It truly baffles me how people can be afraid of being atheist or have an atheist child.
I suggest being proud of your son. He has weighed up science that has evidence and theories, against religion, with indoctrination and dogma, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
Good on him. He’s made the choice that’s right for him.
This is a tough one, if you wish him to have a more religious view on life take him to church. I have with my 11yo and explained to him that the bible is just a bunch of stories that show us how to live our lives. Like me, he is into science but does acknowledge a higher power.
One of the ways that a professed athiest can profess belief is to not catoragise this higher power. It can be love of humanity, it can be the jungian collective, it can be a lot of things. All Scouts wants you to do is to believe that a higher power exists, heck I know one 17yo who used logic as his higher power. I am a scout leader, christian and scientist.
The scientific method of hypothesis, falsification, and test, is definitely at odds with the principle of religious faith, in which one is expected to accept some level of dogma at face value as being definitionally supernatural.
That isn’t to say that many religions don’t make great strides to accommodate scientific theories that have become generally accepted such as Copernican heliocentricism or Darwinian natural selection, but they typically do so after a period of resistance and often persecution, and only in response to pressure from their constituents to harmonize religious dogma with empirical evidence about the natural world. That isn’t to say that one cannot hold religious or other non-empirical beliefs in one area and still apply rigorous scientific methodology in others, and indeed, many notable scientists have done so, and not just in regard to religion; many accomplished scientists have held utterly flaketastic beliefs about issues separate from their area of expertise. From a Popperian view, the practical application of the scientific method isn’t generally as rigorous as defined anyway; there is certainly an interjection of belief into the formation of a hypothesis and falsification criteria. However, the core of religious faith is the acceptance of doctrine based upon authority, either by an earthly representative (pastor, priest, pope, or whathaveyou) or alleged direct communication with the prime religious entity via prayer or visions that is undocumentable in objective fashion. The core of the scientific method is an ultimate willingness to refine or reject any previous theory based upon new evidence, regardless of what any authority may claim.
“He’s not the Messiah. He’s a very naughty boy.”
I would argue that this is the wrong approach, at least if you want your son to gain any realistic and objective understanding of religious tradition. Being “Christian on holidays” is like being the prototypical upper class liberal booster for homeless causes without actually being willing to serve a few shifts at a homeless shelter; it’s a feel-good move that really accomplishes nothing. In the case of Christianity, the core ethic is to appreciate and (at least in the Catholic tradition) share in some fashion the sacrifice that the central deities made to preserve their worshipers from eternal damnation, i.e. the father gave his son, and the son allowed himself to be brutally crucified, so that unwashed followers everywhere could ascend to pearly gates and hang around watching their grandchildren run around like spoiled brats, at least according to Family Circus cartoons.
If you want your son to understand religions traditions, where they come from, and what ostensible purpose they serve (as opposed to their actual purposes, which is to bind followers to a particular religious sect or organization) there are plenty of books and courses on comparative religion that explain without inculcating, and may ultimately provide a more balanced and positive point of view of the benefits of organized religion. “Twice-a-year-Christians” are in some ways even more annoying that the usual kind, insofar as their beliefs are generally based on an even less substantial-than-normal understanding of the basic tenets of their belief system. A more consistent attendance and study of the cultural traditions, even if the core supernatural tenets are not accepted–such as is common with many ostensibly Jewish or Hindus–requires more consistency and at least provides the benefit of academic study. If you want your son to actually hold some kind of faith…well, good luck with that. He seems to have formed a belief based upon evidence, and while he may modify it in the future, it’s unlikely at his age that you are going to manifestly influence him to change it dramatically.
On the other hand if you are doing this primarily to pacify the wife, then it is entirely understandable–nothing tears a household apart like a fundamental difference in belief that can’t be rationally negotiated–and you should explain it in those terms to the lad.
Stranger
Sounds like a smart kid. Better give him “The Talk” soon.
He’s a Boy Scout, so there’s no need to rush on that.
After my mom remarried she became uber-Catholic. I was about 12 when she dragged us all to church every Sunday. It didn’t work. At 13 I don’t think you have any time left to change him - or that you’d want to.
I still think it’s a good idea to let him attend a mass. I think everyone should at least once. It’s just interesting. And, evne though I’m usually against ritual, even that is fascinating.
I do think you do need to try to impress why people are religious, but without the normal atheistic mindset that it is all wrong. That’s the part that is up to him.
I also reject the idea that being curious about whether there is an afterlife is irrational. It’s no more irrational than people who wonder if the world is real. It’s a real philosophical question. It may not be logical, but that’s not the same thing. One things skeptics often forget is that one can and should be skeptical of the skeptics.
If he’s really just exploring the realization that science and literal Bible religions don’t work together you can find him some books by Bible scholars who explain the Bible as a book written by humans about their experiences as they saw and understood them in ancient times.
Science and religion or at least spirituality can coexist and the Bible doesn’t have to be taken as the direct word of God. A lot of people think it’s all or nothing but it’s not. Teens can benefit from the church
community even if they don’t believe everything. Ask what he would like to do.
They’re not at odds; they’re unrelated. Most religious beliefs are either of the sort that are unfalsifiable (for example “God exists”) or are historically unique events (for example “Christ is risen”), neither of which are able to be subject to the scientific method because they can’t be tested or falsified.
