Should we teach kids that our beliefs are true?

[ChristineM]

Should we teach kids that our beliefs are true?

Absolutely not, but teach them to examine their beliefs against evidence and of course the definition of truth.

Truth :
1 in accordance with fact or reality
2 accurate or exact.

If beliefs dont dont meet these criteria then how xan the be true?

 

[Quintessence]

If beliefs dont dont meet these criteria then how xan the be true?

Quite easily, for a couple of reasons.

The first relates to the problem of defining what "reality" is, given that's a philosophical problem that has no clear answer. Different cultures and individuals approach that question in many ways. With many ways of establishing what "real" means, it is not difficult to end up with many ways of establishing what "truth" means even if we restrict "truth" in the fashion you have chosen to. That brings up the second bit.

"The definition" of truth is not as straightforward as you present. Humans worldwide all accept various axioms as truths because they are things taught to them by their culture. This is reflected in the dictionary I consulted, which did not list "accurate or exact" but instead "a fact or belief that is accepted as true." Socially/culturally accepted truths play a large role in establish cultural norms and values, which serve to provide needed social cohesion and meaningfulness in life. Religious truths deal principally with this kind of truth called mythos rather than fact-based truths or logos. We are all taught both more or less as we are culturalized by our society.

I kinda wish we were more explicitly taught about the different types of truths in our schooling. The various types of truth are useful and important, as is distinguishing between them. Failing to distinguish between them is the root of mythological literalism, an unfortunate distortion of mythos that interprets it as if it were logos instead. I see theists and atheists in my country more or less equally guilty of conflating the various types of truth. Not sure which I find more annoying, though.

A decent essay on the mythos/logos thing is available on Religious Tolerance here - http://www.religioustolerance.org/humphreys23.htm - though has some wonky formatting issues.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yup, I'm going to have to start that stuff and dispute this because what a culture deems worthy of worship - what they deify or designate as sacred - is a direct extension of that culture's values.

Ultimately, I think that a culture's values and norms can all too easily be taught without invoking any make-believe. How we treat one another as humans is an entirely realistic endeavor that cannot be witnessed/proved/inferred to involve anything that doesn't readily present itself in our shared reality. And I am of the opinion that when we do invoke those things and make our values/morals/norms surround something fictitious it only ever convolutes and confuses matters. You can easily refer to something as "sacred" without granting it a status that implies that it has some intent over your life and livelihood. There should be valid reasons for things... not just warm and fuzzy dictates. Never "do as I say", but instead "This is precisely why we do this."

 

[The Reverend Bob]

So I aim to raise my children as free thinkers

So you aim to teach your kids that your beliefs are true.

I raise them with secular values

So you aim to teach your kids that your beliefs are true.

If your position is logical, and you raise them to be critical thinkers, they should reach the same conclusion as you.

So you aim to teach your kids that your beliefs are true.

 

[columbus]

You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned raising them to be critical thinkers. Teach them how to think, how to analyze data logically, and let them draw their own conclusions.

Worked for me.
My conservative Catholic parents popped for tuition at good Catholic schools. The schools taught me to think for myself and look at evidence before drawing conclusions.
By the time I was in high school I was a nontheist. But I also knew better than to say that to anybody, so I didn't. I graduated from 12 years of Christian education a hard atheist who was very good at learning what would be asked on tests in Religion class and knowing the answers expected by the teacher.

But I had already come to the realization that religion is fiction and now, decades later, nobody has given me reason to reconsider.
Tom

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So you aim to teach your kids that your beliefs are true.

So you aim to teach your kids that your beliefs are true.

So you aim to teach your kids that your beliefs are true.

Has nothing to do with "beliefs." Has to do with positions held that have substantial evidentiary backing or demonstrable reasoning. Always give your kids valuable and solid reasons for things... never "this is just the way it is." And if you ever find yourself saying "this is just the way it is," how about try being honest instead and replying with "I don't know?"

 

[stvdv]

I like this post. I won't have children, but I think it's good to be aware of the consequences/impact of what/how you teach children about God (or not)

So I aim to raise my children as free thinkers - I don't intend to share my theoligical position with them in case it colours their own thinking. I raise them with secular values (everyone deserves respect, sexual orientation doesn't matter, slavery is wrong etc) but as far as any god belief goes I won't go into it with them.

