Is it socially acceptable to be an atheist in the US?

[UDS]

I think what it comes down to is this. Atheists clearly do not inculcate in their children a belief in a god or gods. But they do inculcate other beliefs in their children. It is impossible not to, and I seriously doubt that many atheists would aspire not to. And:

1. I await evidence - or even argument - that the inculcation of beliefs by atheist parents is any less “indoctrination” than the inculcation of theistic beliefs is.

2. It seems probable the beliefs that are inculcated by atheist parents will have a bearing on how their children approach religious questions, and so influence their children’s religious position, and the observed evidence - that atheist children have a relatively weak propensity to adopt religious positions at variance with their parents - is consistent with this. There is therefore no reason - beyond wishful thinking - to think that children raised by atheist parents approach religious questions with a “clean slate”.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@UDS

If my parents have always preferred naturalistic explanations over supernaturalistic ones, and have raised me to do the same, that’s obviously going to frame the way in which I approach the alternative explanations offered to me on this occasion.

As it should. If you are equipped with the ability to evaluate the strength of any claim (scientific or otherwise) and still be free to make your own choice as to what you believe , that is an ideal position.

In short, the notion that I’m making a free choice between alternative beliefs here, uninfluenced by parental views or example, is plainly false.

But the naturalistic explanation isn’t an “alternative belief” is it? it is the truth as far as we know it with theory and evidence to back it up and it is is a neutral position to take.
There are no religious connotations with naturalistic explanations other than those created by the religious themselves.

Overall though I agree that parental views and examples are influential. I think the best path to take is one that gives children the facts as we know them, acknowledges the gaps where we have have them and shows no favouritism to one religion over another.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@UDS

I think what it comes down to is this. Atheists clearly do not inculcate in their children a belief in a god or gods. But they do inculcate other beliefs in their children. It is impossible not to, and I seriously doubt that many atheists would aspire not to. And:

1. I await evidence - or even argument - that the inculcation of beliefs by atheist parents is any less “indoctrination” than the inculcation of theistic beliefs is.

I think of “indoctrination” as a pejorative term, what “beliefs” would an atheist pass to their children that were potentially harmful?

These of course would have to be beliefs that spring necessarily from being an atheist and I can’t think of any. I can think of plenty that come from specific religious points of view. In answer to your question 1 above, that is the difference as I see it.

[UDS]

@Novelty_Bobble

As it should. If you are equipped with the ability to evaluate the strength of any claim (scientific or otherwise) and still be free to make your own choice as to what you believe , that is an ideal position.

Except that the notion of “ability to evaluate” itself rests on a set of unproven beliefs. In my example I posited parents who teach their child to prefer naturalistic over supernaturalistic explanations. There is in fact no empirical evidence to support a general a priori exclusion of the supernatural (how could there be?) so this is a faith-based position, not one that can be empirically demonstrated to be true (or false). And on the question of whether god exists, if you give a child that frame of reference, then only one answer is possible; the child is not free to choose the other answer without rejecting the frame of reference his parents have inculcated in him. You may regard that as an “ideal position” if you yourself believe a priori that there is no supernatural reality, that god does not exist, and that the optimal outcome is that the child should come to accept this. If you are genuinely neutral on the question then you wouldn’t describe this as “ideal”. And, in either case, the approach is hardly one which maximises the child’s freedom, or allows him to approach the question with a “clean slate”, which I think was the claim being made.

Just to be clear, I have no problem at all with parents who raise their children with a naturalistic and materialistic worldview; I think that’s an entirely justifiable and defensible thing to do. I just think that, if you do that, to then pretend that you have equipped your children to approach theological questions with a “clean slate” requires a startling degree of self-delusion.

@Novelty_Bobble

But the naturalistic explanation isn’t an “alternative belief” is it? it is the truth as far as we know it with theory and evidence to back it up and it is is a neutral position to take.

I have to point out that, of the three naturalistic examples I outlined in my post, at least two are false, and quite possibly all three are. At most, only one of them can be said to be “the truth as far as we know it”.

