introducing faith/religion to kids

toto wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:31:37 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

It's the religious ideas that postulate things beyond proof. The burden isn't
on others to be humble about that.
I think there are plenty of secular propositions
offered without proof, some of which are (for all practical
intents and purposes) beyond proof. I think that's a part
of everyday life. How often do people make assumptions about
other people's intentions?

Examples?

- That person over there doesn't like me.
- That person is laughing at me.
- That girl is a slut.
- If you just relax and stop stressing about it, you'll
get pregnant.
- My rabbit's foot is lucky.
- Those kids don't care about getting ahead in life.
They're lazy.
- If I do what he says, I'll be popular.
- I do better on tests when I cram the night before.
- I'm sober enough to drive.

I could go on and on. Those sorts of beliefs affect people's
actions. Some of them you can verify, but only if you think
to try. Others may be verifiable in theory, but you won't
really get the opportunity. Nevertheless, people not only
hold beliefs like these, but they sometimes have dramatic
effects on people's actions. It's not at all uncommon for
people to have incorrect and damaging beliefs and to make
little effective effort to examine and challenge the
underlying assumptions.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...

The things that seem reasonable but are false are some
of the most insidious.

Then I can describe that doubt.
And yet many people don't...partly, I would suggest, because
they are not in the habit of leaving any room for self-doubt.

There are many times an intention was later verified by
statements and/or actions, and many times an intention was disproven by
statements and/or actions. And of course many many that either never come to
verification one way or the other or that result is ambiguous.

That's quite different from the problem of dealing with postulates like Russels
teapot.
You were the one who brought up Russel's teapot ;-)
It's quite in line with the sorts of issues I have been
concerned with in this thread.

No, it's not. Or tell me how.

I said that there are plenty of secular propositions
offered without proof, some of which we may not be able to
prove one way or another. This is not merely a feature of
religious propositions.
You then made excuses how these non-religious possibly
false statements are less problematic because they at least look
reasonable on the surface, unlike the religious possibly false
statements.
My assertion all along has not been to give religious
ideas special standing, except to the extent that manners says
we should stay out of picking religious fights in polite
company regardless of our beliefs in the hopes of getting along
better. My assertion has been that it is beneficial in general
to think critically (the key component of which is surfacing
one's own assumptions and questioning their validity).
Furthermore, those who think critically and continue their
search for knowledge typically find that the universe admits
more possibilities than they at first imagined. Does that
mean they must believe all things or give equal credence to
all things? --NO!-- (Just making sure you got that, as you
seem to have skipped past that bit several times.) What it
does mean, however, is that one should perhaps temper one's
arrogance in thinking one has all the correct answers with
a bit of humility...and that's whether one is considering
a purely secular issue, whether one is an atheist considering
a religious proposition, a religious person considering a
secular proposition, or a religious person considering a
proposition from another religion. One doesn't have to believe
the proposition on offer, and one shouldn't believe it if there's
good evidence against it, but human fallibility alone should
be enough to get one off one's absolutist high horse to the
extent that one doesn't feel entitled to go after another
person's beliefs unless one has the evidence to do so. And
the more hurtful the attack will be, the higher the burden
of proof one ought to have before setting out on that course
under normal circumstances. If you're in the debate room,
sure, pull out the big guns for effect, but if you're talking
social situations, people's feelings are more important than
scoring debate points.

Get back on the ground!

We're talking about:
1. Talking with our own children about something.
2. *Not* talking about "going after" someone else's beliefs.

Banty

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
The things that seem reasonable but are false are some
of the most insidious.

Then I can describe that doubt.
And yet many people don't...partly, I would suggest, because
they are not in the habit of leaving any room for self-doubt.

There are many times an intention was later verified by
statements and/or actions, and many times an intention was disproven by
statements and/or actions. And of course many many that either never come to
verification one way or the other or that result is ambiguous.

That's quite different from the problem of dealing with postulates like Russels
teapot.
You were the one who brought up Russel's teapot ;-)
It's quite in line with the sorts of issues I have been
concerned with in this thread.
No, it's not. Or tell me how.
I said that there are plenty of secular propositions
offered without proof, some of which we may not be able to
prove one way or another. This is not merely a feature of
religious propositions.
You then made excuses how these non-religious possibly
false statements are less problematic because they at least look
reasonable on the surface, unlike the religious possibly false
statements.
My assertion all along has not been to give religious
ideas special standing, except to the extent that manners says
we should stay out of picking religious fights in polite
company regardless of our beliefs in the hopes of getting along
better. My assertion has been that it is beneficial in general
to think critically (the key component of which is surfacing
one's own assumptions and questioning their validity).
Furthermore, those who think critically and continue their
search for knowledge typically find that the universe admits
more possibilities than they at first imagined. Does that
mean they must believe all things or give equal credence to
all things? --NO!-- (Just making sure you got that, as you
seem to have skipped past that bit several times.) What it
does mean, however, is that one should perhaps temper one's
arrogance in thinking one has all the correct answers with
a bit of humility...and that's whether one is considering
a purely secular issue, whether one is an atheist considering
a religious proposition, a religious person considering a
secular proposition, or a religious person considering a
proposition from another religion. One doesn't have to believe
the proposition on offer, and one shouldn't believe it if there's
good evidence against it, but human fallibility alone should
be enough to get one off one's absolutist high horse to the
extent that one doesn't feel entitled to go after another
person's beliefs unless one has the evidence to do so. And
the more hurtful the attack will be, the higher the burden
of proof one ought to have before setting out on that course
under normal circumstances. If you're in the debate room,
sure, pull out the big guns for effect, but if you're talking
social situations, people's feelings are more important than
scoring debate points.

