1 on 1: Whether it is OK for secular parents to teach their kids heaven-going

[Brickjectivity]

Participants: Animore vs Brickjectivity
Animore has graciously agreed to argue "Yes it is OK for secular parents to teach their kids that dead people go to heaven."
Brick has graciously agreed to argue "No it is not OK for secular parents to teach their kids that dead people go to heaven."

 

[Brickjectivity]

For my opening argument...

If a person is secular and does not believe in heaven going, then why would they teach their children to think otherwise? It makes no sense for them to do that!

 

[Animore]

Yes, it sounds ridiculous at first. However, when I agreed to this position, it was not simply intended to be a concrete, though-out statement. Rather, I feel that telling children about the Judeo-Christian God is similar to telling children about Santa Clause. Richard Dawkins is quoted on saying, and I am paraphrasing here, "You'd think they'd grow out of God if they grow out of Santa Clause."

Let's look at the similarities here:

-Both are supernatural entities.

-Both are (arguably) benevolent entities who allegedly wish goodwill toward man.

-Both are learned in childhood.

-Both are improbable concepts.

Now, of course, the last one is debatable, but this is a debate, and what could be a better place for a debate on the probability on the existence of the Judeo-Christian God than a secular vs. religious debate.

I will first let you continue with your next statement.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Sorry, but I am not debating the existence of God. Keeping it simple we will just presume that the secular people are right about begin secular. Your plaque says you are agnostic, so this should be easy for you. Then the question is why do they sometimes teach heaven going to their children and whether its OK or not. For example a child is going to die. Is it OK to teach them that they will go to heaven in that case. I was going to argue no. I thought you were going to argue yes.

 

[Animore]

Sorry, but I am not debating the existence of God. Keeping it simple we will just presume that the secular people are right about begin secular. Your plaque says you are agnostic, so this should be easy for you. Then the question is why do they sometimes teach heaven going to their children and whether its OK or not. For example a child is going to die. Is it OK to teach them that they will go to heaven in that case. I was going to argue no. I thought you were going to argue yes.

Oh. Well then, I had a wrong idea about the debate. Apologies, may I revise my opening statement?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Oh. Well then, I had a wrong idea about the debate. Apologies, may I revise my opening statement?

Of course! If you're willing to keep going then please do.

 

[Animore]

Of course! If you're willing to keep going then please do.

Alright, wonderful.

 

[Animore]

When debating on whether it is practical, per say, to tell a child that heaven exists or not, we must first look at the issue on a grander scale.

At youth a child is pure, innocent, and full of joy and curiosity about the world. Now, imagine taking that joy, stomping on it, then throwing it down the gutter - an innocent whose hopes and dreams were crushed because of the necessity to be "rational" and "realistic" about the world? Does this seem healthy for that child? Does this seem like a nice thing to do to an innocent youth who has curiosity about the cosmos and its mechanics? No, it doesn't. It seems like a dick move, pardon the French. For someone who advocates rationality, it is not worth crushing a child's joy for the terrestrial ball.

Now, one might argue, "Well, if they never hear of the concept of heaven, they'll never be crushed." This is not so much about heaven as it is death. Imagine telling a child that after you die, that's it. Everything you know and love stops. For good. End of story. A child is not meant for these ideas. A child is not meant to learn about a soul-crushing, heart-squishing, joy-shattering "reality" like that. It can bring about enormous psychological detriment. And if keeping a child's happiness is worth lying to that child, so be it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I can see you are not going to make this easy, but my perspective has the advantage.

Denial doesn't help the innocent child. They aren't the ones dealing with guilt. Who are the parents really helping by deceiving the child? They are helping themselves. It is a selfish action, a self medicating action, a refusal to continue.

Worse it causes harm for the survivors. The two faced parents also may harm the child's siblings who may witness the parental deceit, wrongly demonstrating to them that it is OK to refuse to deal with objections and to simply deny the existence of problems. By lying about death the parents fail to help anyone but themselves. The denial doesn't do away with death or help the siblings to thrive, and it doesn't motivate the parents to change, to try and deal with whatever caused their child to die. Therefore the denial may actually result in further deaths through negligence and wasting the innovations that might have been embraced. Instead these people try hard to go forward as if they'd never had a child, learning nothing. Their child, rather than being honored in death is doubly buried.

As you say, let us imagine telling a child that death is the end. For good. End of story. What will they do with it? They should immediately be grateful for their lives and seek to stay healthy. They will be motivated to improve their lives, and their love for family may extend that. They will benefit greatly. They will know that pain and pleasure both cease in the end and that all else is a gift.

 

[Animore]

Denial doesn't help the innocent child. They aren't the ones dealing with guilt. Who are the parents really helping by deceiving the child? They are helping themselves. It is a selfish action, a self medicating action, a refusal to continue.

How, at all, is this a selfish action by the parents? What goal can be achieved here? What victory won? What grand achievement do they have (or think they have) in which they could march around the room feeling good about themselves? None. It is not a selfish action, it is in many ways a helpful action. Nevertheless, I do not see ANY WAY that these parents could achieve personal satisfaction from the lying to their child. What self-medication would this be? What joy could a secularist have in lying to a pure, innocent child? None. It is not a "nice" position to take. No one says this. But signs of true morality is to protect those that are weaker than you, physically, and psychologically.