And, from the child’s point of view, all of the explanations, naturalistic and supernaturalistic alike, are beliefs. It’s true that (some of) the naturalistic explanations are supported by empirical evidence, but he doesn’t know that, and he certainly hasn’t evaluated the evidence and probably isn’t capable of doing so. From his point of view, the choice he makes is simply, who does he believe? His parents, who offer the colliding masses of air theory? His uncle, who tells him that it’s lightning hitting the ground? The parents of his schoolmate, who tell him that it’s angels playing bowling? All of them are in fact wrong, but he has no way of knowing this. His only criteria are (a) which authority figure to trust, and (b) if he has attained this level of reasoning, which explanation fits best with the beliefs that have already been inculcated in him.

@Novelty_Bobble

There are no religious connotations with naturalistic explanations other than those created by the religious themselves.

I agree. But there are definite connotations for religion that flow from inculcating a general preference for naturalistic over supernaturalistic explanations for all questions, whether or not scientific.

[UDS]

@Novelty_Bobble

I think of “indoctrination” as a pejorative term, what “beliefs” would an atheist pass to their children that were potentially harmful?

That depends on what you think constitutes harm, which in turn depends on your own beliefs about what is good and what is evil. And this is itself, of course, a matter of belief; there are no empirical tests for “good” and “evil”.

But, just to be clear, I wouldn’t generally speak of atheists “indoctrinating” their children. As I’ve said before, I don’t like the term. If I were to describe how you raise your children as “indoctrination”, all I would really be saying is that I disagree with the beliefs that you are passing on to them. And, really, why should you care whether I agree with your beliefs or not? Why should my beliefs determine whether your childrearing can be stigmatised as “indoctrination”?

My point is not that atheists indoctrinate their children; it’s that atheists and theists alike pass beliefs and values on to their children, by teaching and example, and it’s not helpful or justifiable to describe that as “indoctrination” when done by the theists, but not when done by the atheists. If you must use this term, at least use it consistently.

@Novelty_Bobble

These of course would have to be beliefs that spring necessarily from being an atheist and I can’t think of any. I can think of plenty that come from specific religious points of view. In answer to your question 1 above, that is the difference as I see it.

I agree, there are no affirmative beliefs that inexorably follow from being an atheist. (Though of course atheism may follow inexorably from certain affirmative beliefs, e.g. materialism.)

RThat’s not to say that atheists have no beliefs - of course they have beliefs - or that they don’t inculcate beliefs in their children - or course they do. And if you ask me if they could inculcate harmful beliefs in their children, of course they could, given a value for “harm”. And if you want to describe that as “indoctrination”, well, it’s a free country. But I am not asserting that atheists do inculcate harmful beliefs in their children, or that they do so with any greater frequency than theists.

[Novelty_Bobble]

UDS I don’t think we are a million miles away from each other.

Perhaps our difference lies in the way we use “indoctrination”. I think you have to have a “doctrine” in the first place and “atheism” doesn’t have one, most recognised religions do. It also suggest an element of unthinking acceptance and, yes, my personal view is that that is not desirable.

We come back round to the old cliche that we are always (religious and non-religious alike) better off teaching children* how* to think and not what to think. That being the case they are more likely to plough their own furrow even thought they may not be untouched by parental worldviews.

[UDS]

@Novelty_Bobble

UDS I don’t think we are a million miles away from each other.

Perhaps our difference lies in the way we use “indoctrination”. I think you have to have a “doctrine” in the first place and “atheism” doesn’t have one, most recognised religions do. It also suggest an element of unthinking acceptance and, yes, my personal view is that that is not desirable.

We come back round to the old cliche that we are always (religious and non-religious alike) better off teaching children* how* to think and not what to think. That being the case they are more likely to plough their own furrow even thought they may not be untouched by parental worldviews.

Well, where I came on on this was in response to the claim by common good in post #178 that “it should be a crime to indoctrinate the innocent with mythical beliefs”. And it’s fairly clear, if you read that in context, that what he means by “indoctrinate the innocent with mythical beliefs” is inculcating religious beliefs in children.

Nobody has backed up his view that this should be a crime and, showing perhaps a little more prudence than he did at first, he hasn’t attempted to defend the view against the challenges which it received from several other posters, or to explain what a world in which parents didn’t do this might look like. But a consequence of not reverting to the topic is that he hasn’t addressed the other obvious question; why is inculcating religious beliefs in children “indoctrination of mythical beliefs” in a way that inculcating non-religious, but similarly untestable and unverifiable, beliefs in children is not? And atheist parents certainly do plenty of the latter.

