I agree with Moto. Not “your teacher is in heaven now” but when or if the kid says “did teacher go to heaven” with tears in her eyes, afraid it might not be so, I don’t see a problem with saying “yes, I bet she did”. The same as if she said “is teacher living with santa and the easter bunny now?”.
This is about making a little girl not afraid, not about teaching beliefs, theological or not.
He’s not saying it might be helpful to present both viewpoints, he’s saying (or at least clearly implying) that to do otherwise is dishonest.
His statement about what constitutes answering honestly isn’t factual; it’s opinion.
Look, I’m planning to teach my children that some people believe in heaven and others don’t. But I still find Mr. Moto’s implication that to do otherwise is dishonest to be stupid and borderline offensive. If your kid asks “Do people believe in heaven?” then the honest answer is that some do and some don’t. But to say a parent who doesn’t believe in heaven is being dishonest simply by not presenting the alternative view is ridiculous. There’s no moral obligation to introduce your kid to beliefs that they don’t accept. That’s not the same as denying that those beliefs exist.
Mr. Moto’s claim that not teaching someone’s child about belief in heaven violates their “freedom of religion” is also a gross distortion of what the term means. Obviously, the child may someday choose not to believe the same things as her parents. That’s her right. That doesn’t mean the parents are obligated to be the ones making the case for those beliefs. (And do you really think the child won’t have plenty of exposure to them, regardless?)
Now that I profoundly disagree with. Lying to a kid about Santa is one thing: this is something that transforms gradually into a realistic knowledge, wtih the delight of Santa replaced by the love of your parents.
But lying about religious beliefs? What’s going to happen on the day when you say, “Remember how I told you I thought your teacher was in heaven? PSYCH!” In this case, the magical thinking gets replaced by a fundamental betrayal.
It might be hard to tell your kid your sincere beliefs, but I think it’d be appallingly poor judgment to neglect to do so.
Daniel
I guess I don’t get this. I don’t understand wanting to deliberately instill atheism in your kids. I suppose I - as an agnostic or weak atheist - would tell the kids that I don’t know what happens when you die, and no one knows for sure, but some people believe X, and some people believe Y.
That’s just my thought. I don’t get wanting to evangelize atheism, even as far as kids are concerned. My kids can make their own choices, and they shouldn’t have me pushing a particular viewpoint.
Excalibre, that may be the archetypal example of the difference between atheism and agnosticism…
Makes as much since as wanting to evangelize any set of religious beliefs. Belief that there is no God and no afterlife is just as much a religious belief (i.e., a belief regarding the answer to a religious question) as belief that there is a God and an afterlife.
Tim, you’re splitting hairs here. Mr. Moto’s point was only that because other kids are going to be talking about heaven, you have to be prepared to say something about it. His use of the word “honestly” is in reference to the parents being honest about their own beliefs, and honest about the fact that others believe differently.
Again, not the least bit pitworthy. Not nearly as pitworthy as Martin Hyde’s wildly inappropriate post in that thread, in my opinion.
Maybe. I mean, I don’t believe in heaven, and certainly not in YHWH. But I don’t feel any urge to make others agree with me. What do I care? And if my kid believed in the pop-culture heaven (basically bleached of its religious meaning) that they show in cartoons and stuff, it might help 'em get through grieving until they could achieve a more sophisticated understanding of the world.
But then, I’m not surprised a lot of people here are adamant about teaching their kids atheism from an early age. This is the same board where about half the populace thinks telling your kids about Santa Claus is tantamount to abuse.
There is considerable evidence that they are hardwired for belief, a subject that has been much talked about lately.
From Paul Bloom’s December 2005 article in the Atlantic, “Is God an Accident?”
Right, but to an atheist (rather than agnostic) the idea of believing in a supernatural afterlife is ridiculous. Atheists would, I imagine, not understand wanting to deliberately instill a belief in fairy tales in one’s kids.
I don’t think it’s a question of evangelizing atheism, as they’re not telling the kids to tell everyone ELSE that they ought to believe that she does, nor are they (as mentioned in the other thread) suing the school left and right for having anything resembling a religious symbol around. They’re just trying to instill in their child their own beliefs - just like a Christian parent would.
