Yes. This. As a veteran mother of four, "monkey see monkey do" is a profound truth.

I do model. I apply reason to every problem they bring me, and every problem I have, and I express my reasoning clearly to them every time, so they can see the path of it.

My youngest was correcting some of my logical structures by the time she was 12.

@maturin1919 Lol. Hard core, right?

@pepperjones She was so logical about it, too. It was a very positive conversation based on the fact that the gifts were because I loved her and wanted her to have a fabulous holiday, not because some creeper let himself into the house and left her things. Incidentally, this led to a conversation about how unsafe it is to accept gifts from strangers, but that was a different lesson lol.

@maturin1919 bwaaahaaahaaaa!! But seriously if I am tarnishing your memories of santa, I apologize

@maturin1919 a slightly creepy man...

@maturin1919 see they are instinctually aware of his menace

@maturin1919 Truth

@maturin1919 OMD top row right is the stuff of nightmares

@maturin1919 And black jelly beans? From a rabbit? Giant bucket of NOPE

there were no deconversion efforts, they were never really religious to start with, I raised them atheist from the get go.

@HereticSin I meant that hypothetically. You did say you would never stop fighting to deconvert them. I have seen how threatened people are by challenges to their beliefs.

@JimG oh, yeah, if they actually converted I would start seriously studying the epistemologists doing "gentle deconversion" work, I would not try to make them feel like I loved them less or that they were being bad people. I don't actually worry about it, there's so very little chance that they would ever accept that kind of bullshit anyway, they don't even accept the tiny little lies and excuses they hear their peers make for stupid behaviors anymore, and they don't make any for themselves, they just deal with "it is what is".

I have considered myself fortunate to have children in an age where young people are able to reach out to each other globally, and see that they are turning away from these harmful ideologies. That made it easier than it was on me growing up, where I was surrounded only by believers, engaging only with believers, and as my skepticism began to grow was constantly pressured only by believers.

as for "too much rage", there is definitely some urgency, but no rage. no more rage than I felt doing everything in my power to make them not want to get involved with drugs, or teaching them to be wary of boys intentions.

@HereticSin
I'm not a parent and don't have any plan to ever become one. So, I can't pretend to fully understand what being a parent feels like. It's much easier to talk about what you should or should not do with your kids than having to see the consequences of your decisions unfold in real life.

yeah, I get you, I would share my opinions about sharing needles during heroin use, but after that it's up to them where they go with it, no reason to push the issue.

"ego validation by being right". No. I don't want my kids to be in a cult that teaches that gays should be killed and women are property. This is not "ego validation". Religion is dangerous, and it limits ones ability to deal with the real world, and I will not calmly accept it being foisted onto my kids as "another option, just no biggie".

and my kids attended several church services with relatives. at no point did I say I stopped them going to church, nor did I feel threatened, because I knew when they got back I was going to talk to them about what they were hearing and learning, and go over with them how well or poorly it matched up with the world they were observably living in, and the concepts of reason they used to decide about other things.

@HereticSin You're being a drama queen - I stand by my original comment - no back door here.

gosh, am I being a drama queen? pouty face. whatever.

you pretending that religious belief is just another viable choice instead of the truly dangerous thing it is doesn't matter to me at all.

let me ask you something, IF your kids had grown up and joined a sect that actively persecuted gays and supported theocratic politics, would you still be going "nah, no harm"? can you answer that honestly?

@SLBushway but you won't answer it honestly, because you read all of my replies, and instead of addressing my points, just made an offhand comment about the way I presented them, which is a great copout.

@HereticSin #1 Religion is not on the same level as Heroin addiction - If I had to choose the lesser of the two evils I'd go with Religion - the two are clearly not the same. #2 - You ask a good question and to be honest I can't answer it because I never faced it.

That being said - I don't see religion as the gateway drug to the things you listed. The people who cross to that side were likely failed on many levels - it could be their parents, their kids, guidance counselors, people they thought were friends, ex partners and so on. Their need to go extreme shows that they're hurting and they're willing to embrace anything that occupies their empty spaces. That's not the fault of religion - that's environmental - because religious interpretation is up to the individual.