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the logic of common good’s position is either (a) that atheist and theist parents alike should be criminalised for inculcating beliefs in their children, as opposed to merely presenting empirically-established facts to them, or (b) that the test for whether the inculcation of a particular belief should be criminalised is, basically, whether common good shares that belief. Which, for obvious reasons, isn’t a policy position that will appeal to many people besides common good.

I take your point about “unthinking acceptance”. You could possibly defend a usage in which encouraging unthinking acceptance of a proposition, as opposed to critical engagement with it, can reasonably be called “indoctrination”. But it remains to be established that religious beliefs are systematically or generally inculcated in this way, or that non-religious beliefs are not.

And in fact it’s easy to point to counter-examples; when I teach my toddler not to bite his little brother, or to share his toys with others, I am not inviting him to critically appraise these suggestions and accept or reject them; I want him to accept and internalise them so that, in time, they will inform his behaviour, attitudes and values almost automatically, without his having to give conscious thought to them each time the occasion arises. I want him to develop habits of (what I regard as) virtue. Is that “indoctrination”? And , if not, why not?

[wonky]

@Novelty_Bobble

I think of “indoctrination” as a pejorative term, what “beliefs” would an atheist pass to their children that were potentially harmful?

These of course would have to be beliefs that spring necessarily from being an atheist and I can’t think of any. I can think of plenty that come from specific religious points of view. In answer to your question 1 above, that is the difference as I see it.

That is the difference as I see it as well. There are no positive belifs associated with atheism, only an absence of theistic assumptions and explanations. There is no reason to assume that children never exposed to god-thinking should turn to religion if they are not being indoctrinated, because, again, that is assuming that all explanations for how the world works are equally plausible to all hearers and it’s just a matter of choosing among them, almost at random. But there is no reason to believe this is true. When you aren’t brought up believing in gods, there may be no reason for you ever to seek gods simply because the idea has not been implanted. Not because you’ve been indoctrinated against it, but because you have no need to go find them.

Just as a child who was never exposed to throwing salt over her shoulder if she spills any would not spill salt one day and say, “Oh no! I need to go find something to explain what I should do when I spill salt!”

This is, of course, operating from the assumption that it’s true that children of atheists are more likely to be atheist than children of other parents are to retain the belief or non-belief of their parents. I have no reason to believe that is true or false, but if it is true, it need not be from indoctrination.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@UDS

Well, where I came on on this was in response to the claim by common good in post #178 that “it should be a crime to indoctrinate the innocent with mythical beliefs”. And it’s fairly clear, if you read that in context, that what he means by “indoctrinate the innocent with mythical beliefs” is inculcating religious beliefs in children.

Nobody has backed up his view that this should be a crime and, showing perhaps a little more prudence than he did at first, he hasn’t attempted to defend the view against the challenges which it received from several other posters, or to explain what a world in which parents didn’t do this might look like.

I think that it would be a terrible idea to criminalise that behaviour whilst at the same time wishing that it was not so prevalent. (and that goes for so many other sub-optimal parental behaviours, each of which are a contentious thread by themselves).

You simply can’t legislate for what parents will put into their do their children’s heads.

[rsa]

@UDS

[snip]
…why is inculcating religious beliefs in children “indoctrination of mythical beliefs” in a way that inculcating non-religious, but similarly untestable and unverifiable, beliefs in children is not? And atheist parents certainly do plenty of the latter.

What I see atheist parents ideally doing is “indoctrinating” their children in science, rational thinking, and having a questioning and open mind. If they tell their children it is impossible for a god to exist, that is going beyond “just the facts m’am.” If the children are told that science has explained many things that were not understood in the past, but science has yet to explain everything, and some people chose to believe in a god for that reason and / or reasons of comfort and support and fellowship that is a balanced slate if not an empty one.

[snip]
And in fact it’s easy to point to counter-examples; when I teach my toddler not to bite his little brother, or to share his toys with others, I am not inviting him to critically appraise these suggestions and accept or reject them; I want him to accept and internalise them so that, in time, they will inform his behaviour, attitudes and values almost automatically, without his having to give conscious thought to them each time the occasion arises. I want him to develop habits of (what I regard as) virtue. Is that “indoctrination”? And , if not, why not?

