"... no true education can escape the responsibility of communicating a view of life - that is, of 'indoctrinating.' The cult of the open mind is a way of camouflaging the poverty of an education which has no view of life to communicate. Indoctrination is not an educational crime; it is an educational necessity, in religion as in table manners. The crime is to indoctrinate in such a way as to destroy the freedom and responsibility of the pupil. It is by no means impossible - and the world's greatest teachers from Socrates onwards have proved it to be the very heart of teaching - to present a strongly held faith in such a way as to challenge the beholder to come to terms with it on his own personal responsibility. That there is no necessary opposition between doctrine and freedom is clear when personal freedom is at the very heart of the doctrine."The above is a quote from a book written by M.V.C. Jeffreys who wrote most of his publications in the first half of the 20th century. He was a Professor of Education at the University of Birmingham. The quote is from his book 'Glaucon' and was first published in 1950.
Richard Dawkins is a big critic of parents holding a faith position and teaching it to their children. He claims that it is indoctrination and that it is a form of child abuse. Is this fair? I think not! Surely it is the right of all parents to teach to or share with their children the things they believe, or simply the things that they think are important. How different is it for a parent to passionately teach their children about Climate Change, the killing of endangered species, the dangers of atomic energy or the unparalleled merits of the New York Yankees (or the Rabbitohs in Sydney) and a parent who teaches their children about their faith?
Is it just possible that some of the people who object to parents teaching their children about faith, labelling it as indoctrination, might 'indoctrinate' their own children, or even find it acceptable when others 'indoctrinate' children with ideas with which they agree? I read a blog recently in which the writer told how her 3 year old had chanted to her at dinner that night “Reduce! Reuse! Recycle!”. She suggested that the learning of this chant to encourage recycling is "good indoctrination". Who decides when indoctrination of children is good, or bad? Given that indoctrination simply means to instruct or teach someone a "doctrine" - which in turn means a body of knowledge, sets of principles, a collection of teachings - then it is nonsense to assume that it is always wrong.
M.V.C. Jeffreys' view was that indoctrination rather than being wrong or immoral is appropriate and unavoidable. What he saw as wrong was indoctrination that can "destroy the freedom and responsibility of the pupil". In defence of Christians who are accused of indoctrination regularly, it is relevant to remind people that the very basis of Christian faith is freedom. Christianity isn't about simple adherance to a set of rules or even moral principles; although the Bible does suggest ways that we should live. Those who present the Christian faith in this way are teaching a false gospel. While we can teach a child about faith in Christ, we cannot make them believe. It is wrong for a parent or teacher to seek to coerce children into believing that which they believe themselves. It is also a quest that is doomed to failure. As Joshua reminded the Israelites as they prepared to enter the Promised Land, ultimately all of us must choose who we will serve. Joshua challenged the Israelites to consider if they were going to serve the gods of the Amorites or the God of their ancestors, Yahweh (Joshua 24:14-15). Likewise, Jesus called his disciples to choose to follow and to believe in him. And as Jesus taught the stakes are high:For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)Why shouldn't parents teach their children the doctrines that will allow them to make a choice as to the reality of God as taught in the Bible? Especially when they believe that there are eternal consequences.
The Bible teaches that the Christian faith is not about being enslaved to the views of others, whether as a child or as an adult, it is about being set free to live as God had intended.
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:1-4)
Posts
16 comments:
(...continued)
So, “why shouldn't parents teach their children the doctrines that will allow them to make a choice as to the reality of God as taught in the Bible?”. But are parents really teaching their children about Christianity to allow them to make a choice? Do Christian parents teach their children Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Mormonism, Scientology, paganism, agnosticism and atheism to the same degree as Christianity, and then say “You decide”? Do they say “This may or may not be true. Here is the evidence, make up your own mind”? Or are they presenting it as truth and telling their children they will go to hell if they don’t believe?
