• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

As to beliefs ...

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Well, it is a bit more complex than that, because it is not really about religion as such. It is about what narratives we have for the world and how we ought to live in the world and interact with each other.
And religion is a subset of that and not the only way to in effect claim objective authority.
So what you are saying is that the children shouldn't be taught objective authoritative systems, but that even include that critical thinking and skepticism can be taught as with objective authority.
I'd prefer that children were taught to think and question before being indoctrinated - but then the classrooms might be uncontrollable. :eek:
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I'd prefer that children were taught to think and question before being indoctrinated - but then the classrooms might be uncontrollable. :eek:

You can't teach them that before the age of 12 in general. And even that has limits due to in effect complex factors.
You are in effect doing a one factor solution. Teach them critical thinking.
Yeah, but from being connected to education for over 20 years, that is not that simple.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
You can't teach them that before the age of 12 in general. And even that has limits due to in effect complex factors.
You are in effect doing a one factor solution. Teach them critical thinking.
Yeah, but from being connected to education for over 20 years, that is not that simple.
Yeah, I know this, and hence why I so dislike religious teaching.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
What, if anything, do you believe in?
Written especially for you. :D

 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Can you rephrase that?
I'd prefer that children were not indoctrinated with religious beliefs especially, and allowed to develop their full potential as human beings regardless of where they were born and regardless of who their parents happened to be or where they lived - basically. That is, give them enough to develop as unconstrained as is feasible but with the obvious, and usually universal, morality that enables them to be useful and satisfied citizens of the world - rather than of some particular country or belief system. Not going to happen soon though, if ever.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I'd prefer that children were not indoctrinated with religious beliefs especially, and allowed to develop their full potential as human beings regardless of where they were born and regardless of who their parents happened to be or where they lived - basically. That is, give them enough to develop as unconstrained as is feasible but with the obvious, and usually universal, morality that enables them to be useful and satisfied citizens of the world - rather than of some particular country or belief system. Not going to happen soon though, if ever.

Yeah, that is too simple in effect. It is a noble idea, but the praxis is a bit more complex than just stating the ideal.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Written especially for you. :D


Okay, thanks for that.

Now, given that man is a social species; and in light of all the evidence that we are best equipped to thrive when acting collectively; what do you see as the tangible benefits of autonomy and self-reliance? Isn’t that just the ego talking, or pride if you prefer to call it that?
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
I think you are deceiving yourself if you think you can learn how not to be deceived.

The reason I say this is because we all assess reality and truth based on a paradigm of reality and truth that we have already developed and hold to in our minds. And however flawed that paradigm may be, we will use it to determine reality and truth for ourselves going forward. And it's very difficult for us to re-assess these internally held paradigms because we can't step outside of ourselves and look back in with an unbiased mind's eye. So, we are what we think we are. And reality is what we think it is. And these will determine what we think the truth of reality is going forward because they are what we have to work with.

If we are honest, we already know that these internal paradigms of ours are limited, and flawed, and cause us to misperceive and misunderstand ourselves and the world around us all the time. But because we have no easy means of assessing them, or rebuilding them, most of us simply prefer to ignore their shortcomings whenever possible. Whatever we think real is becomes reality to us. Whatever we think the truth is becomes the truth to us. And we're only going to correct ourselves if we're forced to by some specific circumstance.

We can pretend that we are gathering all the evidence and that we're testing it scientifically or philosophically or whatever, and so are developing the "correct" paradigm through which to assess reality and truth. But the truth is that we don't actually have any way of doing that. Because whatever biased paradigm we currently hold is going to be determining what we think the "evidence" is. And is also going to be setting whatever bar we hold for determining the truthfulness of that evidence. There's just no way around ourselves and our innate cognitive biases and limitations.

All we can really do is just stay as honest and open-minded as we can. And try not to hold too tightly to whatever paradigm of reality and truth it is that we are holding onto in our minds and using to assess them. ... Don't allow our egos to constantly auto-defend it, as our ego will certainly do if it's left unchecked.
Cultural Knowledge is like a large mansion, that is supported, with a foundation of premises. This intellectual foundation, often taken for granted, will structure your mind a certain way, like the foundation of a house decides how the house can be built; shape and height. Only in places with extra support, can you safely build higher.

For example, when the earth was assumed to be flat, this single foundation premise, that everyone knew and blindly accepted; matter of fact, would structure your mind and cause you to see a flat world. All your subsequent logic and data collection became structured by that foundation, as people built explanations for the details of their flat earth.

Science evolves when someone is able to sister in an extra beam, to hold more weight, or replace part of the foundation. Before that, even scientists, will see that they are expected to see.

There is a way to find truth. It involves going into the sub-basement of the House of Knowledge, and looking at the cornerstones and foundations premises, to make sure what is being built upon this foundation is not overloaded; exceeding code. In my experience, even if you point things out, people are so unaware of the impact of foundation premises, that they only look at the new construction and assume it must meet code since the logic is sound.