If your kids would decide to be a Jim Jone's follower that's not Jim's fault - it's just a sign that Jim Jones was providing him/her with something you or a significant other (friends, partners and so on) didn't or couldn't.

@SLBushway yes, I absolutely agree with that. if I don't provide them with the tools to tell bullshit fantasy thinking from reality, if I don't provide them with support, real support, and validation for their opinions along with guidance toward facts, if I let them be influenced by woo and superstition without ever challenging it, truly challenging it, then there is a risk, not a certainty, but a risk, that they will wind up with a set of beliefs about the world that are exclusivist, misinformed, sponsored by bitterness and confusion. I can find no fault at all in that comment.

however, I was not comparing the two in severity, simply in quality. both heroin and woo beliefs are inherently dangerous, and they might pick up a harmless woo belief, but I am unwilling to risk it. harmless woo beliefs ARE a gateway to magical thinking, and susceptibility to dogmatic indoctrination. if they are going to learn dogma, I want them to learn THIS dogma: A = A. A or !A. !(A and !A).

I want them to learn the dogma of "form a hypothesis from observation, devise a reasonable test for the hypothesis, run the test and look honestly at the data, review your hypothesis".

a lot of people who are very very reasonable otherwise fight against gay marriage, because "god said so". it's not just Jim Jones cults I'm worried about.

@HereticSin If you aren't a controlling prick or someone that goes on and on for hours lecturing to them - they're not going to be influenced by anyone else. At least, that was my experience. Let them do their thing - be receptive to every opportunity that they reach out to you for guidance - you and they will be fine. When you get into "I'm not going to let....." shit changes because intent comes in second.

@SLBushway ahhh. I see the confusion. and I can see how it reads that way.

in the long form, I meant "I'm not going to sit idle and let them be indoctrinated".

I simply meant I took a very active role in showing them the flaws and woo inherent to religious belief, not that I sat them down every night and shoved "religion bad" at them every moment of the day.

@SLBushway and we are fine. 17 and 22, both very strong atheists, with no time for religious nonsense and only a passing interest in other superstitious stuff. It worked. I feel successful, not just in preventing them from being religious, but in teaching them why it is just all bullshit. Not teaching them "this is all bullshit", but how to tell for themselves that it is.

I do not agree that forcing a child to accept the world as a rational ordered place that can be understood is as offensive as forcing them to accept superstition and magic.

@HereticSin They had Buddhist monks in their house teaching them backdoor Nintendo tricks.
They saw actual Underground Railroad escape pathways in an African Baptist Church.
We've been welcome at Seders and the Feast of Ramadan.

and it's even worse, because believing in Santa Claus is not likely to make them go out and campaign against gays or women's rights, but that is a very real possibility if they get caught up in any of the major world superstitious mythologies.

oh, and so far as I can see, the one's arguing with me are ignoring the part about teaching them logic and science and then exposing them to superstitious belief and showing them how it doesn't match up to reason or reality. they are all reacting as though I'm using the same techniques as religious indoctrination.

I absolutely exposed my children to all of those things, and through sessions of questioning, rationally addressing, and deconstructing the arguments for and against those things helped them to understand why racism is inherently flawed and bad for society, why political ideology is dangerous when it is hammered into boxes instead of addressing issues individually, and how the system is riddled with leftovers from puritanical, patriarchal white elitism, as well as ways to protect themselves against the dangers that represents.

I didn't tell them "you can't believe in God". I showed them why the proposition itself is fundamentally ludicrous, especially from the standpoint of the religious beliefs they were being exposed to. With reason and science.

insightful comment, jondspen, thank you.

Couldn't you make the same claim (that the existence of God lies beyond the scope of scientific inquiry) about the existence of universe-creating pixies, benevolent fairies or friendly dragons? I think the time to take a supernatural claim seriously is after some evidence starts coming in.

