Only to the uneducated, or perhaps the religious. Various ethical and moral frameworks have long been proposed on the basis of less arbitrary philosophical reasoning (for example, based on rules designed to minimise suffering) - ie. the very same critical thinking which we use when we ask ourselves about the origin of Christmas presents or ice formations.
However, I would agree with Lib to some extent - this education is for adults. “Just believing” is a childish mode, and there’s nothing wrong with kids being kids.
I’m confused. First of all, I agree that this is an error: indeed, it is an irrational error, because there is nothing irrational about valuing things or finding meaning in things, and the idea that reason is cold and unfeeling is bizarre. And thus it is a very good lesson.
But the plot of the movie doesn’t seem to describe that lesson at all: according to DtC, it describes a kid doubting asserted facts not about values or meaning, but about the existence of Santa Claus and hearing a freaking jingle bell that no one else can hear because you believe you can.
I’m clearly not getting a complete picture of this movie from one or both you guys if I’m seeing such radically different implications about what the plot is and the lesson is.
I think he may be confused because, in a post that on the whole appears to be a respose to me, you quoted him. I never said “You are saying that the studies do explain why all children have a lack of reasoning and therefor [sic] a lack of skepticism.” However, the rest of your red-faced tirade in that post would be consistent with a response to me.
Aren’t you a cheery fellow. You will note that even ‘utilitarianism’ depends on blind belief, and is in no way ‘less arbirtrary’ than a moral structure based on Judeo-Christian ethics. At the end of the day, you still have to ‘believe’ that you are doing the right thing for whatever reason; no hard proof or evidence can be offered to show that a ‘utilitarian’ choice is correct as opposed to a choice based on Christianity, or vice-versa. You just have to ‘believe’.
I completely agree-- we’re just at odds about who’s doing that.
When you said “It is difficult enough to rear children without someone advocating that they become rebellious and question everything. […] They cannot even comprehend the nuances of healthy skepticism. Attempting to make them into critical thinking adults while their brains are still immature is, as far as I’m concerned, a form of child abuse,” you didn’t utter it into a vacuum. This was, as far as I can make out, a reaction to Dio’s complaint about a film in which a child’s natural rationality is derided, pathologized and ultimately discarded. This isn’t about forcing children to think like adults, it’s about allowing them to think like developing human beings without smacking them down. The apparent message of the film isn’t very much different than that of the celebrated Molatar, who asserts that if you believe hard enough, you can physically transform yourself into a dragon, or take on any other physical form that appeals to you, in spite of all the mocking rationalists who claim that it’s impossible.
I don’t think rationalizing about Santa Claus is outside the natural ability of a seven-year-old. It’s well within the province of “what they can handle.” Nobody’s talking about forcing juveniles to work out Fermat’s last theorem or find a universally acceptable solution to Israeli/Palestine conflict. The objection is to the explicit message that reason is a dead end which is trumped by strong belief, which is arguably a counter-productive premise with which to saddle a developing mind.
You seem to be insisting that children intrinsically lack the rudimentary rational capacity necessary to reach their own conclusions about fundamental problems on the order of “Is there a jolly old elf residing at the North Pole who, with the aid of a sleigh-team of flying reindeer, visits hundreds of millions of households in the small hours of December 25th on an annual basis for the purpose of distributing gifts?” and that failing to suppress the manifestations of this non-existent capacity when they appear amounts to mental abuse.
Or are you extrapolating Dio’s assertion into a more extreme interpretation and attacking that?
You keep asserting that children can’t reason, which is why people are responding with arguments that they can. Anyone who’s spent time around even very small children who are encouraged to apply reason knows that they can be quite adept at it, when it suits them.
If this debate is about whether or not the message Diogenes discerns in The Polar Express is “bad” or not, I would have to agree that is extremely harmful. In the same way that a child who isn’t given the opportunity to use their language skills in early development is doomed to being inarticulate and largely uncomprehending in adulthood, children who are discouraged from using their developing rational capacity will grow into unreasoning adults.
If this debate is about whether or not the message Diogenes discerns in The Polar Express is actually there, then it’s probably best left to those who’ve actually seen the film.