You stated that "it is the right of all parents to teach...their children the things they believe, or simply the things that they think are important". Yes, and no. Do you believe parents have a right to teach their children to be violent, or sexist, or Nazis? Personally, I don't think it's the parent that has rights... I think it's the child. That is, a child has a right to a loving home (among other things), but parents don't have the right to teach their children anything they like. Some parents do exercise that privilege, and a compelling case can be made that we should not interfere, but I don't think we can say that it's a "right".
Tim
Trevor,
You said that "indoctrination simply means to instruct or teach someone...a body of knowledge, sets of principles, a collection of teachings". I don’t think it’s quite as simple as that.
Firstly, I don't think you can say that you "indoctrinate" people with knowledge, since the word "knowledge" necessarily implies truth or fact. We wouldn't say, for example, that we have indoctrinated people into believing that the earth is spherical. The earth is spherical, so we teach our children that it is. The other two terms you used ("sets of principles" and "a collection of teachings") are more in-line with the dictionary definition.
Or at least, one of the definitions... "indoctrination" also refers to the rigid imparting of a biased viewpoint. This meaning implies a deliberate effort to force people to conform to a viewpoint which may or may not be true. There is also often an implied power differential. That is, the one doing the indoctrination has some form of influence or power over the one being indoctrinated. This could be an obvious difference such as between government and citizen (witness the indoctrination of North Koreans as to the divine status of their “Dear Leader”), or a more subtle difference such as between teacher and student. Either way, the use of the word usually implies that one person is presenting something as true to another person, and exploiting the power differential in a deliberately coercive way.
This is the meaning most often implied in context, and it's the meaning that Dawkins intends when he talks about the indoctrination of children.
You asked why teaching your child about your faith was different to teaching him or her about “climate change, the killing of endangered species, the dangers of atomic energy or the unparalleled merits of the New York Yankees”. These are all interesting examples, but I think the Yankees example forms the closest parallel to religion. Consider this scenario:
“I am a parent, and I believe that the Yankees are the best baseball team in the world. There is a lot of evidence to support my claim (they’ve won the most World Series, etc). While admitting that other people have a right to follow the Red Sox, I believe they are wrong to do so, because, through a combination of reason and faith, I know that my team is the best. I am going to teach my child this from the earliest age possible, as is my right. Anyone who doesn’t follow baseball at all… well, they’re not even worth mentioning.”
Is that reasonable? I hope you would say, no, that is not reasonable, but this is precisely how the overwhelming majority of religious parents teach their children about their faith (yes, I am aware that this is not how you personally came to be Christian). From a very early age, the parent teaches the child that his or her faith is true, and all other faiths are false, and there are severe consequences if the child believes otherwise.
The key issue is how the information is presented. There is a massive difference between the Yankees scenario above and this: “Personally, I believe that the New York Yankees are the best team in the world. This may or may not be true, but I live my life on the assumption that it’s true. The Red Sox are also a very fine team, and you are free to follow them if you like. It is also perfectly acceptable to not follow baseball at all. Examine the evidence and make up your own mind.”
The first scenario is indoctrination, pure and simple. The second is not.
(continued...)
Hi Tim,
There are far too many things to comment on from your two comments but I’ll have a go at a few, perhaps others will pick up on some of your other points.
1. Your definitions of indoctrination and knowledge are in my view seriously flawed – I’m pleased that you believe in truth, but you can’t simply assume that knowledge = truth (which is effectively what you say). You suggest that “knowledge necessarily implies truth or fact”; how would your definition of indoctrination lead you to categorise Nazi Propaganda? What was the ‘Hitler Youth’ teaching children? How about your own example of the indoctrination of North Koreans about their “Dear Leader”? You call it indoctrination but you clearly don’t believe what they teach is true.
2. Your own views on what constitutes indoctrination are rather confusing and contradictory. Yes, of course indoctrination can be rigid and biased, but it can also be subtle and based on truth (you’ve said this yourself above). And yes, it can also reflect a power differential, but it doesn’t have to. You seem to miss my point completely. Indoctrination can’t simply be re-defined as teaching things to people that you don’t agree with. Indoctrination could even occur in the home of atheists based on truth or falsehood. It can also occur when there is no differential power relationship. Some accuse Dawkins of indoctrination.
