Philosophy Discussion Forums

Impractical but not impossible.

should we ban teaching our children about religion, or about evolution? Let democracy decide.

We should be teaching our children factual truth, not presenting myth as truth.

Once it was believed that the sun traveled around the earth. A man called Galileo first suggested that in fact the earth orbits the sun. Galileo was tried by the inquisition, was found guilty of heresy & spent the rest of his life under house arrest. These views were held by the Catholic Church for many years until the weight of scientific evidence was so great that the church had to admit that Galileo was right. The exact same thing has happened with Evolution & 'The Origin of Species' by Darwin. The only people who deny it are the criminally stupid & some religious nutters.

These things should be taught to children in schools as fact. To teach children that God & religion are fact is the work of deniers of truth. You can believe whatever you want, nobody is stopping you, but please don't infect innocent children with your foolishness.

Xris wrote:...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.

I appreciate that you are genuinely concerned for the welfare of the children. There are so may other issues that cause children damage and more harm than teaching them about god.

To Xris: An "abuse of parental responsibility" does not constitute "child abuse". It is an abuse of the English language to say that it does. So do you think that parent who "indoctrinate" children in the dogmatic view that one should look both ways before crossing the street are abusing their parental responisibility?

to Rederic: Knowledge,whether about religion or about science, is not an "infection". Galileo was NOT the first to suggest that the earth orbits the sun (he missed that honor by a thousand years or so, and Copernicus also preceded him). In addition, Darwin didn't even know about genetics, so his theory was incomplete; Mendel came after Darwin, and dramatically changed thinking about Darwinian evolution. It seems unlikely that I should cede my ability to decide what constitutes a "fact" to anyone as ignorant as you are.

Please don't infect innocent children with your ignorance and foolishness. (Since I'm not religious, I'm unlikely to teach children that religion constitutes "fact", but I will defend the right of those who disagree with me to do so.)

Galileo was NOT the first to suggest that the earth orbits the sun (he missed that honor by a thousand years or so, and Copernicus also preceded him). In addition, Darwin didn't even know about genetics, so his theory was incomplete; Mendel came after Darwin, and dramatically changed thinking about Darwinian evolution

My mistake, you're correct. Galileo was the first to be victimised by religion for stating a scientific theory that didn't agree with Catholic church dogma. It took the Catholic Church 100 yrs to say that "evolution was not inconsistent with Catholic teaching", a spectacular piece of "double think" in my opinion.

Have you read 'Origin of Species' ? If you didn't know about genetics would you have believed it to be true?

Ecurb wrote:To Xris: An "abuse of parental responsibility" does not constitute "child abuse". It is an abuse of the English language to say that it does. So do you think that parent who "indoctrinate" children in the dogmatic view that one should look both ways before crossing the street are abusing their parental responisibility?

to Rederic: Knowledge,whether about religion or about science, is not an "infection". Galileo was NOT the first to suggest that the earth orbits the sun (he missed that honor by a thousand years or so, and Copernicus also preceded him). In addition, Darwin didn't even know about genetics, so his theory was incomplete; Mendel came after Darwin, and dramatically changed thinking about Darwinian evolution. It seems unlikely that I should cede my ability to decide what constitutes a "fact" to anyone as ignorant as you are.

Please don't infect innocent children with your ignorance and foolishness. (Since I'm not religious, I'm unlikely to teach children that religion constitutes "fact", but I will defend the right of those who disagree with me to do so.)

Abuse of privilege is still abuse. I would never call warning a child of danger a dogmatic act. Scientific knowledge comes with a proviso, religious education comes with no such ability. If Darwin got it wrong we would all change our views and educate accordingly. Religion has to maintain a dogmatic position and that is not education it is abusive indoctrination.

Xris,

Xris wrote: Religion has to maintain a dogmatic position and that is not education it is abusive indoctrination.