No, it’s not. :rolleyes: I’m quite tired of this. Don’t you understand the most basic principles of logic? The fact that there’s no evidentiary way to prove that God doesn’t exist is meaningless - if there’s no evidence for a concept, it’s irrational to believe in it.
Again, there are plenty of things kids have trouble understanding that are realities nonetheless. Kids may well have trouble with the metacognitive skill of understanding a lack of cognitive existence, but that doesn’t mean that they’re hardwired to believe in a soul: it simply means that it’s a challenging skill for kids, one that you have to work a little bit harder with them on.
Daniel
And if the kid says “Billy Joe Deakins told me that teacher’s just lying in the ground, under the dirt,” you have no problem with saying, “Yes, that’s where she is”, correct? You wouldn’t throw in any b.s. you don’t believe in, like about Heaven and Jesus and the angels, would you?
You religious hypocrites really toast my shorts. You’re all for inclusion when your beliefs are being excluded, but when non-believers start discussing including a non-religious viewpoint you’re all “Who needs that nonsense”, aren’t you?
You’re inventing boogeymen, pretending that we non-believers frighten our kids by discussing the world in terms we see it in. I told my kids when they brought up religious stuff with me, like wondering where dead people have gone, with something I consider totally honest and non-threatening and even calming: “No one really know the answer to that, honey. Some people say they do, some people think they do, some people just wonder. Where do you think people go after they die?” and whatever she said, I just told her that was possible, but no one really knows. That’s my belief, that’s what I think is the most honest and least threatening truth I can share with these two little people it is my honor to raise, and it takes wheelbarrows full of chutzpah and ignorance to imply that my belief system must take a back seat to your screwed-up pack of fairy tales.
No, he said you have to be honest, and gave an example of such honesty. It does not follow that other approaches are inherently dishonest. You assume this part because you had a knee jerk reaction to what you perceived as a theist imposing their views. For example, it would be equally honest, if not in the child’s best interest, to say, “Gosh, I really don’t know where your teacher went, and it isn’t possible to know.” That’s sound agnosticism, but maybe not the way to handle an upset child.
I’m no theist, and I still don’t have a problem with what Moto said. I would, in fact, do the same.
And those children were insulated from any kind of spirituality of any kind up until that point, right? So they came up with the idea of a “spirit” all on their own, with no possibility of their upbringing contributing to the idea, right?
Why would you say that to a child, or anyone? Discussing beliefs isn’t something that you sit down and talk to a child about at a specific age or time, like telling them where babies come from or talking about the birds and the bees. I grew up in an atheist/apatheist household, and believed strongly in god and heaven as a kid. My mother never told me I was wrong no matter what I believed, if I followed her non-belief or if I thought god was, say, a giant anteater. What you believe isn’t what your kids believe, and it never should be forced upon them.
For what it’s worth, I never believed in Santa but my older brother did. He never believed in god, but I did. Our parents didn’t teach us anything different, but never sheltered us from other people’s views on the world.
No, he said you have to be honest, and gave an example of such honesty. It does not follow that other approaches are inherently dishonest. You assume this part because you had a knee jerk reaction to what you perceived as a theist imposing their views. For example, it would be equally honest, if not in the child’s best interest, to say, “Gosh, I really don’t know where your teacher went, and it isn’t possible to know.” That’s sound agnosticism, but maybe not the way to handle an upset child.
I’m no theist, and I still don’t have a problem with what Moto said. I would, in fact, do the same.
I should elaborate, my parents approached where babies come from and the mechanics of sex the same way they approached religion, with viewpoints from every side being discussed at one time or another.
I used babies birds and bees as archetypal “sit down with me, son, and we’ll have a talk” kind of discussions.
As you’ve said before, Mr. Moto, you live in a vastly non-secular country. It’s unsurprising that a majority of kids believe in a soul.
If you want to prove it’s hardwired? You’re going to have to find cases where children were pretty much left alone completely until they were 10 or so. I don’t think there are that many (banning Genie as the obvious one) and I don’t recall any study looking at her religious beliefs. I could be wrong, though.
This isn’t a debate I wish to get into too deeply. I think it is enough to say that even a very young child in an atheist household can have very religious notions, given the overall culture, her friends and classmates, and certain events in her life.
Given all that, it is not unreasonable to anticipate certain questions.