3. Your point about parents teaching their children about their faith as truth is I hope correct, you’d hardly expect parents to teach their children something that they don’t think is true. By the way, what’s so dangerous about a doctrine centred on love; a love so great that Christ was prepared to die for the sins of the world, so that you and I might be restored to a relationship with our creator? My post tried to suggest that people of faith are capable of teaching their children things they believe, while accepting that their children ultimately need to make up their own mind. Christianity is a faith with freedom at its very core.
Thanks for reading the post and for your comment.
Trevor
We are understandably disturbed by others teaching their children things which we think are wrong.
But how could we not teach our children the things which wey are passionate about?
Even if we made a conscious effort, I think they'd twig we were not being genuine, which would be an even worse situation.
If we want them to teach their kids different stuff [you know, all the right and proper things that we hold to be important], we will need to get the parents passionate about the stuff we are passionate about.
Trevor,
1
” You call it indoctrination but you clearly don’t believe what they teach is true.”
Exactly... That was my point! It’s indoctrination because it’s not true.
Let’s just save some time and ignore the word “knowledge” for the moment. My point was that it’s not indoctrination if you are teaching someone facts. Objective, independently verifiable, universal, facts. We don’t “indoctrinate” people with maths, physics, chemistry or biology. “Kim Jong-Il is divine” is certainly not a fact. “Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals are sub-human and must be exterminated” is not a fact. It’s just someone’s (very wrong) opinion... and this makes it “indoctrination”.
You can say this definition is flawed if you want to, but, as I said, it’s one of the definitions in the dictionary, and most people use it in that context, and it’s in that context that Dawkins uses the word.
2
“Yes, of course indoctrination can be rigid and biased, but it can also be subtle and based on truth (you’ve said this yourself above).”
No, that’s the exact opposite of what I said.
“And yes, it can also reflect a power differential, but it doesn’t have to.”
That’s what I said!
”Indoctrination can’t simply be re-defined as teaching things to people that you don’t agree with.”
I know that, and I didn’t say that. I said that one of the (dictionary) definitions of indoctrination is teaching people a biased viewpoint which may or may not be true.
3
“...you’d hardly expect parents to teach their children something that they don’t think is true.”
Yes, for the most part, I expect parents to teach their children things they believe are true (in the sense that I think it likely, not necessarily in the sense that I want them to). But there is, of course, a massive difference between what we believe is true and what is true. There is not a single Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Scientologist, Mormon, or pagan on the planet who can say, honestly, that they know their religion is true. Not only do all of these religions contradict each other, but none of them has been proven. You don’t know that Christianity is true (in the sense of an objective, verifiable fact), you simply believe it is.
“My post tried to suggest that people of faith are capable of teaching their children things they believe, while accepting that their children ultimately need to make up their own mind”
I’ll simply refer you back to the two baseball examples in my original comment.
___
Thanks for replying...
Tim
David,
These two statements are exactly the problem:
"We are understandably disturbed by others teaching their children things which we think are wrong"
vs
"How could we not teach our children the things which wey are passionate about?"
This equates to "I want to teach my children X (which may or may not be true), but is bad for you to teach your child Y (which may or may not be true)."
Are you "disturbed" that parents are teaching their children Islam? Judaism? Mormonism? Scientology?
Tim
Hi Tim,
Wow, it seems that according to you, atheists are the only people who have access to truth any more and its something defined by the prophet Dawkins! You ask me to set aside “knowledge for the moment”, but this is the centre of the many fallacies that you espouse in your comments. It seems now that how Richard Dawkins defines knowledge, facts, and indoctrination is all that matters. Now the last time I checked Dawkins was not an expert on Epistemology, Philosophy or even Linguistics, so I won’t use him as my primary source, neither will I ignore the circularity of your arguments. You continue to assume that:
a) Knowledge = truth
b) That indoctrination = teaching a specific sub-set of (now what would you call it?) untrue ideas (things you don’t agree with or which you don’t see as knowledge)
c) That Indoctrination is not related to methods, purposes, intent etc (you’ve just said in relation to my comment that indoctrination “…can be rigid and biased, but it can also be subtle and based on truth” that “No, that’s the exact opposite of what I said”, which I take to mean that you don’t think indoctrination can ever occur in relation to things that some might see as ‘true’ or maybe you’d call it ‘knowledge’, which for you seems to mean the same thing anyway)
d) You cannot be guilty of indoctrination if you teach “facts” which you define as “objective, independently verifiable, universal, facts” (I’ll put to one side the ‘fact’ that your definition contains the term you define).