Unless this debate is about something entirely separate from either of those questions, you’re throwing an awful lot of scarlett herring around the place. What are you on about with arguments like this?
So some kids (in my experience, those who are given the opportunity) can apply logic. Why are you talking about their grasp of futurity and its relation to children’s desire for candy? Does it have something to do with “visions of sugar-plums?” Even if their concern is limited to the present, a kid who is able to work out for themselves that their parents are the suppliers of candy has an advantage over the kid who faithfully writes a note to Santa Claus asking that he please stop bringing that nasty hard candy and place a little more emphasis on chocolate, throwing his petition on the fire for mystical delivery to the North Pole without using his parents as an intermediary for the message.
Immediate (and jocular) practical advantages aside, a child who is encouraged to cultivate reason has a huge advantage, later in life, over one whose developing capacity for reason has been deliberately neglected or impeded.
No matter how much you try to rewrite and reform my position, it is simply this: children are not miniature adults; their brains are not miniature adult brains; they should not be treated like small grown-ups. They should not be discouraged from rational thinking (to the extent that they can), but they should not be forced to think in ways they simply cannot. As I said, children trust their parents (unless given bad experiences that suggest to them that they should not). It’s not about solving Fermat’s last theorem; it’s about conceiving Fermat’s last theorem. The Mozarts of the world are extremely rare, and even they respond more emotionally than intellectually.
Well, OK, if we’re going that far then yes, everything from mathematics to scientific facts to existence itself is effectively “just belief” because no epistemolgy is justifieda priori. My point was that “right and wrong” can be distinguished on a less arbitary philosophical basis according to a given moral framework just as the origin of Christmas presents can be examined on the basis of a chosen epistemology (to which ‘evidence’ is only relevant to a few, incidentally).
I agree that Santa Claus–today–has became a myth, a superhero, rather than historical character.
We could see today, that almost every holiday celebrations are being pushed to consumtivism–go shopping. Look what happen in valentine’s day, is it to remember Santo Valentino, or to push people to buy more chocolate?
But then again, how about believing in God. Something similar with believing in Santa. We could not prove the existence of God in any way. But billions of people still devoted their live to God, and keep teaching their children to believe in God.
Do we keep our faith in God–and religion–because we are not skeptical? Too lazy to think? Because we are ignorant?
I very much agree with Diogenes–this is a bad message.
Here’s the rub: I think there is a very big difference between
1.) believing in intangible things like love, happiness, and goodwill, and
2.) believing in intangible things like a guy in a red suit from the North Pole who squeezes his fat ass down the chimney of every sufficiently-behaved child in the world in a single night and leaves them toys.
These are too often equated at Christmastime; belief in general things like the magic of Christmas and the wonder of childhood is equated with a belief in Santa Claus, and a lack of the latter implies a lack of the former.
It isn’t just then, though; plenty of people in this country and elsewhere equate a belief that one should love one’s neighbor and that one should do unto others as one would have others do unto him with a belief that the human race started 6000 years ago with two people named Adam and Eve, that a guy named Noah built a boat that carried two of each animal when the world flooded, and that another guy got killed and entombed and rose up to tell about it.
In short, some intangible things can be believed in, and others should not. It is completely wrong to discourage anyone from questioning which is which.
When I was a kid, I had a very strong and active imagination, including a full cast of imaginary friends. However, I knew they were imaginary. I was well aware that those people didn’t exist, but it was fun to pretend that they did. I felt the same way about Santa Claus, at least as far back as I can remember–I knew there was no such beast, but I went along with it for a long time anyway because I enjoyed it and my parents enjoyed it (and, I admit, because I feared that the presents might dry up otherwise). (Come to think of it, my approach to Christianity was very similar.)
It is fun to pretend. But we’re not talking about pretending, we’re talking about really, truly believing in the fat guy in the suit, and not having to pretend, and that a kid is wrong to look at the evidence for and against this and conclude that it might not be so.
I keep my faith because I have no other choice. It is a gift, and I can’t deny it was given. I can prove God’s existence analytically, and I can prove it experientially. But I cannot prove it to the satisfaction of any man who will reject my premises, nor to any man who will reject my experience. And that’s fine by me; after all, you can’t prove to me that you exist either. But I am a classical skeptic: I doubt both A and Not A.
