So now we have a new definition of “stupid”. Things that Liberal disagrees with.
How about fairness? Sharing? Equality? Or larger concepts like democracy, or justice? Those aren’t facts, they’re values. Does teaching those concepts to kids constitute “peddling nonsense?”
And parents tend to pass their political and social views on to their children as well. How is that indoctrinating in any way that religion isn’t?
I began by saying that religions circumcise, baptize, and indoctrinate children well before they reach the age of reason and free choice because deep down they know wthat they are peddling nonsense.
Another poster used the specious argument that if this is so, then we should not teach children anything. Which of course does not follow and is not what I said.
Another poster asked me about values.
Let us do the following thought experiment.
Let us imagine that we have assembled a group of 11-year-olds who were taught at Muslim, Christian or Jewish schools, respectively.
Now, assuming for the sake of argument that their schools have taught the following subject matter, we ask them:
-
How much does two and two make?
-
Should you swim in a River full of crocodiles?
-
What continent has kangaroos?
-
What do you call a figure made up of three sides?
-
In which country is the Great Pyramid of Kufu?
-
If Peter is taller than Paul and Paul is taller than Jack, is Peter taller than Jack?
-
Is it all right to take money from your parents and not tell them?
-
Is it all right to hit your little brother if you feel like it?
-
Is it all right to make fun of the little boy with a short leg in your class?
-
Do whales live on land or in the water?
-
Where do babies come from?
Now I could go on and on (and most of you will say that I usually do 
) but I am fairly certain that every one of the children in the three groups would give an IDENTICAL answer to every one of these questions.
NOW! Ask them:
-
Is there a God?
-
Does He have a Son?
-
Did he reveal himself to Humanity at some point through a prophet or by becoming human himself?
-
How and when was this revelation?
Assuming there are no 11-year-old apostates in any of the groups, you will receive three different and pretty much contradictory or mutuall exclusive answers! And in all three cases, the answers will be based on doctrinal positions that cannot be scientifically validated.
Now, I realize some of you will say that the questions: “How old is the Earth?” and “Do species evolve?” and “Were Adam and Eve the first humans?” might be answered differently. But this is nothing more than a case of religion extending its unproven doctrinal nonsense to areas of natural history and archeology. It does not invalidate my basic point. Teaching children facts and indoctrinating them into the claptrap of religion are different things entirely.
Um, no. Stupid things are things that are not well thought out, like Dawkins’ book. Dawkins is a preacher in lab coat. His worst critics are his peers (and superiors). Like Michael Ruse, for example, who wrote:
People like Dawkins, and the Creationists for that matter, make a mistake about the purposes of science and religion. Science tries to tell us about the physical world and how it works. Religion aims at giving a meaning to the world and to our place in it. Science asks immediate questions. Religion asks ultimate questions. There is no conflict here, except when people mistakenly think that questions from one domain demand answers from the other.People who attempt to examine God with science are just as stupid as people who attempt to examine gravity with prayer.
“If I gave you $100, would you save it, spend it on candy and toys, or give it to someone more needy?”
“What do you consider yourself more as: a member of your ethnic community, a citizen of your country, or a citizen of the world?”
“If your mother was dying of cancer, would it be morally correct to steal money to pay for drugs to cure her? Why (or why not)?”
Guess all these must be “claptrap” issues as well, since you are unlikely to get a universality of answers to them.
The same thing goes for many other opinions.
Values (or morality if you will) are indeed not facts but the result of social consensus, and do need to be taught to children. Because it is a fact that if they do not subscribe to these values or at least observe them in some way, they will run afoul of the law or at least be considered social pariahs.
If I go around laughing at disabled people I will be considered a monster, shunned by others, perhaps sued or dismissed from my work.
If I steal, I may be arrested and imprisoned.
Atheists teach values to their children as well, without reference to God.
It is one of the BIG LIES of religion that morality and religion are linked, and that the former proceeds from the latter.
Take the 10 Commandments, which religious fools are now trying to hang in public places on the basis that they are allegedly the origin of our values.
Stop and think about that for a second. Assuming that Exodus is even factual, are we really to believe that “Thou shalt not steal, kill, etc.” were unknown concepts to the Hebrews until G-d gave Moses the 10 Commandments?
Are we seriously to believe that the sophisticated Egyptian civilization, thousands of years old, from which the Hebrews had just come, had no laws and no social consensus common to both Hebrews and Egyptians against murder and theft? Egyptians did not think you should honour Mom and Dad?
Yes, values are NOT facts. But they are not religion, either. Take slavery. From a purely economic viewpoint, it might make financial sense to grab people who are easily identifiable by a different skin colour and turn them into a class of people who must work for us for free, under threat of violence.
But our modern values would be outraged by such an idea. NOT because of religion. If you check out the Bible, you will find so many references favourable to slavery that you will have no trouble understanding why southern Baptist preachers could easily argue their northern copunterparts into a corner based on scripture.
The idea that every person has equal value and rights no matter what their skin colour is not a fact like 2+2=4. It is a secular social value that our society has adopted by consensus and that we must teach children to make our society work.
But it has nothing to do with religion and indoctrinating children with religious dogmas.
I realize that I was, for the sake of clarity, giving examples of things like 2+2=4 that allow for only one, universally correct answer.
The value-based questions you pose above are interesting, in that I would NOT receive an identical answer from every child. But the point is that I would not receive one set of answers from the Muslim kids, another from the Christians, etc.
Matters of ethics like this vary fron ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER. Two Christians, two Jews and two Muslims may say they consider themselves citizens of their countries. Others may say they are citizens of all three. Or whatever. Some may say you can steal to save your mother.