As a modern example, DNA will not work in any solvent but water. Water came first and DNA evolved in water, with water a critical co-partner behind the dynamics of DNA. There is a double helix of water within the major and minor grooves of the DNA double helix.

Yet all the textbooks still show naked DNA, which is not even bio-active in that form. This foundation premise; naked DNA is alive, is blindly accepted, while being obsolete by simple observations. It is a poor foundation premise that persists. It is not easy to change this, since so many things depend on this foundation and if you tamper with a foundation, even for good, cracks can form on the walls. It is often better to ignore the problem, than have to touch up, everything.

I sort of blame this blindness on another foundation premise, which I call casino science. This foundation premise assume life is connected to the world of dice and cards. It tries to explain the co-partnership of water without water using dice and cards. This premise does not promote clarity of thinking and seeing. It see life as a casino of card tables and slot machines. This fuzzy dice approach can be intoxicating.

Statistics is a useful tool, but it is was never meant to be a foundation premise. It is like a hammer being used, as a shim, to raise up the sagging corner of a house. Now it is part of the foundation, buying time before you need to fix the foundation, properly. I sort of try to take the hammer out, so it can used for reinforcing the corner, and not just shimming it to buy time.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Well a bit of searching reveals:





That apostasy even exists is a bad mark (totally ridiculous really) against Islam, but even if many aren't so enthusiastic as to the death penalty for such, it might affect their leaving Islam.




These two examples alone must count for a large number, even perhaps a majority of believers.

What percent of those raised non-religious are still non-religious?
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Well, I don't dislike religious teaching. I dislike any teaching including some religious teaching but not just that subset for the effect of objective authority.
I dislike it for the very young. No issues if those older want to learn more about any particular religion or all religions.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
What percent of those raised non-religious are still non-religious?
But we were discussing how religion is often inflicted upon children and the likelihood of them being released from such later on. And some evidence provided seems to show it is not so easy unless living in a relatively free and multicultural country - where religious beliefs are not so important as to defining one.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Okay, thanks for that.

Now, given that man is a social species; and in light of all the evidence that we are best equipped to thrive when acting collectively; what do you see as the tangible benefits of autonomy and self-reliance? Isn’t that just the ego talking, or pride if you prefer to call it that?
If we all had autonomy then perhaps so many wouldn't be persuaded and voting for the sweet-talkers so prevalent in politics. And apart from enabling one to do more things on one's own, so building self-confidence, I think it also probably makes it less likely as to being persuaded by false arguments.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
If we all had autonomy then perhaps so many wouldn't be persuaded and voting for the sweet-talkers so prevalent in politics. And apart from enabling one to do more things on one's own, so building self-confidence, I think it also probably makes it less likely as to being persuaded by false arguments.
We do have autonomy. We just don't want it a lot of the time. Exercising one's autonomy is hard, courageous work. Most of us prefer to "run with the pack". It's much safer that way. And a lot less work. Where do you think these indoctrination type cultures came from? We made them up, ourselves, because we like them. We want to live in them. Most of us, do, anyway. (Not me, I'm an artist. I've been fighting with the status quo all my life. But I'm not naive enough to think everyone else is like me.) Religions provide that "us, together" sense of security for people. And a lot of people like it. They want it. And indoctrination is how they get themselves and keep themselves 'aligned' with each other. Right or wrong.

I understand why you don't like it because I don't like it, either. It's certainly not for me. But I'm not everyone. And I'm not like everyone. I'm the odd duck that doesn't crave that sense of security and respect within the pack. Just the opposite. I'm the one asking all the questions that the pack doesn't want to think about. And pointing out all the things the pack doesn't want to see about themselves. That's my nature.

But it's not the nature of most of my fellow humans. It's just not. And maybe that's a good thing, over all, in spite of it not being a particularly good thing for me.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
But we were discussing how religion is often inflicted upon children

This language begs the question. Are values and beliefs "inflicted" on children or taught to them? Do non-religious parents not "inflict" children with beliefs and values?

and the likelihood of them being released from such later on. And some evidence provided seems to show it is not so easy unless living in a relatively free and multicultural country - where religious beliefs are not so important as to defining one.

It's also not easy if living in an anti-religious culture to leave one's irreligious worldview and join a religion. The bigger issue there seems to be pluralism/liberalism, not religiosity.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Well, in general is more about the level of cognition a person has and if they have been exposed to a wide array of critical thinking and not just science.
But @PureX point stands. In effect for a skeptic like me truth, evidence and all those are belief system just like religion. I just try to be honest about mine and how I have faith in the end, even though I am in practice more of a naturalist than a supernaturalist,
In short we don't know that we know. We believe we know.
We do know. Problem is that it's only temporary.

Death sees to it, and death itself isn't a belief.
 
Top