introducing faith/religion to kids

In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...

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.

You don't seem to like the "amounts to". But each of your proposed statements
have something like "this sort of thing can't be proven/disproven" or something
like that. You must mean *something* having to do with holding off on disbelief
if it can't be disproven - no? Else why get into this proof thing?

Sorry, but it does amount to "maybe they're right".

And it's simply not necessary to go into *any* of that to teach civility and
tolerance.

Banty

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

You don't seem to like the "amounts to". But each of your proposed statements
have something like "this sort of thing can't be proven/disproven" or something
like that. You must mean *something* having to do with holding off on disbelief
if it can't be disproven - no? Else why get into this proof thing?

For the simple reason that unprovables are a different
class of problem from provable-but-as-yet-unproven or well-established-
empirically...which is something I would think most scientifically
trained folks would think is pretty basic. I think you're so hung
up in seeing this as religious vs. secular (and putting me in the
must-preserve-religious-expression camp) that you can't fit my
arguments into the round-shaped hole you have prepared for them.

Sorry, but it does amount to "maybe they're right".

And it's simply not necessary to go into *any* of that to teach civility and
tolerance.

I'll stick by the position that those who are absolutist
in their beliefs, whether they be religious beliefs or secular
beliefs, are those who are the biggest impediment to getting
along nicely with the neighbors. I frankly haven't heard any
arguments that leads me to believe otherwise.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...

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

You don't seem to like the "amounts to". But each of your proposed statements
have something like "this sort of thing can't be proven/disproven" or something
like that. You must mean *something* having to do with holding off on disbelief
if it can't be disproven - no? Else why get into this proof thing?

For the simple reason that unprovables are a different
class of problem from provable-but-as-yet-unproven or well-established-
empirically...which is something I would think most scientifically
trained folks would think is pretty basic. I think you're so hung
up in seeing this as religious vs. secular (and putting me in the
must-preserve-religious-expression camp) that you can't fit my
arguments into the round-shaped hole you have prepared for them.

But there are different kinds of unprovables. You don't seem to recognize that.
And this is all about how a young child might blurt something out, and I don't
think a young child would hear a statement about unprovables much differently
than "maybe they're right".

And again, why do you think it even necessary to bring up to teach civility and
tolerance?


Sorry, but it does amount to "maybe they're right".

And it's simply not necessary to go into *any* of that to teach civility and
tolerance.

I'll stick by the position that those who are absolutist
in their beliefs, whether they be religious beliefs or secular
beliefs, are those who are the biggest impediment to getting
along nicely with the neighbors. I frankly haven't heard any
arguments that leads me to believe otherwise.

I'm not sure how absolute you mean by "absolutist". It seems to have something
to do with not speaking in terms of what can't be proven to 4 year olds. I'm
not absolutist about religion (I don't even desribe myself as an atheist). I
just don't think statements about what can't be proven don't belong in the sort
of conversation we're talking about.

It's not necessary, it's confusing (look at *us* LOL!), and, yes, it *is* a way
religious conversion discussions get underway. You might not mean it when you
talk about it, but we live in a world where that does come in. I simply don't
think an atheist or agnostic or thoroughly secular parent has to pre-prime their
kid with the concepts for that.

Banty

Banty wrote:

It's not necessary, it's confusing (look at *us* LOL!),

I actually don't think it's very confusing at all.
It seems self-evident to me that one of the key things we
need to teach our children is critical thinking, the foundation
of which is surfacing and challenging one's own assumptions.
I don't know any simpler way to put that. The moment one
falls into complaisance about one's beliefs, one is no longer
thinking critically. All beliefs should be challenged.
Knowing the difference between unprovables and unprovens
is a rather important skill in critical thinking, at least
in my opinion. Life is too short to spend a lot of time
tilting at windmills.

and, yes, it *is* a way
religious conversion discussions get underway.

Where is *that* coming from? I thought we were talking
about interactions between parents and children and how to
talk to one's own children? Is the fundamental problem here
that you don't see how it is possible to believe in something
while simultaneously admitting one's own fallibility? That
would explain a lot, since you seem to keep coming back to
this idea that admitting the possibility of fallibility means
undermining one's beliefs.

You might not mean it when you
talk about it, but we live in a world where that does come in. I simply don't
think an atheist or agnostic or thoroughly secular parent has to pre-prime their
kid with the concepts for that.

And where did I advocate that? For the most part, aside
from what is important for cultural literacy (which I'll admit
is not insignificant, though I'd rather have it taught by people
who actually have some education on it), I don't think that parents
should spend a lot of time teaching their kids about other peoples'
beliefs. Often they botch it rather thoroughly, and things are bad
enough without throwing in a lot of misinformation.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...

Banty wrote:

It's not necessary, it's confusing (look at *us* LOL!),

I actually don't think it's very confusing at all.

Actally I don't think it's confusing either. But look - *you're* confused ;-)


It seems self-evident to me that one of the key things we
need to teach our children is critical thinking, the foundation
of which is surfacing and challenging one's own assumptions.
I don't know any simpler way to put that. The moment one
falls into complaisance about one's beliefs, one is no longer
thinking critically. All beliefs should be challenged.
Knowing the difference between unprovables and unprovens
is a rather important skill in critical thinking, at least
in my opinion. Life is too short to spend a lot of time
tilting at windmills.