All of the above assumptions demonstrate flawed views of knowledge, truth, indoctrination and facts.
The term ‘fact’ is a bit slippery. The Webster’s defines it in various ways (NB Tim, there are varied views about how we define fact) “a thing done”, “something that has actual existence”, “an actual occurrence”, “and piece of information presented as having objective reality”. A philosopher could keep your head spinning for hours unpacking the term ‘fact’ philosophically and an epistemologist would do the same.
You seem to place greater 'faith' in scientific method than I do. Scientific method doesn’t simply prove things to be "true", instead scientists seek mostly to prove that things are "not true" and draw conclusions about what might be true (another hypothesis). If a scientist manages to prove something is untrue it becomes a ‘fact’ that under the conditions and assumptions they set, that it has been shown to be untrue. Dawkins can’t prove that Jesus is dead any more than he can show me the location of the most distant galaxy. Scientists seek to prove what is untrue in many ways, so that they can eliminate what might possibly be “true". Dawkins doesn’t even seek to examine the evidence concerning the life, death and resurrection of Christ, so I don’t know how he has reached the conclusion that Jesus is dead and that the teachings of the Bible are ‘untrue’.
Cheers,
Trevor
Trevor,
I must admit I’m more than a little confused.
Your original post stated that:
1. It is the right of all parents to teach their children the things they believe;
2. Indoctrination simply means to teach someone a body of knowledge, sets of principles or a collection of teachings;
3. It is unfair of Dawkins to claim that parents holding a faith position and teaching it to their children is indoctrination.
Despite this, you:
1. Are, I assume, against parents teaching their children to be sexist, racist, murderous or incestuous, and yet you “hardly expect parents to teach their children something that they don’t think is true”;
2. Refuse to acknowledge that there is another (arguably more common) definition of “indoctrination”, being to imbue someone with a biased point of view;
3. Refuse to acknowledge that Dawkins’ objection relates to this definition, not your own definition.
Could you please explain how the first set of statements is not in direct, undeniable conflict with the second set of statements? For example, how can you say, on the one hand, that “it is the right of all parents to teach their children the things they believe”, but on the other hand say (as I assume you would) that it is wrong for parents to teach their children to be racist or sexist?
Tim
Hi Tim,
Thanks for your latest set of questions and comments. I’ll try to be brief because I suspect that only you and I are reading the comments. The first three things are things that I said.
However, your second set of comments misses the intent of my post. Of course I’m not against parents teaching their children that it’s wrong to be “sexist, racist, murderous or incestuous”. This teaching could take the form of daily incidental teaching. If it ended up being systematic repetitive instruction with no alternative views expressed then some would define it as a form of indoctrination. I guess this could be the case where some like the parent teaching about environmental issues (mentioned in my post) would say it’s good indoctrination. That is, that you’d be prepared to deny the individual’s freedom and not present any alternative views but simply suggest there is only one right view.
The problem is I know why I’d teach my children that the things you list are wrong; my values based on my faith and my understanding of the Bible make it plain that all of these things are wrong. But how would Dawkins, Peter Singer (or you for that matter) decide that these things are wrong? I doubt that it could be based purely on reason and objectively verifiable evidence. How would they decide what to do with their aged mother who was costing the State heaps to sustain her, had lost her mental faculties and was perhaps leading a life that had lost all of its quality (as they objectively judged it)? [By the way, have you listened to the Medical Ethics talks yet?]