Get back on the ground!

We're talking about:
1. Talking with our own children about something.

Right...but to what purpose. I ask my children to
question their beliefs because 1) I want them to learn to
think critically and 2) I want them not to be arrogant about
their beliefs even while they continue to believe in them.

2. *Not* talking about "going after" someone else's beliefs.

Folks who are not arrogant or absolutist about their
beliefs are far less likely to believe that the Truth of
their beliefs justifies running roughshod over manners and
other people's feelings to jam their beliefs down others'
throats.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...

Banty wrote:
We're talking about:
1. Talking with our own children about something.

Right...but to what purpose. I ask my children to
question their beliefs because 1) I want them to learn to
think critically and 2) I want them not to be arrogant about
their beliefs even while they continue to believe in them.

But this is still quite different from how to initially present the ideas.


2. *Not* talking about "going after" someone else's beliefs.

Folks who are not arrogant or absolutist about their
beliefs are far less likely to believe that the Truth of
their beliefs justifies running roughshod over manners and
other people's feelings to jam their beliefs down others'
throats.

Oh here we go again "running roughshod" and "jam their beliefs" just for having
taught their children.

Don't worry about my being too doctinaire - I'm always open to evidence to the
contrary and talk about that too, with my son.

Cheers,
Banty

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Banty wrote:
We're talking about:
1. Talking with our own children about something.
Right...but to what purpose. I ask my children to
question their beliefs because 1) I want them to learn to
think critically and 2) I want them not to be arrogant about
their beliefs even while they continue to believe in them.

But this is still quite different from how to initially present the ideas.

What you learn is rather inextricably bound up with
how you learned it in many, if not most, cases.

2. *Not* talking about "going after" someone else's beliefs.
Folks who are not arrogant or absolutist about their
beliefs are far less likely to believe that the Truth of
their beliefs justifies running roughshod over manners and
other people's feelings to jam their beliefs down others'
throats.

Oh here we go again "running roughshod" and "jam their beliefs" just for having
taught their children.

I'm not talking about the adults, I'm talking about
the children. Do you really believe that the manner in which
children are taught has no bearing on their subsequent behavior?
You don't think that the very behaviors that annoy you most,
with folks trying to impose their beliefs on your life in various
public arenas, has nothing to do with their own sense of
entitlement to do so based on their belief that what they
believe is the only Truth and everyone else is Wrong (and in
need of correction) to the degree that they have the slightest
difference of opinion?

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Banty wrote:
We're talking about:
1. Talking with our own children about something.
Right...but to what purpose. I ask my children to
question their beliefs because 1) I want them to learn to
think critically and 2) I want them not to be arrogant about
their beliefs even while they continue to believe in them.

But this is still quite different from how to initially present the ideas.

What you learn is rather inextricably bound up with
how you learned it in many, if not most, cases.

Basics first.


2. *Not* talking about "going after" someone else's beliefs.
Folks who are not arrogant or absolutist about their
beliefs are far less likely to believe that the Truth of
their beliefs justifies running roughshod over manners and
other people's feelings to jam their beliefs down others'
throats.

Oh here we go again "running roughshod" and "jam their beliefs" just for having
taught their children.

I'm not talking about the adults, I'm talking about
the children. Do you really believe that the manner in which
children are taught has no bearing on their subsequent behavior?

I do.

You don't think that the very behaviors that annoy you most,
with folks trying to impose their beliefs on your life in various
public arenas, has nothing to do with their own sense of
entitlement to do so based on their belief that what they
believe is the only Truth and everyone else is Wrong (and in
need of correction) to the degree that they have the slightest
difference of opinion?

Do you imagine I'm talking about expounding on how one way of looking at things
is the One True Way?

I simply disagree that I have to say what amounts to "maybe they're right
because they can't be disproven" in order to teach manners and civility.

Banty

Banty wrote:

I simply disagree that I have to say what amounts to "maybe they're right
because they can't be disproven" in order to teach manners and civility.

Sigh. I'd say we'll have to agree to disagree, except
that I still don't think you understand what I'm saying, based
on the fact that you still keep attributing things to me that
are not what I said or intended. Clearly this isn't going
anywhere, however, so might as well drop it.

Best wishes,
Ericka