, in your second comment you said we "have the right to be wrong," at least in certain areas of life. In fact, I think too many people don't realize this distinction and DON'T accord others "the right to be wrong." For the most part I agree, unless you get in an area where harm is being done, for example, parents who belief in natural healing and pray that their child doesn't die from an terminal illness. In rare cases like that I can see the state stepping in because the child usually hasn't been exposed to all sides of the issue, only the parent's POV. (And even then I have qualms about that because that can be the slippery slope for the state to gain more power over individuals.) It's right to be "wrong" if you're an informed adult. If you want to skip chemo and try prayer, then go ahead.
Mac said...
What does the gall bladder have to say about this?
Well, I know what your gall bladder is saying.
I consulted with My Purple Elephant and He said that your gall bladder is now being worshipped by a an underground cult in France called "The Gallists." So far your exiled body organ has told them via telepathy that what appears to be a face on Mars is really a grand monument to Richard Hoagland's backside; it's all covered up by dust obscuring the actual features. Sometimes these features can be glimpsed on Mars during the crack of dawn.
Best,
Ray
Many parents pretend that they leave it up to their children. Howver, after going to church every Sunday, denominational school every other day, and being sent off to Jesus Camp every summer, even if they logically decide that it doesn't work for them, they're stuck. It's so ingrained that many people can't ever break out of it, even if their mind tells them that they should. I've seen it many times.
I'm just glad that my parents really did leave it up to me. Even though my father was sent to catholic schools growing up, my parents never forced any belief on me, and I'd never force any belief on any future children I might have.
W.M. Bear, you said nothing that I disagree with.
I attended a small Methodist church as a child. I was never "into" it, but I didn't hate it either. I remember getting some good science fiction reading done there, actually. :-)
I imagine "rebellion" works both ways; children of areligious parents are liable to "find God" as a way of sticking it to The Man.
The last book by Dawkins which I read was _The Blind Watchmaker_. The impression I got was that he was certainly a scientist (he explains Darwin's theory very well) but not much of a philosopher. In the first place he's a materialist, which means that he believes the human mind to be a contingent product (and a very late one, at that) of blind material forces. How then can he speak with such passion about "morals", as if there were some moral world order out there in existence independent of the human mind? His own scientific theory is that natural history -- when looked at in the broadest possible sense -- is AMORAL (Because what else is natural selection -- i.e., the rule of tooth and claw -- but amorality?). Morality itself is also a contingent (and very late) product, albeit a product of human culture. It has no existence apart from us and the social/cultural contexts in which we give it shape. And any cultural anthropologist could tell you that all cultures evolve just like biological organisms. First there are the conditions under which a society lives together. The various pressures of living under these conditions impress themselves on a random variation of innumerable biases, prejudices, mores and nuances of value-sentiments existing among the people. Through what might be called a natural selection of values, a culturally homogeneous morality ultimately emerges. Contrary to what some of you have said, morality isn't about logic; I think morality is essentially a lot of unreason rounded out with a little rationality. Granted, all moralities have a complexity of structure -- but it's a structure that's evolved over time through a process a lot like natural selection. Nobody deliberately created it through the use of reason or logic. Anyway each moral structure has differing nuances with regard to value-sentiments. Sometimes, due to historical contingency, certain societies even have clashing, conflicting and/or contradictory value-sentiments existing side-by-side in the same moral structure. When this happens it's just an extreme case of what's actually universal: that is, in every society and every morality there exists various nuances that clash, conflict and contradict one another. It's just that in extreme cases this state of affairs is more visible. I think our own society would constitute such an extreme case.
"Child abuse" is just another idea that our society has constructed; and side by side with this construction there exists the contradictory value-sentiments of 1) passing along a family heritage of belief-systems and 2) the importance of being able/allowed to think for ourselves. Both value-sentiments (not to mention the social construct regarding "child abuse") are contingent byproducts of culture and history. They're here today and they'll be gone tomorrow. To speak of either one as if they were moral "absolutes" would be an indication of being obtuse, myopic and simple-minded (Unfortunately for many religions, they're based on obtuse, myopic and simple-minded asssumptions about the nature of morality).
If Dawkins were more consistent with himself he wouldn't speak in such an absolute manner about what's supposedly "immoral". Personally I think he just gets a sense of malicious gratification out of spewing vitriol at religion, the religious and God.
Ken Younos said...
How then can he speak with such passion about "morals", as if there were some moral world order out there in existence independent of the human mind? His own scientific theory is that natural history -- when looked at in the broadest possible sense -- is AMORAL (Because what else is natural selection -- i.e., the rule of tooth and claw -- but amorality?).
I've never read Dawkins, but for me the world around us is "amoral" (if you can call it that) and it is up to us to provide morals. A blind, impersonal universe could "care less" about us. We must have morality to overcome our negative animal (natural) instincts. That doesn't necessitate a belief in a particular kind of god.
Ray
"We must have morality to overcome our negative animal (natural) instincts. That doesn't necessitate a belief in a particular kind of god."
And I say any given society is composed of a random variation of sentiments, passions, desires, convictions, biases, prejudices, mores and taboos. It's a chaotic soup of feelings and unexamined value judgments. Out of this underlying chaos (which is, by the way, always present in all societies on some level) some dispositions and behaviors come to be condoned by society, while others are prohibited. The contexts in which certain actions are interpreted as permissible or not -- these are also socially determined. In short, morality is by definition a meaningful way to live together as a society (and nothing more than that).
In the pre-industrial ages societies were more parochial and had therefore developed their own particular moralities. The morality of the Old Testament is different from the morality of Homer, of the Hindu caste system, of Confucius, etc. If there are any similarities they're superficial.
But after the industrial revolution, in the post-industrial era in which we live, with the advent of globalisation, things which had been allowed to develop on their own for millennia have now been thrown together into one big mish-mash and clusterfuck. There's no such thing as "Postmodern Morality" because there's no solid consensus anymore as to what's right and what's wrong. Everyone's left confused in this sea of different histories now come together; some Americans try to stay afloat by arbitrarily grasping on to some drift wood -- pieces of their Judeo-Christian ethical heritage (even if they're not religious). Others go the whole way and become religious; it makes them feel more secure amidst this sea of uncertainty if there's a God who can categorically tell them how to behave.
In the end there's more opportunity for the random variation of unexamined value-sentiments to run amok. There's no clear reason as to why we should consider the unscrupluous entrepeneur, domestic terrorist or common criminal as morally reprehenisble human beings. The only standard left for our society to abide by is constitutional law, which is a _rational_ organization of society but is nonetheless devoid of any substantial meaning or moral dimension. In other words you're perfectly free to be a degenerate or a creep: just keep it in the private sphere and don't break the law while you're at it. Of course it's still one's perogative to break the law, but then one risks getting caught -- and being exposed to the blood-thirsty mob.
Post a Comment