It's also possible that many fine people could find motivation to do good if they participated in a community that believed a friendly dragon is watching them and will reward them for good behavior.

you make a very good point, Wallace. I was careful (most of the time, I'm human) to address the difference between what could be disproved and what could not, when dealing with religion and religious claims. But that very lack of any demonstrable evidence is part of the lack of belief. My children believe in things for which there is evidence, and withhold belief when there is not, and they apply it pretty evenly to everything, not just religion.

@HereticSin @AlanMargu
Thanks for the “gentle” disagreements but let me push my view a little further or, rather, try to present it a little more adequately. Basically two points. First, I hold that a lack of evidence in support of a view does not always constitute evidence that the view is false. (In fact, such issues constitute the subject matter of philosophy.) For example, scientists believe without evidence or proof that there is such a thing as truth, that there is a world outside of the scientist’s consciousness, that here are other consciousnesses in this world besides the scientist’s own, that
for every event there is an explanation as to why it happened, etc., etc. These, and like assumptions, are presupposed to be true going in to scientific inquiry; they are not the result of the inquiry and, indeed, no result at all would follow without them. Of course, I think all these are good beliefs, but none are supported by evidence. Rather, they are “basic beliefs,” prior to evidence. Now, some people have claimed that the existence of God is likewise a basic belief (for them).

Second, contrary to the claim that there is no evidence in support of theism, many theists contend that there is quite ample evidence to support belief in the existence of God. Now if someone proposed that dragons or pixies exist we would naturally ask to see some evidence—given that these are not “basic beliefs”; and if no support could be shown we would be correct in dismissing these theories. But if some argument or evidence were proposed in support of the belief we should analyze it and be willing to accept the view if we found the support to be cogent. Otherwise we would be able to show why and how the proposed support fails. There have been many attempts to support theism through the centuries, with the most popular four being the cosmological, teleological, ontological, and moral arguments for the existence of God.

I taught undergraduate philosophy of religion for 3+ decades at a southern university in the USA. Most of my students were conservative protestants, but occasionally one from an “enlightened home” would pronounce all religious belief to be superstitious to begin with. Often (always?) by the end of the course each would apologize for his/her initial arrogance.

Now my fear is that your proposed direction for child-rearing in this matter would tend toward a dismissive attitude toward theism rather than a more informed critique of what is conceptually deficient about it. I doubt that you would want this. Peace.

@Wallace Matt Dillahunty on the Atheist Experience podcast has shown why each of the arguments for theism are fallacious. If you believe strongly in one of them and think you can make a strong case, you would reach hundreds of thousands of atheists with your argument.

I'm a little pressed for time, but it seemed like you were equating the natural world assumption that 1) parts of the universe (or multiverse) are beyond present-day scientists' awareness with 2) a benevolent being exists that built the entire universe with human beings as his central creation. One is a mere step from what we already know. The other is a quantum leap into fantasy. That it's a popular and cherished fantasy with bad arguments that have convinced non-critical thinkers doesn't make it worthy of being called a "basic belief." It's widespread delusion.

@Wallace you are not wrong in any way that I can see. thank you for the informed and clear response.

I am more than willing at any point to discuss the topics of knowledge, honest inquiry, and a apriori assumptions in both science and philosophy, but I'll leave that for another post.

Yes, my attitude toward religion is dismissive. There is no functional use for theism within the broader spectrum of reality. If there were, it would be evident by now. The functional use it had in creating coherent societies had led to tribalism and outgrouping to a far greater degree than any benefit it had. It is, in short, in my opinion, a social tool which served a purpose long gone, and has outlived its usefulness to the point of becoming at best neutral, and at worst detrimental, so societies.

to some degree, it would actually depend on the nature of their superstitions and mythology. but I don't really worry about it. 17 and 22 and neither has any interest in any of that.

yep, and there is probably no difference at all between the two points.

"I try very hard to make my kid believe in reality" and "I try very hard to make my kid believe fairy tales" are equally repugnant.

@HereticSin So, let me boil this down a bit.

“I try very hard to make my kid believe in reality.”
If said by you, that means religion is false. If said by theist, that means religion is true. Do I need break down the second quote?

I know perfectly well what it means.

let me break this down: I am hostile to religious belief. it is false. most of it is demonstrably false, the rest is assumably false based on a preponderance of evidence.