You keep wanting to come back to dictionary definitions and assume that indoctrination = falsehood (as judged by you). You also want to assume that knowledge = “truth” or “fact”. You also claim that “bias” = teaching anyone anything that you don’t believe to be true. Epistemologists would see all of these as contestable assumptions.
While I suspect that Dawkins (like you) does seem to assume a false understanding of what indoctrination is, the difference between Dawkins and me in relation to what we should and shouldn’t teach to our children all comes down to what we believe is the ultimate purpose and meaning of life. His views on the dangers of parents teaching their children about faith have nothing to do with his ability to objectively verify that what they teach is false (he has not objectively verified that there is no God? It’s doubtful that he has even read the primary source book about God – the Bible).
When I taught my children that racism was wrong it was based on my observation of the terrible consequences of this practice for people, the things that I had been taught by others and the teachings of my faith. If I approached this issue as an atheist who placed all my ‘faith’ in using only reason, independently verifiable evidence (for some atheists), and a blind trust that the processes of evolution and natural selection will sort out creation, how would I decide that it was wrong?
Cheers,
Trevor
Hi Trevor and Tim,
I just wanted to reassure you that you are not the only ones thinking about this issue! I also wanted to respond to what I take to be the overall thrust of Tim’s comments.
I think I can agree with you that there might possibly be good reasons to fear parents indoctrinating their children (after all, as you rightly point out, such indoctrination might take the form of racist or other similarly repellent philosophies). Having issued that general caveat, however, I think I have to suggest that the notion that parents who hold strong religious beliefs should not teach their children those beliefs (this seems to be what you are suggesting – please correct me if I am mistaken) is simply unrealistic, or even irresponsible.
Let me give an example. Let us suppose that I had what I considered good reason to think that there might be a lion outside my front door, having heard what sounded to me like roaring noises coming from outside the house. I look out the window and don’t see a lion, but the noises persist. I ring the zoo: no escaped lions that day. I ring one neighbour: they can’t hear anything. I ring another neighbour: they don’t even believe there are such things as lions! What should I do (in this scenario, I am going to create the condition that the police force, fire brigade, etc are all on strike)? Should I assume I am mistaken, and let my children go to school as normal? I think not: I don’t want my children to be devoured by a lion, so if I even suspected that there was one outside the door, I wouldn’t let them go out (of course, there is the possibility that I might have gone insane, but in my scenario I’ll assume that is not the case). I believe any responsible parent would act similarly. How much more, then, if the danger were potentially vastly greater? Jesus tells us:”Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28) According to my beliefs, if my children reject Jesus, there is an excellent chance that they will be shut out of God’s presence forever. How irresponsible, then, would it be for me not to teach them the gospel? The fact that, as I think you are saying, such a belief cannot be proved using empirical methods is, I would suggest, irrelevant. As it happens, I also want my children to make up their own minds and come to a decision to follow Jesus (not that anyone can actually be “made” to believe the gospel, anyway). However, for me to pretend that I think the gospel is just one of many competing systems of belief, any (or none) of which might be true, would be dishonest and irresponsible. As for the fact that parents sometimes do indoctrinate their children with the kind of abhorrent philosophies alluded to above, as a Christian there are safeguards against that happening, in that the Bible forbids such views (and the fact that, yes, there are Christian parents who so instruct their children proves nothing more than the fact of their disobedience: they are, in such matters, acting contra-biblically).
continued...
Part 2...
I will also suggest that, following the logic of your objection to parents teaching their children their religious beliefs, they also ought not to teach them their strongly held (but empirically unprovable) beliefs on democracy, socialism, gender equality, taxation, or almost any subject one could think of (at least, ones that have the capacity to affect people’s health, happiness, quality of life, etc, to a significant degree). You might say that parents should be letting children make their own minds about those things, as well; and of course in principle that is correct. I simply think that it is impracticable to suggest that this can happen to the degree that you seem to expect. Raising children does not occur within a vacuum, but rather within the context of the parents’ beliefs and opinions - and I hope you are not suggesting that, for instance, atheist parents are in some way “neutral” on such issues: an atheist world view can equally be taught by, and acquired from, parents. Where is the evidence that an atheist world view is true or correct?
