Philosophy Discussion Forums

The theory of evolution has so much evidence for it that it's 99.9% scientifically proven. Even the Pope & the Archbishop of Canterbury believe it. God has zero evidence. And yet you think it valid to compare the two. Of course Evolution should be taught in science lessons, it's a fact. Religion is a belief in the supernatural & as such should not be taught to children as fact. Nobody is trying to dictate what you believe, but it's wrong to teach children superstition. How are your rights to freedom of thought and expression being curtailed, all we want is for people like yourself to be stopped from infecting children's minds with your mumbo jumbo. What you do & say with people who believe the same things as yourself is entirely up to you.

Rederic wrote:The theory of evolution has so much evidence for it that it's 99.9% scientifically proven. Even the Pope & the Archbishop of Canterbury believe it. God has zero evidence. And yet you think it valid to compare the two. Of course Evolution should be taught in science lessons, it's a fact. Religion is a belief in the supernatural & as such should not be taught to children as fact. Nobody is trying to dictate what you believe, but it's wrong to teach children superstition. How are your rights to freedom of thought and expression being curtailed, all we want is for people like yourself to be stopped from infecting children's minds with your mumbo jumbo. What you do & say with people who believe the same things as yourself is entirely up to you.

Like Xris, Rederic thinks that he should decide what people can believe and what they can't believe. Yes, I think banning freedom of expression is comparable, even when in one case people are expressing ideas with which I agree, and in the other they are expressing ideas with which I disagree. What's so strange about that? Principles are more important than scientific theories, and I support the principle of freedom of speech and expression. If a parent thinks something is true, is it really reasonable to make it illegal for him to say it is true to his children? Perhaps we should put it to a vote: should we ban teaching our children about religion, or about evolution? Let democracy decide.

In support of Xris and Rederic, however, is Stalin. I recently read "Master and Marguerita", Mikhail Buglakov's brilliant novel about Satan, Jesus, and Soviet society. It was completed in 1938, but was not published until 1979, long after Buglakov's death, because Stalin agreed with Xris and Rederic that religious ideas should be repressed. It is now thought to be one of the great masterpieces of Soviet literature -- but what if it fell into the hands of a child! Horrors! He might become "infected"! (Rederic's use of the word "infected", as if ideas were noxious bacteria, sends chills up my spine. Doubtless Stalin used the same kinds of terms.)

Rederic's notion that he (and he alone) can decide what is "mumbo jumbo" (and therefore parents should be banned from "infecting children's minds" with it) is identical to Fallwell's. The only difference is in what they believe (and, I dare say, Fallwell, who may well have had a doctorate in Theology, was probably better educated than rederic is).

Ecurb communists who indoctrinated their children are just as guilty of abuse. I have never said I would actively oppose parents indoctrinating their children and to say as much is libelous.

Ecurb wrote:

Like Xris, Rederic thinks that he should decide what people can believe and what they can't believe. Yes, I think banning freedom of expression is comparable, even when in one case people are expressing ideas with which I agree, and in the other they are expressing ideas with which I disagree. What's so strange about that? Principles are more important than scientific theories, and I support the principle of freedom of speech and expression. If a parent thinks something is true, is it really reasonable to make it illegal for him to say it is true to his children? Perhaps we should put it to a vote: should we ban teaching our children about religion, or about evolution? Let democracy decide.

1. Not only Rederic and Xris but most teachers and nearly all liberally educated people. There is a fight on between those who are for one reason or another resisting modernity and those who, like Rederic, Xris and thousands of others,want the best that modernity can offer for the children.

2. Freedom of expression should be carefully monitored by those who are in charge of children's welfare.It does not do to allow children free access to lies, misinformation, deceits, and disinformation. It is reasonable to curtail the freedom of parents to do as they wish with their chidren . The laws of the land should protect vulnerable children from coercion by parents as well as by strangers. Indoctrinationg kids in some religious belief system is coercion and against the child's best interests which should be aimed at all times at producing a child who may safely be left to make up her own mind.

3. Why have a referendum on this topic especially? Referenda are cumbersome and expensive which is why we delegate governance to democratically elected politicians. Most people hope and expect that politicans will pursue impartial expert advice about child education.

Gene16180 wrote: I don't think this thread is about autonomous adults who for personal reasons and of their own volition decide to believe in god. The greatest predictor of ones religious affiliation is the religion of family and/or community. This says that the majority of people are not religious for “personal reasons” but rather have it stamped into them from childhood. The “personal reasons” seem to come after the belief has already been established in a subconscious attempt to dress one's decisions as rational and autonomous.

But surely in all of these there is massive self-interest involved.

-- Updated July 24th, 2012, 4:34 pm to add the following --

Belinda wrote: 2. Freedom of expression should be carefully monitored by those who are in charge of children's welfare.

How do you ensure that these truly care about children?

Belinda wrote: It does not do to allow children free access to lies, misinformation, deceits, and disinformation.

Over protection can be much more counter productive.

Belinda wrote: Most people hope and expect that politicans will pursue impartial expert advice about child education.

Yes hope

Bermudj wrote:

Belinda wrote:2. Freedom of expression should be carefully monitored by those who are in charge of children's welfare.

How do you ensure that these truly care about children?



Belinda wrote:It does not do to allow children free access to lies, misinformation, deceits, and disinformation.

Over protection can be much more counter productive.



Belinda wrote:Most people hope and expect that politicans will pursue impartial expert advice about child education.

Yes hope Do whatever you do, do what a good man would do, and what is a good man?, I do not know, but at every point, every turn, do what a good man would do.

We cannot be absolutely sure, we can only do our best to ensure that teachers and parents and education authoities are as good as they can be via police checks, educational qualifications, parents' training courses.

