Would you say the same if he asked “Are there such things as vampires”? Ogres? Orcs? If he asked “Is my daddy going to eat me?” would you say that you don’t know? That’s more likely than God existing, after all.
It shouldn’t be, IMO. Parents should be just as proscribed from forcing a particular religion on their kids as the State is. Well, in non-state-religion countries like the US and mine.
Not innapropriate, no, unless you know the kid’s parents are going to lie to him about that, too.
That’s my point.
Given that every damn child I interact with re: my atheism always goes something like “I didn’t know people like you existed” or “You can do that?”, I think just opening their minds to the possibility is enough. Some people only find out about atheism in adulthood.
Wouldn’t be committing the fallacy of hasty generalization there, would you? My atheism is way more rational than any of my beliefs ever were. My antitheism isn’t, but my atheism is.
I disagree, sometimes only an outsider will tell you the truth, and some kids recognize that.
Naah, it’s often too late by then. Start them young, that’s what I say. If it’s good enough policy for the Jesuits, it’s good enough for me.
Sorry if I misinterpreted your post. I agree completely.
We will have to agree to disagree on this point.
You’re right, of course. I was sort of drawing a line from the question the kid asks to a
possible follow on discussion.
FWIW, I did use the phrase “zealot atheist” in my other post. That’s just my impression from what I read here. I don’t have any particular issue with it.
As I said in my first post here, I’d probably keep my answer down to “I don’t think so”, which I think is fair enough and doesn’t imply absolute certainty. If the parents are really so weak in their beliefs that they want to prevent their kid from knowing there even are people who don’t believe that god exists, what’s that to me? If a kid asks me if dinosaurs lived with humans I’m also not going to respond with “ask your parents”.
That’s my thing. I wouldn’t try and persuade a child who asked unless their parents were okay with that kind of rigorous debate. But I’m not going to try and hide my beliefs if they ask what I believe, under the idea that I’m somehow corrupting the child by existing. Although there are probably parents who think that.
For those who are taking the “parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit” position, do you think that simply admitting that you don’t believe in god somehow steps on a parental right?
The question in the OP was “Does God exist?”, not “Do you believe in God?” There is a difference there.
What’s the difference?
jayjay’s exactly right that I phrased the question as I did on purpose.
“Do you believe in God?” is a factual question, albeit one about the auditor’s opinions;; the answer to it does not necessarily advise the child as to what he or she should believe.
“Does God exist?” is a request for an opinion–a normative opinion, at that. If the auditor’s response is substantially different from what the child’s parent’s believe, many people would consider it unethical interference
As a general rule, many, many religious people, mostly Christians, not only tell my children that god exists but sometimes that bad things will happen to them (or me or their Mom) if they don’t pray to this mythical personage.
So, I should have no problem telling them that god is a lie that their parents told them, like Santa or the Easter Bunny. But I’m only that heartless and cruel on TV. I’ll tell them to think instead.
But isn’t the answer to the second question implied with the answer to the first?
If I believe in God then clearly my opinion is that God exists.
If I don’t believe in God, clearly my opinion is that he doesn’t exist.
Answer one and you’re answering both.
Yes, but you can recognize that your opinion is not the same as knowledge.
I forget that other people are religious, and that in some places religious belief and church-going is the rule, rather than the exception. So I would be happy to reply ‘I don’t think so’ if I was asked, and follow it up with ‘but I am wrong about many things. Why do you ask?’
What I would probably do after I’d had a chat with this kid is find a time to talk to the parents, and let them know their child has questions that they might want to talk about.
I don’t consider it necessarily unethical, though I would be hesitant to state outright that god very likely doesn’t exist to any young child, since they’re probably not fully aware of all the implications and haven’t thought about the issue much anyway. But I’m not going to let that kind of question all up to the parents.
That is why I voted for the “you left out…” option and suggested the alternative answer - or you might call it a deflection - “I don’t think so”, which is about what I think* and not about absolute fact.
- and I chose that word carefully.
That’s true in a way, but when giving my opinion I like to make it clear whether something I say is opinion or factual.
I don’t believe in God, but I wouldn’t say I know with certainty that God doesn’t exist (just as believers do not know with certainty that he does).
There’s no evidence that God exists, but there’s no conclusive evidence he doesn’t either. So for me, to simply say “God doesn’t exist” to a child, is less accurate than saying “I don’t know, but I don’t believe in God”.
The latter statement is waaaay more misleading than the former.
And we’re right back to the ethical principle that if someone else is unethical, it doesn’t excuse me being unethical. Sure, there are probably plenty of believers that would do that, but that doesn’t excuse me doing it if that’s the option I choose to effect.
I think it would be best to simply say “You will have to make up your mind”, than saying “I don’t know of any evidence for it” before that.
It gives a suggestion to the kid that a God does not exist and it is best if people figure questions like these out for themselves.
No no no, this doesn’t make any damn sense.
“Withhold information, so he can make his own decision”? It’s just feel-good nonsense.
No, but sometimes it makes behavior that would otherwise be unethical, ethical; self defense being the classic example. There’s also the problem that the sides are not equivalent; the atheist position is the rational one, the one all the evidence points towards. Feeding the kid lies and delusions is not the same as feeding him truth.
What it boils down to is, “cripple the kid intellectually, starve him of information so he’ll make the “choice” we are manipulating him into while we pretend it’s his idea.”