Indoctrination or not, I would hope those are behaviours all parents would teach whether theist or not.

[Trinopus]

@UDS

. . . There is in fact no empirical evidence to support a general a priori exclusion of the supernatural (how could there be?) . . .

There is remarkably strong negative evidence: every time a shaman says, “Look, I shall perform a miracle,” he fails. Religion has made specific concrete predictions of all sorts of things, and they never come true. Look at how many times people have predicted the “end of the world” on the basis of what the Bible teaches.

Supernatural predictions are trivially tested, and are universally found wanting.

When religion matures to the point that it stops making claims about the observable physical universe, then its viewpoints become nothing more than aesthetics. One guy believes in Zeus, and the other guy believes in Osiris, and, since they now are wise enough to posit these gods as remote, abstract, non-intervening ethereal spirits – and not, for instance, the fathers of children by mortal women – then, yes, sure, there isn’t any way to falsify the claims of those faiths.

But the primitive interventionist faith – “God saved my life from that car crash” – is, in fact, trivially falsified statistically: look at how many true believers God does not save from car crashes.

[panache45]

When I was a Freshman at Ohio State, I met a girl who claimed to be an atheist. Oh joy, I thought, a kindred spirit. A free thinker! But the more I knew her, the less of a kindred spirit she proved herself to be. So one day, I asked her why she didn’t believe in God. She replied that she never really thought about it; she was an atheist because her parents were.

[Bozuit]

@rsa

What I see atheist parents ideally doing is “indoctrinating” their children in science, rational thinking, and having a questioning and open mind. If they tell their children it is impossible for a god to exist, that is going beyond “just the facts m’am.” If the children are told that science has explained many things that were not understood in the past, but science has yet to explain everything, and some people chose to believe in a god for that reason and / or reasons of comfort and support and fellowship that is a balanced slate if not an empty one.

What I was thinking. What’s wrong with teaching your kids nothing about myth and religion beyond “some (or more specific) believe that…” and encouraging them to consider things rationally? I call it (as of this moment) the Wikipedia parenting method. I think it’s possible to raise children in a secular environment without encouraging atheism. Of course, if you truly believe in a religion, you’ll truly believe one of the greatest services you can do for your children is teaching them how to not end up in hell, or reincarnated as a mushroom, or something.

[Velocity]

Prohibiting parents from passing religious beliefs on to their children is what you’d expect of a totalitarian regime.

[common_good]

@UDS

All cultures transmit their myths to their children. It’s one of the defining characteristics of myth. And, come to think of it, one of the defining characteristics of culture.

I’m going to hazard a wild guess, and say that what your really mean here is that you think it should be a crime to indocrinate the innocent with mythical beliefs which you do not share. You can see how that’s a policy position that won’t appeal to more than about one person.

Well, yes; all cultures do transmit their myths to their children. That’s fine as long as they are offered and identified as mythical. But, faith is taught as factual, real. Santa and the tooth-fairy are harmless enough and at some point we stop expecting our kids to buy it, to believe in them. The God Myth is never allowed to go the way of playful imagination, as in the lesser myths.
I have no mythical beliefs that I’m aware of so the “sharing” of them with my offspring is a moot point. I have two sons; one is atheist and the other believes in “something”. Which one of my sons have I failed ? In my opinion, neither. I never disguised my atheism around them and neither forbade faith or nor promoted it. I let them chose. I allowed for each of them to make-up their own mind.

[Velocity]

@kaylasdad99

You’re making that up! Who? C’mon, gimme just one name! Who here does that?

It’s undebatably true.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Der_Trihs

They are people who are bending over backwards to give religion unearned respect, a privileged intellectual status. No one is “agnostic” about goblins or Santa Claus or fairies; just religion. Other far more plausible claims don’t get the same “You can’t prove mathematically it’s wrong, therefore you have to pretend it’s a reasonable thing to believe” treatment.

One advantage of being an agnostic though is that you don’t have to hide your views, or at least I haven’t. Even in church when I was growing up (though admittedly it was a mainline church). And you can use expressly religious arguments such as, “I believe God wants us to use our heads: that’s why He gave us one.” You can even question a believer’s faith to the extent that he doesn’t respect the mystery of the supreme deity. So it has its uses.