Religious claims that can be scientifically falsified are generally abandoned, ultimately, in favor of science (geocentrism being one example).
Here I’m talking about mainstream religion like the RCC, not biblical literalists and the fundamentalist fringes.
That’s probably about as far as I can go outside GD.
OK, I’ll grant that it might not be obvious. That was a cop-out on my part.
I think you are attributing a lot of unwarranted assumptions about my beliefs. The Roman Catholic religion didn’t teach me a whole lot, considering that I haven’t attended church regularly since I was small child. In particular, I do not believe that an afterlife will necessarily be better than this life (though I hope it is). I also don’t necessarily believe there is an afterlife in the first place. I just hope there is one.
This doesn’t make any sense to me. By this same logic, you should end your life now because it means assurance that you won’t suffer in the future. While the future might hold suffering in store during life, you hope it doesn’t. Similarly, I hope that the afterlife (if it exists) does not involve suffering.
Incidentally, your comments remind me of the Asimov short story “The Last Answer.” Nevertheless, if there is an afterlife, I do hold out hope that it is less bleak than what you and Asimov imagine.
I think you would regard any approach other than that of strict atheism as being irrational. I disagree. My approach may not be completely logical and consistent with how I approach other things in life, but I don’t think that it is inherently irrational to hold out hope that there might be a positive afterlife and some point to this life on Earth.
As I have said repeatedly, I have no intent of imposing religion on my son. I am merely contemplating a belated attempt to introduce him to it, and let him make his own choices.
P.S. I like Asimov’s classic story “The Last Question” much better.
Science can never confirm or deny presence of God. Such is the the nature of Science and of the concept of God.
Everything else is just belief.
First, it cannot deny the presence of God as in your statement because God is such a fuzzy concept. Which God? Science can deny several of the Gods believed in by Americans, such as the one who created the earth 6,000 years ago.
As for confirming the presence of God, if God came down and did godlike things, like parting the Red Sea, or rearranging the stars, science couldn’t prove it was god but might be able to state with a high degree of confidence that a godlike being existed. The problem with confirming god is not science, it is that God hasn’t seen fit to do anything lately that would falsify the hypothesis that he doesn’t exist.
Wow, some UUers seem to proselytize harder than a whole squadron of Mormon missionaries! 
If exposure to religion is desired, I’d suggest reading for background than visits to a number of churches and temples - and even mosques. But with certain exceptions (like being circumcized) there is nothing easier than picking up a religion late in life - it is not like anyone is going to reject him for coming late to the party.
And that is the problem with most religions. Putting too much emphasis on the tale instead of the moral. The tale is easy to refute.
I think of the concept of God as a something or someone beyond us, beyond our understanding, which influences our existence and day to day life without us consciously detecting.
Think of it as waking up locked in a room deep in the hold of a ship in sea and wondering if there’s someone at the helm. You better hope so, or not, your choice. Such are the constraints on our senses, lifespans and futility of argument about God.
Whatever makes one feel better, and makes our time on earth better, should be the guiding principle. We are too insignificant.
That’s part of the UU educational curriculum 
And actually, its a nice part. Not all churches, temples and mosques are really comfortable with tourists. Even “seekers” - which it doesn’t sound like Robby’s son is, need a little guidance. Shoes on or off. Hair covered or not. Women participate in the service? Can the uninitiated enter the temple (take communion, whatever). When we take our sixth graders out on their field trips we work with the community we are visiting to make sure we are welcome and that the kids are taught whatever behavior is appropriate. We’ve worked with many of the same communities for years.
And being UUs, if you discover your spiritual home in someone else’s faith, we will be sincere in wishing you the best (unless its fundie Christianity or Scientology or something like that - even UUs aren’t perfectly non-judgmental on matters of faith).
I’ll recommend a book on this: How to Be a Perfect Stranger: The Essential Religious Etiquette Handbook. Good for visiting churches, temples, or mosques, as well as being good for if you’re invited to a wedding or other event.
Be proud of your son for making the break that you failed to (though it sounds like you’re in the middle of making a break yourself). The older a person gets the less likely they’ll be able to shrug off whatever religious indoctrination they’ve been exposed to. Thank your lucky stars that 1.) you guys didn’t do a great job beating religion into him and 2.) that he’s smart enough to ignore what little religious exposure he’s had.
You say that you’re confused about your own religion (or lack thereof). Good luck with whatever conclusion you finally come to, but I think in the deep recesses of your mind you know what you believe. You’re just fighting against a lifetime of training.
I might have to order that. It sounds wonderful! Thanks.
At a guess, I’d say most places of worship (at least in the US and Canada) are more prepared for people who don’t know much about them to drop in than they would have been 20 years or more ago. Interfaith relationships are becoming more common and accepted, so it’s getting more common for a Jewish family (for example) to have Protestant in-laws who might come to an event at the synagogue. That means that non-Jews showing up at the synagogue is not going to be a shocking or unheard-of thing at the majority of synagogues.
And it’s not always a huge hairy deal if you don’t observe every fine point of religious etiquette correctly. Mr. Neville forgot to put on a yarmulke before he went into our synagogue’s Rosh Hashanah services. What happened was that an usher discreetly brought him a yarmulke. Nobody made a scene. I doubt that most people in the sanctuary even noticed, or that anyone outside our family remembers it now. If you use some common sense, try to be respectful, and don’t try to make a scene, it’s likely to go well.