It seems to me that what underlies your views on this matter (please correct me if I have misunderstood you) is that empirical methods, or reason, constitute the only reliable means of establishing truth, and that anything that cannot be so established must not be presented or talked about as if it were true. I dispute that view, mainly since it seems to be reliant on some source of authority which would have to be “higher” than all human methods of attempting to establish truth, and which can determine that one method is valid, and others not; and I’m not quite sure what such a source is, or could be, or how it could be recognised as having such authority. The only alternative I can see is that reason is self-evidently “king” – which can’t be true since it is not self-evidently so to me!
Regards,
Greg
(...continued)
Your second paragraph expresses a similar view to David and Trevor. On the one hand, you recognise the danger of parents teaching their children objectionable, biased points of view, but you also believe that parents should be able to teach their children things which they feel very strongly about. Now, David and Trevor expressed the second half of the previous statement in fairly general terms, while you have been more specific in singling out religious beliefs. Again, I see two main problems with this.
1
What if the racism or sexism or violence is a religious belief? For example, what if a religion prescribes the death penalty for adulterers?
2
You have said that, for you personally, it would be irresponsible to not teach your children Christianity, given what you believe is at stake, but you also said that it would be irresponsible for any religious parent to not teach their child their particular religious beliefs. There is an obvious contradiction here. Aren’t you essentially saying that you respect the right of other parents to teach their children a false religion? In other words, you respect their right to teach them a doctrine that would “shut [them] out of God’s presence forever”? If you think it is irresponsible for parents to not teach their children their religious beliefs, you are saying that Muslim parents, Jewish parents, and Scientologist parents are all acting responsibly in teaching their children that Jesus is not the son of god. And you clearly don’t think this is the case.
Finally, you asked “Where is the evidence that an atheist world view is true or correct?”. I think you will find that very few atheists say “I know with absolute certainty that there is no god” (and if they did say that, they’d be lying!). Almost all will simply say, “There is not enough evidence to prove that god exists”.
Thanks,
Tim
Greg,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
"I think I have to suggest that the notion that parents who hold strong religious beliefs should not teach their children those beliefs (this seems to be what you are suggesting – please correct me if I am mistaken) is simply unrealistic, or even irresponsible."
Let me put your mind at ease - that is not what I am suggesting at all! It is definitely unrealistic (in the sense that it is unlikely), and I have no doubt that the vast majority of religious parents consider that they are acting responsibly. My concerns relate to how the belief is presented. Is the belief very complex, and beyond a child’s level of comprehension? Is it presented as objective truth, which must be accepted, and cannot be disputed? What are the consequences of the belief, not just for the child but for society as a whole? And what is the child taught are the consequences of unbelief?
As an allegory for religious belief, your lion example is an interesting one (it is essentially a variation of Pascal’s Wager). So you heard a lion outside, you have checked all possible explanations, and you’ve decided to not let your child go to school because the consequences of having a lion outside are severe. I see three main problems with this example.
1
Have you checked all possible explanations? Just how likely is it that there is a lion outside? Your only evidence is that you heard a couple of roars. What other explanations could there be? I’m not sure you can ignore the possibility of mental illness, especially given that no one else heard the roars, but it’s your example so if you want to assume that, then fine. Maybe it was a chainsaw, or a car revving, or maybe your next door neighbour is watching a nature documentary. Perhaps a lyre bird escaped from the zoo, and its cage was right next to the lion enclosure. Or maybe there is actually a dangerous wild animal, but it’s not a lion at all... it’s a (Muslim or Jewish!) bear.
2
At this point you may say “Yes, that’s all true, but the risk of being wrong is too great”, and in this particular example, I’d agree with you. The consequences of believing (missing school for a day) must be weighed up against the consequences of not believing (a small probability of being eaten by a lion), and I think, as you said, most parents would agree that it would be sensible to just stay indoors.
But this is where the allegorical parallels with religion break down. Should the parent say “Here is the evidence indicating that there may or may not be a lion outside, and I think we should stay inside until we can find out for sure”? Or should the parent say “I know with absolute certainty that there is a lion outside, and I am not letting you go to school”?