What you've said here is a strawman. Where is your evidence that teaching children about God, or giving them a religious education (what you sensationalise by callling it "abusive indoctrination") is detrimental to the child's upbringing? And, I said evidence not your own opinion...

Religion is just the establishment of a group with beliefs on how they view reality. Just because some groups (theistic groups) think they already know reality therefore don't need to look any further, i would consider child abuse, or neglect of being a parent or teacher. But not all religious groups propose that, and especially at the beginning of Theism they did not go by that philosophy that they do now. Then you have Atheism and Deism, which profoundly promote everlasting looking and understanding from reality. Should we deny those philosophy's to understand reality, just because some theistic beliefs that have been around for some 2,000 years, are to stubborn to evolve or dismiss their primitive findings??

Fanman wrote:Xris,



What you've said here is a strawman. Where is your evidence that teaching children about God, or giving them a religious education (what you sensationalise by callling it "abusive indoctrination") is detrimental to the child's upbringing? And, I said evidence not your own opinion...

I think it is a fair question, but you know statistics/anecdotes can be found to support almost anything. Xris can find a stat that says christians are 6% poorer than atheists, you can find one that says atheists are 9% less happy than christians, repeat till cows come home.

Maldon007 wrote:

I think it is a fair question, but you know statistics/anecdotes can be found to support almost anything. Xris can find a stat that says christians are 6% poorer than atheists, you can find one that says atheists are 9% less happy than christians, repeat till cows come home.

Actually studies show that rape and murder are much higher in religious countries as opposed to atheistic countries.

To me, promoting blind faith and worshiping a god that threatens to burn you eternally if you don't believe isn't exactly "peaceful teachings".

Maldon007,

Maldon007 wrote:

I think it is a fair question, but you know statistics/anecdotes can be found to support almost anything. Xris can find a stat that says christians are 6% poorer than atheists, you can find one that says atheists are 9% less happy than christians, repeat till cows come home.

I think that if children who were given a religious education or lets say were 'indoctrinated' by their parents, were any worse off, or more prone to detriment / suffering than those who were not, it would be public knowledge, and a huge political and media issue. That Xris would have to search the internet looking for some obscure statistic, I think demonstrates that a religious education does not cause any notable deficiency or problem in a person's life.

Recoil wrote: Actually studies show that rape and murder are much higher in religious countries as opposed to atheistic countries.

To me, promoting blind faith and worshiping a god that threatens to burn you eternally if you don't believe isn't exactly "peaceful teachings".

But I could counter that study with one that shows a greater connection between the income levels of those specific areas, than their religiousness... probably. Point being, causality is neary impossible to show.

Recoil wrote:Actually studies show that rape and murder are much higher in religious countries as opposed to atheistic countries.

Rape and murder have nothing to do with religion. If you have a society with very strict gun control laws, the statistics on murder will be less.

Xris wrote: Abuse of privilege is still abuse. I would never call warning a child of danger a dogmatic act. Scientific knowledge comes with a proviso, religious education comes with no such ability. If Darwin got it wrong we would all change our views and educate accordingly. Religion has to maintain a dogmatic position and that is not education it is abusive indoctrination.

I’m getting tired of explaining the obvious. Yes, “abuse of privilege is still abuse.” However, “child abuse” (as you stated in the OP) and “abuse of privilege” are NOT identical. “Child abuse” has a legal definition in U.S. Federal law: “"Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation". Child abuse is also illegal. A parent who plays golf every Sunday might be abusing his privileges as a parent, but he is not necessarily a “child abuser”, and anyone who so accuses him is guilty of slander.

So if you want to call teaching religion an “abuse of privilege” or an “abuse of reason”: fine. Go for it. If you want to call it “child abuse”, then you are suggesting that it should be outlawed, and are supporting abridgment of free speech, book-burning, bigotry, and totalitarianism.

Bermudj wrote: If you have a society with very strict gun control laws, the statistics on murder will be less.

Might want to check with mexico on that.