Worse it causes harm for the survivors. The two faced parents also may harm the child's siblings who may witness the parental deceit, wrongly demonstrating to them that it is OK to refuse to deal with objections and to simply deny the existence of problems. By lying about death the parents fail to help anyone but themselves. The denial doesn't do away with death or help the siblings to thrive, and it doesn't motivate the parents to change, to try and deal with whatever caused their child to die. Therefore the denial may actually result in further deaths through negligence and wasting the innovations that might have been embraced. Instead these people try hard to go forward as if they'd never had a child, learning nothing. Their child, rather than being honored in death is doubly buried.

Two-faced? The word requires a negative aspect, in which you have not proven. I fail to see how it is such a sick and grueling, and selfish act to give your child security in his life. One should not explain such a position of nothingness just like one should not explain death and murder and rape to the child - it corrupts them, and scars them. It is not fit for a child to learn of such things. Let the child live in bliss. Why are you in favor of scarring the child? Again, I fail to see how this is selfish. Protecting an innocent youth from the cold, dark road until they are old enough to think? How could that be a selfish act?

Motivate the parents to change? What change are you speaking of? A change in character? Why is one needed? Again, I ask, what is the selfishness of shielding those who are too blind to see?

As you say, let us imagine telling a child that death is the end. For good. End of story. What will they do with it? They should immediately be grateful for their lives and seek to stay healthy. They will be motivated to improve their lives, and their love for family may extend that. They will benefit greatly. They will know that pain and pleasure both cease in the end and that all else is a gift.

What good will it do to a four, or five, or six year old? Do you assume that they are that capable of such complex thought? That they are old enough to be grateful of a life that has no meaning? It is shown many a-time that a childhood is the basis of life. Up to the age of ten, the human brain sucks up information. One knows the over-reactions such youths have, we have been that age. How much will they act when they realize that the Earth has no meaning for living on it?

In conclusion, I fail to see your position having the advantage. Revealing something that they are not ready to know, potentially ruining their childhood? That is not something one should strive for when parenting.

 

[Brickjectivity]

How, at all, is this a selfish action by the parents? What goal can be achieved here? What victory won? What grand achievement do they have (or think they have) in which they could march around the room feeling good about themselves? None. It is not a selfish action, it is in many ways a helpful action. Nevertheless, I do not see ANY WAY that these parents could achieve personal satisfaction from the lying to their child. What self-medication would this be? What joy could a secularist have in lying to a pure, innocent child? None. It is not a "nice" position to take. No one says this. But signs of true morality is to protect those that are weaker than you, physically, and psychologically.

Every night children sleep. Children can understand that sleep brings relief from pain, from duty, from mistakes, from all negatives. There is no need to overcomplicate it, but to comfort themselves people do overcomplicate it. They want to envision their child's future life. They experience irrational guilt over the child's death. They are tempted to lie to themselves, and so they lie to the child.

Two-faced? The word requires a negative aspect, in which you have not proven. I fail to see how it is such a sick and grueling, and selfish act to give your child security in his life. One should not explain such a position of nothingness just like one should not explain death and murder and rape to the child - it corrupts them, and scars them. It is not fit for a child to learn of such things. Let the child live in bliss. Why are you in favor of scarring the child? Again, I fail to see how this is selfish. Protecting an innocent youth from the cold, dark road until they are old enough to think? How could that be a selfish act?

There is no need to explain nothingness. The child has gone to sleep every night for their entire life. It is only the parent who imagines that their feeling of loss equates to nothingness, but their feeling of nothingness is a pain that the child need never feel. The child is not nothing either, but the child is still alive in the past and continues to have in influence on the future of the world through the waves they make during life. Nothing is the same since that child, and every life matters. Their breath and influence spreads out into the world having an increasing influence over time. The parent who lies about death is denying that very thing, that very difference that the dead person still makes. Life matters, and so honesty about death does too.

Motivate the parents to change? What change are you speaking of? A change in character? Why is one needed? Again, I ask, what is the selfishness of shielding those who are too blind to see?

Continuous improvement.

What good will it do to a four, or five, or six year old? Do you assume that they are that capable of such complex thought? That they are old enough to be grateful of a life that has no meaning? It is shown many a-time that a childhood is the basis of life. Up to the age of ten, the human brain sucks up information. One knows the over-reactions such youths have, we have been that age. How much will they act when they realize that the Earth has no meaning for living on it?

The question of meaning is indeed an adult question, not something that occurs to children; so they don't need answers and are not prepared to process them. The meaning of life is an adult problem, and anyone who can wonder about the meaning of life can see it is meaningful for themselves. Sleep is a concrete idea and is very simple to explain through common experience. Even words are unnecessary.

In conclusion, I fail to see your position having the advantage. Revealing something that they are not ready to know, potentially ruining their childhood? That is not something one should strive for when parenting.

Who is trying to put something into their heads that they don't understand? It is the parent trying to make death into a lie. Its no different from saying that sleep is evil and must be avoided. You get a few extra hours out of it, but then you collapse anyway. Just admit that everyone needs sleep and everyone needs death. Its the truth.

 

[Animore]

May we continue this debate tomorrow?

 

[Brickjectivity]

May we continue this debate tomorrow?

Sure, tomorrow or later if you want. There's no hurry, and there's no need to conclude, win, lose etc.