IF one of my kids, using a scientific understanding of the world, came across actual evidence for a god, they would tell me I was wrong, show me I was wrong, and convince me I was wrong. because even if I teach them that the current claims of mythology are wrong, teaching them to see reality will allow them to see where I am wrong as well.

@indirect76 IF you want to let your kids decide to believe in a system of fairy tales that says gays are bad and women are servants, that non-believers are animals and magic sky daddy will fix problems, go ahead. I didn't say "people shouldn't do that". I said I don't.

@indirect76 lastly, I clearly outlined the basic method. if you think "by teaching them reason and science and then showing them how superstitions don't match up to reality" is equal to "by making them fear hellfire and explaining that the proven fact of evolution is false", then you are wrong. they are not the same, they will never be the same.

@PalacinkyPDX yep, and the my way or the highway approach is rarely the best way of going about things.

kids don't rebel against "2+2 = 4" if you shove it down their throats. they believe it BECAUSE it is repeatedly demonstrated to be true.

also, "shove it down their throats" is a trigger phrase I generally avoid. we shove potty training down their throats, they learn to use the potty. we shove using utensils down their throats, they learn to use utensils. I actually didn't do either of those things, I spent time showing them the advantage and disadvantages, and allowing them to see how adults did things, and helping them do it right while expressing that it was okay to make mistakes.

people misread the intensity of my post and think I'm glaring at my kids and ranting about religion, but I'm not. that intensity is my feeling about superstitious belief, not my interaction with my children.

now, I do mock and ridicule the more ridiculous religious beliefs and hypocrisies in front of them. but I mock bad reasoning of any sort in front of them, so they both understand it is not the person I am mocking, but the baseless superstition, hypocrisy, and bad reasoning involved in the beliefs.

I really love your response. Right on.

when my oldest was about 8 or 9 I was talking to her about how animals of the same type get different coloring (natural camoflauge and sexual dimorphism). She said, basically, "I thought God just made them that way". she spent a lot of time with religious relatives at that time.

I did not say "some people believe that. I don't, and here's why". I said "No, he didn't, that's a thing superstitious people say because they don't understand what really happened". I then showed her a little simple "evolution" game on the computer, involving things that have to rise up to get food that is going over head at different heights. the little beings in the game started out all the same height, and able to rise at varying levels. if they didn't get enough food, they died, and were replaced by another one of the original height. if they did, they would die but be replaced by one either taller or shorter. I showed her how this related to offspring, and explained about dying before you have kids. she was able to understand while watching the "game" play out how they related. as the overall group of beings started getting taller, she was able to figure out what they happened without me telling her, starting from base principles.

kids aren't stupid, but they are easily manipulated, and I didn't take a passive role in eradicating those superstitions every time someone else tried to implant them.

@HereticSin you did the right thing. it is not necessary to say "some people believe that and i don't and here's why." you can be more emphatic. however, it may be confusing even to a bright child why people -- even relatives she loves -- believe that, and that means admitting that those people, or some people, do. i felt it was important information. there are, however, many ways to impart information. what works for you works for you!

g

@JustLynnie yes, exposure is inevitable unless you lock your kid in a tower, so why not take the upper hand there? and teaching him to question everything is important, especially along with that exposure. but there are different kinds of exposure, and exposure without comment could be dangerous. i know people who will just take their kid to different churches and let them see what they like. i wouldn't do that! i think if i exposed the kid to that, i would certainly put it in a context, verbally.

g

@JustLynnie yes, Lynnie, I they both have a grounding in the history of the mythologies of several cultures. they were exposed to it every time it came up, with short lessons on the reasons for the beliefs, their relationship to cultural values, and how we came to know they were wrong.

@genessa this was one of the hardest parts for me. separating my disdain for the belief from the people actually trying to indoctrinate them was difficult. it helped that I got along with those relatives, so they could see us interact respectfully, have fun together, share family events.

@HereticSin i should imagine so!

g

Cant edit but that was meant to say solidified. And "spouting 'im an atheist'" stupid talk to text.