The conclusion of each premise is arguably reasonable given what the parent believes, but the latter statement is indoctrination.
3
Suppose you go on hearing the roar, day after day. Each day you call the zoo, and they confirm there are no lions missing; and each day you call your neighbour, who confirms he still hasn’t heard the roaring. What should you do? Now the consequences of not believing are not as trivial as before… and the longer it goes on, the more the “consequence equation” tips towards unbelief, i.e., at some point you will have to admit that you are worse off staying inside. So the issue now becomes, what’s the best way to actually determine whether there is a lion outside or not?
(continued...)
Trevor,
You said "my values based on my faith and my understanding of the Bible make it plain that all of these things [teaching children to be sexist, racist, murderous or incestuous] are wrong. But how would Dawkins, Peter Singer (or you for that matter) decide that these things are wrong?"
I assume that you thought all of those things were wrong before you became a Christian. How did you know they were wrong?
Tim
Hi Tim,
I thought that these things were wrong because I had been taught that they were wrong by parents, grandparents, and teachers. Most of these people weren't Christians but their teaching reflected the Christian values accepted and embedded within Australian secular society. I'm thankful that these same values still have such a profound impact on Australian society. But what would Dawkins (and you) say? You still haven't answered my question.
Regards,
Trevor
Hi Tim,
Thanks for these comments. I’ll try (probably unsuccessfully) not to be too long-winded in replying!
Re your objections to my “lion outside the door” analogy, firstly a general observation that such analogies will never be perfect (mine included!), and it’s probably unrealistic to try to “stretch” them too far. Some specific responses:
1) You suggest that there might be other explanations. Certainly; but I think this misses the point that in the scenario, I am acting based on such evidence as I do have. It is my scenario, and within the bounds of what is strictly possible, I am free to set the conditions!
2) I’m not sure I disagree with what you say here, in which case, there’s no objection! My basis for keeping the children inside is that such evidence as I am aware of leads me to believe that there may well be something dangerous outside the door. I’m not being dogmatic (I’m not certain there is a lion out there): the strong possibility is enough.
3) With point 3 I do have a problem, because you seem to be setting conditions for my scenario! I could easily create another scenario (or restate the original one) in which some other realistic limitation (temporal, for instance) precluded the validity of your objection.
Turning to your comments on my second paragraph, firstly I’ll point out that nowhere, as far as I can see, do I say (as you seem to think) that I “respect the right” of parents to teach their children anything. I think the term “right”, in this sense, is often bandied about without a great deal of precision (I won’t expand on this now), so I prefer not to use it. What I did say was that it is impracticable to suggest that parents will not pass on their beliefs, values, etc to their children. Of course, in the case of parents teaching their children that, for instance, Jesus was not the Son of God, this concerns me greatly; but realistically, that is probably what many non-Christian parents will teach their children. It also distresses me greatly that some parents teach their children to hate people of other races, that it’s OK to cheat on income tax, and everything in between. Accepting that this will be the case, of course, is far from approving of it, or agreeing with it. By the way, I also don’t think I say anywhere that parents who teach their children their (non-Christian) beliefs are acting irresponsibly, as you seem to suggest. It is perfectly possible for someone to be absolutely responsible, and quite wrong. For instance (staying with the parenting theme), I might find my children fighting, and punish one of them, on the basis that I thought they were the aggressor, or otherwise in the wrong. If it later turns out that I was mistaken (the other one was at fault), that doesn’t mean that by attempting to model and mete out justice I was being irresponsible: I was merely mistaken.
Regarding your final point: I don’t dispute that this is more or less what most atheists seem to think. My point was more about the fact that parents everywhere and at all times are imparting some world view or other to their children, atheists included: and I see no good reason to think that an atheistic world view is in any sense a logical or reasonable default position for parents to adopt. To suggest that it is (perhaps you’re not suggesting this?) seems to involve some epistemic assumptions that I think are unwarranted.
Regards,
Greg
Post a Comment