Over protection is indeed counterproductive. Risk should not be withheld from children who should be exposed to graduated risks according to their developing abilities.

This why we should be sceptical and information-seeking, and never relax into apathy or unthinking compliance with authorities. Just the same, professionally trained educators are worth employing for their expertise which those us who have other jobs to do don't have the time or inclination to acquire.

Of course I think a referendum on whether to teach Evolution of Creationism would be idiotic. My point was to suggest that Xris and Rederic do not have unique access to the “truth”, and when people disagree with them (on issues more controversial than Evolution vs. Creation) who will decide which teachings constitute “abuse”? I support freedom of expression BECAUSE such a referendum would be idiotic (and how would a democratic society decide what constitutes “abuse" other than by voting on it?).

Nobody in this thread has suggested public schools should teach anything other than accepted scientific canon. However, religious parents SHOULD teach their children what they believe to be true . Should parents teach their children what they think is false? Is that what Roderic and Xris believe proper? The word “indoctrinate” is freighted with negative connotations – yes, it would be possible for parents to use abusive tactics in teaching their children about EITHER Evolutionism or Creationism – but which theory they are promoting is irrelevant to whether their methods constitute “indoctrination”.

Most people of a modernist, scientific bent think that reason will out. If children learn about Creationism and Evolutionism, eventually they will reason their way to the conclusion that Evolutionism is more reasonable. Xris and rederic have no such confidence in their fellow humans, however. The only way we can get people to think properly – that is, to believe exactly as Xris and rederic believe – is to outlaw any information that might persuade people to the contrary by calling it “abuse”.

Finally, Belinda says, “There is a fight on between those who are for one reason or another resisting modernity and those who, like Rederic, Xris and thousands of others, want the best that modernity can offer for the children.” Well, these days the real fight in academia is between those who accept “modernity”, and those who want to move past it to “post modernism”. Clearly (given the success of postmodernism as a critique), “modernity” is not the be-all and end-all. Yet its supporters tend to detest not only older, religious world views, but newer, post modern world views.

Modernism’s faith in grand, unifying scientific “explanations” of the world is not so different from Religion’s faith in grand, unifying “explanations” of the world. Post modernity suggests the rejection of unifying theories, and the pursuit of localizing and contingent theories. I have a feeling (although I don’t know for sure) that Xris and rederic, like the Inquisitors who rejected any inquiry into THEIR world view, object to either affront to modernism: religion AND post modernism.

Belinda wrote:
2. Freedom of expression should be carefully monitored by those who are in charge of children's welfare.It does not do to allow children free access to lies, misinformation, deceits, and disinformation. It is reasonable to curtail the freedom of parents to do as they wish with their chidren . The laws of the land should protect vulnerable children from coercion by parents as well as by strangers. Indoctrinationg kids in some religious belief system is coercion and against the child's best interests which should be aimed at all times at producing a child who may safely be left to make up her own mind.

This sounds logical, untill you realize your definition of coercion is not everyones. Some people will think teaching kids evolution is coercion, or any number of other good things.

Once you insitute this mechinism of monitoring, it will surely be used in future, by those who don't agree with you, when they attain power... Seems like a worse situation than the present one.

Belinda wrote:It is reasonable to curtail the freedom of parents to do as they wish with their chidren .

Parents are the only ones who can legitimately argue that they have their children's interest at hand.

Bermudj wrote: Parents are the only ones who can legitimately argue that they have their children's interest at hand.

So if they encourage them to steal or take up prostitution that is ok?

We have not reached a time when it is appropriate to stop the indoctrination of religion by parents but I it is well past the time when the belief in god is taught, as a fact, in schools funded by government. How many Christians would suffer their children to be taught stalinism is the only correct path for society to take?

No, it is not ok if parenst encourage their kids to steal or take up prostitution, and there are already laws against it. But "monitoring" against this is folly. The laws kick in after a crime (stealing or prostitution) is commited.

Why will we ever reach a time when it is appropriate to stop the indoctrination of religion by parents? If intelect spreads & religion wanes, why would a case for this interference be stronger in the future? And if this is not the case, if religion is getting stronger, then the case for doing it now is strongest, while support for it would be highest. Not in future, when the higher influence of religion would make it impossible.

Xris wrote: So if they encourage them to steal or take up prostitution that is ok?

No that is not ok. But introducing legislation where the state is presented as caring better than the parents is neither ok.

If we could introduce laws protecting children from indoctrination without creating an Orwellian state I would support those laws but the practicalities are beyond human endeavour. Individuals or governments can not dictate religous education in primary schools. It should simply be not part of any primary school curriculum.

Xris wrote:If we could introduce laws protecting children from indoctrination without creating an Orwellian state I would support those laws but the practicalities are beyond human endeavour. Individuals or governments can not dictate religous education in primary schools. It should simply be not part of any primary school curriculum.

I'm glad that you finally agree that parents who teach their children religion are not practicing "child abuse". Good for you. Of course I agree that publicly funded schools should not promote religion (although, as kids get older, it's reasonable for them to teach ABOUT religion, since knowledge of it is vital to our understanding of history, literature, and other subjects taught to teenagers).

Ecurb wrote:
I'm glad that you finally agree that parents who teach their children religion are not practicing "child abuse". Good for you. Of course I agree that publicly funded schools should not promote religion (although, as kids get older, it's reasonable for them to teach ABOUT religion, since knowledge of it is vital to our understanding of history, literature, and other subjects taught to teenagers).

Why are you so intent on misrepresenting my views. I disagree with parents who indoctrinate their children. This is an abuse of their parental responsibility. I am being practical, it would be impossible to implement a law prohibiting this abuse. It goes for those parents who indoctrinate them into any dogmatic view or opinion at such a tender and easily influenced time of their lives, not just a belief in god.