Gabriella,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I can't speak for how other religious people teach their children about religion. I can only speak for those religious people I have encountered that teach their children their beliefs - beliefs aren't facts. They are expressed as beliefs with an explanation of why we hold those beliefs. Some religious people may express their beliefs as facts - many children and adults tend to be smart enough to challenge unevidenced facts - but it probably does not stop the person who feels certain about their beliefs to continue to feel certain about them despite the challenges.
Again though you’re conflating beliefs with factual claims. Beliefs about how to behave are fine, and have nothing inherently to do with your (or any other religion). “Treat others as you would wish to be treated” for example isn’t a religious value – it’s just a value.
What I struggle with understanding is why you feel you have to load your thoughts about how to behave with religiosity, especially when the latter is speculative at best.
Ok but I do see a reason to teach gods, souls, devils and the like as stand alone concepts (rather than literally as there is no evidence with which to define gods, souls and devils). I find those useful concepts and tools for myself in adjusting my perspective and thinking.That we both have different views on what is useful to teach our respective children isn't a problem for me.
Depends what you mean by “stand alone concepts”. If you find them useful as metaphors as a sort of tooth fairy for adults or something, well, I can’t imagine why but that that’s up to you I guess. The problem though is that many people
will teach these things as literally true and, even if you don’t, by credentialising them even as metaphor are you not running the risk that your children won’t at a later stage treat them as they treat the tooth fairy?
No I don't think I am teaching my children a lie. I am teaching them a belief I can't evidence. Neither you nor I know the truth because there is no repeatable demonstrable objective methodology to establish the truth.
Actually there’s no method of any kind, but that’s not the lie. The lie is (or would be) “claim X is a fact” when there’s no means to establish such a thing. If you actually say something more like, “I happen to think X is real but I have no supporting logic or evidence for it” that makes you unusual I’d suggest in a religious household, but ok. Again though you’d still seem to me to be privileging the claim over “X is no more than a guess”, and so it’d still carry attendant issues when said to a child by a parent: “If Mummy thinks X s true, then….
The kids know I have no evidence as to the truth - it's up to them if they want to reject the unevidenced belief. But if they want to share family activities with the extended family and feel like they are on our wavelength and included rather than feel lonely and not part of the family they would need to participate in the rituals and behaviours we all spend a lot of time engaging in - because we are not going to stop engaging in those activities and not spending enough time together doing shred activities could lead to emotional distance. It's up to the kids if they want to be a part of that closeness or drift away from their family. Currently they seem to value the comfort and security family brings so they have not drifted off but that may change and they may decide they no longer want to participate in family religious activities. Only they can weigh up the costs and benefits they perceive for themselves of being part of the family rituals or distancing themselves from them.
I hear you – really I do. But that’s still an argument from social (or familial) usefulness rather than epistemic truth. I’d tend to look askance at relatives who did say, “You can engage with us, but only if you take part in our religious practices and rituals” as a kind of emotional blackmail, but I can see too why you’d decide that that’s a price worth paying nonetheless.
Maybe some tribes think that way. But the tribes that I am part of do not think they know what god really wants. They just make an attempt at what they think is required of them, they expect they will make mistakes, and they hope for the best.
Really? That’s not typical of tribal cultures in general I think (catholic vs protestant; shia vs shiite etc) and there are plenty from your and other tribes who precisely do think they “know” and act accordingly. Some might suggest too that people like you at the nice end of the scale give cover to those at the nasty end: “If lovely Gabriella believes X irrationality, it’s not so much of a jump to Y irrationality. And once I’m at Y, why Z irrationality becomes within touching distance” etc. After all, don’t proponents of X, Y and Z all rely on “faith” for their convictions? The 9/11 hijackers were pious men.
The way you raised your children isn't a problem for me . What made you think it was? As far as I can see I have not suggested that you went wrong. Why does it trouble you that other people raise their children in a different way from the way you raised yours?
You implied that it was by telling us that the society you wanted needed “religious values” to get there. I just pointed out that those values aren’t religious at all – indeed I could just as well argue that misogyny, homophobia, intolerance of out groups etc are better examples of religious values, and with some evidence too.
Why does it trouble me that others raise their children differently? I don’t remember saying that id does, though I’ll readily say that, for example, the sight of a child rocking back and forth and memorising the Koran for his “education” does sadden me.
Why? Because to varying degrees we share the same global societies these days and, on balance, I think that privileging superstition over rationalism leads to more bad outcomes than to good ones.