But I am pretty sure that the Muslim kids would all say that “God made the final revelation to Mohammed, and God has no Son”, the Christian kids would say “Christ was the son of God become man who died for our sins and Mohammed is a false prophet” and the Jewish kids would say that both Jesus and Mohammed are false prophets and that God revealed himslf as recorded in their Scriptures.
Since we began by assuming that there are no 11-year-old apostates among them, it is impossible that the Muslim, Jewish and Christian answers be found outside their respective groups. And it is highly unlikel that little Walter at Our Lady of Faith Catholic School in Boston would declare “There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger”. Unless the little twerp was trying to mess with out heads.
Take another example. In Kashmir, in a Muslim village, all the adults believe in the truth of Islam and the falsity of the Hindu gods. In a Hindu village in the next valley over, everyone believes in the truth of the Hindu religion and the falsity of Islam. Are these not two populations of the same human species with the same reasoning abilities? So what would explain two different and contradictory takes on two equally unproven and unprovable blief systems (i.e. faiths) if not indoctrination?
Yes, many opinions do vary. But religious belief is another matter, not to be confused with individual differences of opinion. See my post #269, above.
Are you seriously telling me that when a person writes a controversial book like Dawkins did, some people , including scientists like Michael Ruse, will disagree with him? Wow! I didn’t know that could happen. :rolleyes:
I guess if a number of important scientists think a book is claptrap, that settles the question, huh?
Good thing there are no scientists who think the Bible is claptrap!!! :dubious:
Your post doesn’t explain why religion is different from individual differences of opinion. I would say they’re all socialized in pretty much the same way.
Don’t misquote me. I made no reference to “fools”, I called you a fool. I’m not the one stereotyping entire groups here.
While we’re on the subject, let’s see what a real dictionary has as the definition of bigot. From the American Heritage Dictionary: “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Emphasis mine.
I think that definition fits you rather well.
Do you even know what argumentum ad nauseam means?
Let’s say that a fundamentalist southern Baptist shows up on the SDMB. Let’s also say that he makes it a point to jump into any religious or spiritually themed thread to announce that anyone who disagrees with his pastor will burn forever in a lake of fire and sulphur. He then adds that little red imps with pitchforks and pointy tails will dance on their heads while he watches from Heaven with Elvis and Leonardo DaVinci, pointing and laughing.
If he were to suggest I read a book called Yer All Goin’ to Hell, would I be justified in ignoring his recommendation? Why or why not?
Was there a point to this little anecdote?
Your quote of Matthew 7:6 is duly noted. I assume the fact that three verses after the one I referenced earlier is pure coincidence.
Fine by me. I’ll do the same thing the next time you call theists savages or brutes or whatever other name you come up with next time.
Oh, you mean the post where you utterly failed to demonstrate a material difference between religious and secular values? Yeah, that was a hoot.
The woman who plays Dr. Cuddy on House (Lisa Edelstein?). She’s pretty close to “10”
What to you looks like “clarity”, to me looks like a failure in methodology.
In some cases they vary from person to person, and in some cases they do not. To a large extent, religion inculcates a communially agreed (or dictated) sense of values–which, as I understand your point, is why you liken it to “indoctrination”.
As above, you seem to be outraged that communities create a shared sense of values and ideas. This, to you, equals “indoctrination” when it is passed on to children.
But you have no problems with a shared sense of communal values – as long as they are those of your community, meaning those (in my paraphrase) ‘secular social values accepted in our society’:
Now, I do believe that, in the end, some values are better than others - I’m not a cultural relativist. But I do not have the audacity to announce that my values are all objectively correct, and those of other communities are “nonsense” and that I don’t engage in “indoctrination” of my children, but only those other people whose values are inferior to mine.
Rather I hold a more nuanced view - naturally, teaching kids values, religions and philosophical outlooks has a certain amount of “indoctrination” to it, because that is how very young children learn in primary part - by imitation and emulation of their parents. But this is quite true regardless of the content of what is imitated and emulated.
Because individual differences of opinion are just that, individual. They are open to reason and facts, and therefore to change brought about by new information and evidence. In the hypothetical Hindu and Muslim villages in adjoining valleys that I postulated, half the farmers may believe in crop rotation and half may not. Slkowly, evidence of the success of crop rotation may bring them all around to try it in both villages. Some farmers may find they have not enough land or the wrong type of land or something, and so adopt another strategy.
Religion is based on faith, which is believing things contrary to reason and with no supporting evidence. The genius of religion is that it has made faith a virtue. Thus, the virtue of faith insulates the believer against logic and reason.
It always pisses me off when numbskulls like you argue on behalf of atheism because there are atheists here on the SDMB whom I very much respect. Their task at attaining a more general acceptance in American society is hindered by your sort of wild-eyed madman evangelism. If you truly value atheism, the very best thing you could do is shut up.
Thanks, Lib. Well put.
Unlike you I see a difference between value teaching and religion teaching.
a) Take for example, telling a child that laughing at a cripple is bad because it creates hurt in another person, that they would not like it if someone laughed at them, etc. Teaching someone to feel compassion and realize how their actions affect others is a necessary part of socialization to make a person sufficiently mature to function in society.
b) On the other hand, telling a child that the Koran is the final word of God dictated to the illiterate Mohammed by the Angel Gabriel in a cave, or that Jesus arose from the dead, is indoctrination of religious myths to satisfy the desire of organized religion to control minds and loyalty.
The value in a) could be taught in any secular, public school, even if the children are of a dozen faiths and a few dozen atheists to boot.
The teaching in b), however, would quite rightly be banned from a secular, public school.
Compassionate treatment of the less fortunate is a useful social value that helps our society run better. Believing in Jesus or Mohammed are not useful social values, they are unproven religious dogmas.