I’m not rewriting your position, I’m just arguing against it.
First, nobody is talking about treating children like tiny adults. We just disagree about the degrees of a child’s mental capacity. Despite your stubborn insistence to the contrary, even a five-year-old child, given correct information, can sort through it and make logical conclusions for themselves. It’s not beyond them, and allowing them to do it isn’t forcing them to “be miniature adults,” They still spend most of their time in imaginative play and other childish pursuits-- because they’re children.
Encouraging a child to think critically as soon as their communication skills develop to the point where that’s possible doesn’t result in a contrary, rebellious child, either. One of the first premises that they’re taught, after all, is likely to be “Your parents love you, and you can trust that anything they ask you to do is the best thing you can do.” They can even work with “We love you, and would never lie to you.” That’s a perfectly valid premise, so long as it’s true. Children can and do think logically all the time. “Any place with lots of traffic is dangerous for little boys and girls.” “X place has lots of traffic.” → “X place is dangerous for little boys and girls.” That’s a logical construct, and I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s within easy grasp of most children. There’s no need to make up fantastic explanations for why they shouldn’t play in the street.
When kids are raised (or abused, as you’ve suggested,) this way, instead of with an “I AM THE SOURCE OF ALL WISDOM AND YOU MUST NOT QUESTION ME” approach, they are much sharper kids, and actually more trusting and well-adjusted as teenagers. (n.b. - this anecdotal observation is based on a fairly small sample group of relatives’, friends’ and lovers’ children.) It’s not really very surprising though. Raised on a regimen of “I am your father and you must not question my word,” coupled with a series of disillusionments, starting with Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and stork-delivered babies and working up to well-intentioned lies like ‘masturbation will make you go blind’ and ‘marijuana will make you stupid and lead to heroin,’ the only logical conclusion that can be made is “My father lies to me and shouldn’t be trusted.”
The thing is, if you raise a kid to think critically, you’re probably going to be giving them the best information you can from the start. Why wouldn’t they trust you?
It’s when you get to umpteenth time that the kid realizes you’ve been feedling them a bunch of fiddle-faddle that you run into problems. If you’ve raised a kid that’s not in the habit of thinking things through for themselves, what happens when they conclude that you can’t be trusted as an Authority anymore? Are they in the best position possible to start sorting things out for themselves? Or do you think it’s more likely they’re just going to pick someone else to blindly trust?
Well, it sounded to me like they were. The OP said, “Kids should never be told to ‘just believe.’ They should be told not to believe without proof. They should be told to ask every question, examine every belief, and draw rational conclusions.” That’s just crazy. A child cannot even examine rationally the beliefs of skeptics, let alone the whole complex panoply of philosophical beliefs.
I’ve attempted to deal with possible equivocation, drawing a distinction between simple rationality like long division and complex rationality like planning a wedding. Both things were being called “reasoning”. I’ve drawn a distinction between ordinary doubt like doubting that A is true (because you know that A is false), and philosophical skepticism like doubting both that A is true and that A is false. Both things were being called “skepticism”.
Kids can do long division, and they know that Santa can’t be both fat AND go down a chimney. But those things are trivial as far as reasoning goes, and are not on the same level as understanding the consequences of seating Aunt Myrtle next to Cousin Beattrice or doubting both that there is a Santa and that there is a chimney, despite that the chimney is right in front of their eyes. Those are things that require a fully developed frontal lobe.
Children should be taught in the manner of building a house slowly. Make an appropriate plan. Build the foundation first, then put in the framing. Do everything in steps, and don’t jump ahead to steps before the house is ready for them. Once the house is built, let them furnish it themselves. But it’s crazy to ask them to pick out furniture at age four, and then try to build a house around it. If you teach them to question everything, then don’t be surprised when they stop believing you. You’ve taught them to do exactly that.
It seems to me that things like Santa Claus are not extremely complex philosophical beliefs: indeed they are issues right on the level of the nine-year old children the film apparently portrays.