Sure.

It just doesn't have to happen when a four year old comes running to me asking
about past miracles a religious kid just told him about. No more than not
laying out what some possible sexual positions are when he asks me where babies
come from means that I'm uptight about sex.

And this isn't about being against critical thinking or anything! Just how to
get there.


and, yes, it *is* a way
religious conversion discussions get underway.

Where is *that* coming from? I thought we were talking
about interactions between parents and children and how to
talk to one's own children?

Indeed we are.

Is the fundamental problem here
that you don't see how it is possible to believe in something
while simultaneously admitting one's own fallibility?

No, I have no problem with that.

But here's what's weird about this discussion.

You've claimed that young children are so black and white (as you put it) that
talk of what is or not correct would set them up to grievously wrong against the
religious ideas of their friends because they won't be able to grasp the
different between wrong about something, and being bad little people.

Then you say, in order to do that, I should introduce concepts of provability
that, not only would be out of reach for a child in a black or white stage - as
*you* gave as the reason in the first place for the whole discussion, but WE
can't even agree on.

I say basics first.


That
would explain a lot, since you seem to keep coming back to
this idea that admitting the possibility of fallibility means
undermining one's beliefs.

No it doesn't, but to a young child it will seem so. And it IS how proseltyzing
finds its entry. "Question your beliefs. Can you answer this; can you answer
that." Remember I was in the Good News Club.


You might not mean it when you
talk about it, but we live in a world where that does come in. I simply don't
think an atheist or agnostic or thoroughly secular parent has to pre-prime their
kid with the concepts for that.

And where did I advocate that?

I'm not saying you're advocating that. I'm saying it's a possible and very
plausible result.

For the most part, aside
from what is important for cultural literacy (which I'll admit
is not insignificant, though I'd rather have it taught by people
who actually have some education on it), I don't think that parents
should spend a lot of time teaching their kids about other peoples'
beliefs. Often they botch it rather thoroughly, and things are bad
enough without throwing in a lot of misinformation.

Yep.

They should stick to their own beliefs.

And I'm OK with that.

Banty ("Jesus loves me, this I'm not sure about, cause the Bible tells me so,
but I gotta consider the fallibility of that...."

OK, too many syllables, needs more work... :-)

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

It seems self-evident to me that one of the key things we
need to teach our children is critical thinking, the foundation
of which is surfacing and challenging one's own assumptions.
I don't know any simpler way to put that. The moment one
falls into complaisance about one's beliefs, one is no longer
thinking critically. All beliefs should be challenged.
Knowing the difference between unprovables and unprovens
is a rather important skill in critical thinking, at least
in my opinion. Life is too short to spend a lot of time
tilting at windmills.

Sure.

It just doesn't have to happen when a four year old comes running to me asking
about past miracles a religious kid just told him about. No more than not
laying out what some possible sexual positions are when he asks me where babies
come from means that I'm uptight about sex.

I agree that things can and should be introduced in an
age appropriate way. I disagree that the notion of human fallibility
is something that can't be introduced until the child is much older.
I think it's possible to introduce that concept with young children
in age appropriate ways, and without destroying other things one
is attempting to teach.

And this isn't about being against critical thinking or anything! Just how to
get there.

That may be the case. I think laying the groundwork
for critical thinking includes teaching even young children
that it's ok to question, that believing something doesn't
necessarily mean it's an inviolate fact, and so on.

But here's what's weird about this discussion.

You've claimed that young children are so black and white (as you put it) that
talk of what is or not correct would set them up to grievously wrong against the
religious ideas of their friends because they won't be able to grasp the
different between wrong about something, and being bad little people.

Then you say, in order to do that, I should introduce concepts of provability
that, not only would be out of reach for a child in a black or white stage - as
*you* gave as the reason in the first place for the whole discussion, but WE
can't even agree on.

I think the basic notion that nothing we believe as human
beings is above questioning is something even young children can
understand. Epistemological details will, of course, be added
over time as developmentally appropriate ;-) But it's all further
refinement of a fairly basic concept.

That
would explain a lot, since you seem to keep coming back to
this idea that admitting the possibility of fallibility means
undermining one's beliefs.

No it doesn't, but to a young child it will seem so. And it IS how proseltyzing
finds its entry. "Question your beliefs. Can you answer this; can you answer
that." Remember I was in the Good News Club.

So the way to "proof" your child against this sort of
thing is to be absolutist in your presentation of your own
beliefs? I think that's a fairly brittle solution, personally.
I'd rather go with the idea of improving my
kids' critical thinking skills every time. Sure, there are
proselytizers who'll try any number of tactics. I think my
kids are better off being aware of tactics and thinking well,
not to mention having enough familiarity with manners and
some tactics on how to deal with rude behavior to stop the
conversation in the first place.

For the most part, aside
from what is important for cultural literacy (which I'll admit
is not insignificant, though I'd rather have it taught by people
who actually have some education on it), I don't think that parents
should spend a lot of time teaching their kids about other peoples'
beliefs. Often they botch it rather thoroughly, and things are bad
enough without throwing in a lot of misinformation.

Yep.

They should stick to their own beliefs.

And I'm OK with that.

No argument from me there. My argument has been
about how we teach our *own* beliefs to our children, for
the most part.

Best wishes,
Ericka