To be honest, I see lot more personal dislike going on in this thread than I do meaningful substantive disagreements about how to raise children.
You are applying my statement to your assumptions. My wife’s family is very materialistic; Christmas is an exercise in game theory with them. Rules must be carefully enforced so that no one involved in the process gives more than they receive. If one member is unable to spend more than $20 this year, no one is allowed to. The gift exchange is very regimented and everyone must watch each gift opening so that scores may be properly tallied and the receiver shows the appropriate amount of joy and gratitude. I always feel like I’m participating in some sort of bizarre experiment in amoral trading.
What’s this have to do with Santa Claus? IMO, Santa Claus gives parents an excuse to give something to their children with no strings attached to it. No forced thank-you’s and no taking credit for it later (I spent all this money on your Christmas and you can’t even make up your bed). It’s a chance to step out of the role of parent and just do something nice for someone you love without having to wrap it up in the reward-punishment structure that is involved in so much of the relationship. To me, this is what makes Christmas magical and is the actual gift of Santa Claus. And yes, I believe in it. Doesn’t mean you have to.
And while I hope your new credo works out for you, it’s pretty useless for me: My wife feels uncomfortable at the whorehouse and refuses to accompany me, and my daughters are too young to enter.
I agree ciompletely. You don’t start out with hard stuff. Children ask questions when they occur to them, and when they’re ready to assimilate the data.
Every bit of information that you impart to a young child forms this foundation. If you feed them deliberate misinformation from the start, you’re like the foolish man who built his house on sand.
I don’t think encouraging kids to question everything does this. It’s not like you’re not going to be offering guidance, and it’s certainly not like you’re forcing them to do something that isn’t the most absolutely natural thing in the world. “Why” is their favourite word, for the love of Pete. Sure, of necessity you’re going to have to fall back on “You’re just going to have to take my word for it for now,” from time to time, but it should never be the first or only answer. The way people learn naturally, we start with simple concepts and gradually get to more complex problems.
You can only teach them that by consistently telling them things that they later determine to be false. If you do right by them, why would they spontaneously mistrust you? You can teach a child to be naturally skeptical about what they hear, and still maintain their trust and be an able guide. If you only give them solid information to work with, they’re going to naturally trust that what you say is true unless something comes up that offers a compelling refutation of it.
Look, Lib, I get the sense (and please accept my apologies if I’m wrong) that a big part of your motivation in this thread is the idea that encouraging rational thought in children equals making sure they grow up to be atheists and strict materialists. I don’t think this is the case at all, and I can’t really believe that you do.
We’re talking about Santa Claus here. And the Easter Bunny. We’re talking about deliberately encouraging children to believe in things that we know are not true, and actively suppressing their instinct to reason.
We’re talking about using a rock for their foundation, instead of a bed of sand. Chances are, when that sand washes away, the keystone’s going to fall.
Look, encouraging children to be inquisitive and to weigh things for themselves isn’t really a radical concept. It’s what they’re going to do anyway. The idea is just to help them do it properly, and give them the best tools to do it with, so they don’t wander astray.
I think that we are two ships passing in the night, agreeing fundamentally but trying to make sure that the nuances of our viewpoints are heard. I hear yours, and I hope you hear mine. This in particular caught my eye, and is certainly a point of agreement between us:
“Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.”
“Kids can do long division, and they know that Santa can’t be both fat AND go down a chimney. But those things are trivial as far as reasoning goes, and are not on the same level as understanding the consequences of seating Aunt Myrtle next to Cousin Beattrice or doubting both that there is a Santa and that there is a chimney, despite that the chimney is right in front of their eyes. Those are things that require a fully developed frontal lobe.”
I know this is an old post but are you serious? What is wrong with a kid having a little belief? Are you an atheist or something? It’s skeptical people like you that make it hard for me to practice my religion without getting ridiculed and laughed at :mad: It’s perfectly fine for kids to believe in some things. In fact, believing is one of the most important things of being a kid. I pity people who tell their kids otherwise. I have a nephew, and I love him, and he has a high belief in things including santa. Believing is magical. Call me whatever you want, I do not care, I’m immune anyway