I might tell: Believe what you want: atheism, theism, humanism, xxxism. With Love you respect feelings/beliefs of others [Do(not) unto others what ...]

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Has nothing to do with "beliefs." Has to do with positions held that have substantial evidentiary backing or demonstrable reasoning. Always give your kids valuable and solid reasons for things... never "this is just the way it is." And if you ever find yourself saying "this is just the way it is," how about try being honest instead and replying with "I don't know?"

Secularism is an ideology

 

[stvdv]

My question is for both atheists and theists. If your position is logical, and you raise them to be critical thinkers, they should reach the same conclusion as you. If your position is religious, god should surely show them the light... why do we feel it's so important for our kids to believe the same things as us? If we raise them with the values that we believe to be good, shouldn't that be enough?

Others need not believe like I believe because:
1) Truth transcends EGO
2) Universal Truth trancends Worldly truth
3) I don't know The Universal Truth

 

[stvdv]

My question is for both atheists and theists. If your position is logical, and you raise them to be critical thinkers, they should reach the same conclusion as you. If your position is religious, god should surely show them the light... why do we feel it's so important for our kids to believe the same things as us? If we raise them with the values that we believe to be good, shouldn't that be enough?

Sometimes not enough (I met plenty of people who really thought their values were the best, but found out they could improve ... #MeToo)

 

[stvdv]

God belief isnt a value, its a belief ... just before anyone starts with that stuff

"Belief" is per definition not "TheTruth", otherwise you better call it "BeTruth" ... so if others want "TheTruth" they better don't follow "MyBelief"

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Secularism is an ideology

One that intrinsically relies on evidential backing for all conclusions it has/will come to. Hence the reason it patently rejects religious involvement.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

One that intrinsically relies on evidential backing for all conclusions it has/will come to. Hence the reason it patently rejects religious involvement.

And being an ideology that makes it a belief system

 

[ChristineM]

Quite easily, for a couple of reasons.

The first relates to the problem of defining what "reality" is, given that's a philosophical problem that has no clear answer. Different cultures and individuals approach that question in many ways. With many ways of establishing what "real" means, it is not difficult to end up with many ways of establishing what "truth" means even if we restrict "truth" in the fashion you have chosen to. That brings up the second bit.

"The definition" of truth is not as straightforward as you present. Humans worldwide all accept various axioms as truths because they are things taught to them by their culture. This is reflected in the dictionary I consulted, which did not list "accurate or exact" but instead "a fact or belief that is accepted as true." Socially/culturally accepted truths play a large role in establish cultural norms and values, which serve to provide needed social cohesion and meaningfulness in life. Religious truths deal principally with this kind of truth called mythos rather than fact-based truths or logos. We are all taught both more or less as we are culturalized by our society.

I kinda wish we were more explicitly taught about the different types of truths in our schooling. The various types of truth are useful and important, as is distinguishing between them. Failing to distinguish between them is the root of mythological literalism, an unfortunate distortion of mythos that interprets it as if it were logos instead. I see theists and atheists in my country more or less equally guilty of conflating the various types of truth. Not sure which I find more annoying, though.

A decent essay on the mythos/logos thing is available on Religious Tolerance here - http://www.religioustolerance.org/humphreys23.htm - though has some wonky formatting issues.

I dont do philosophy, i use definition, the definitions of reality are
1 the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
2 the state or quality of having existence or substance.


And Truth is defined, i presented the OED definitions.
How individuals manipulate "truth" or Truth (note the quotes and capital to differentiate from the actual truth) to suite their own sensibilities is not my problem. I have seen in some quarters that truth can be defined as "that which is believed to be true", it seems to me that that definition flies in the face of fact or reality, accurate or exact.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

And being an ideology that makes it a belief system

Under that definition, everything is a "belief system" - which is pretty much on par with solipsism, which doesn't really get us anywhere.

In the end, secular ideas and evidence will hold up in court - religious-based ideas and evidence will not. Why don't you go think on why that is and then come back to me. The differences are stark and very real, you don't have to acknowledge this for the majority of the rest of the world to do so and move forward without you.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

What exactly are "secular values"?

 

[sealchan]

So I aim to raise my children as free thinkers - I don't intend to share my theoligical position with them in case it colours their own thinking. I raise them with secular values (everyone deserves respect, sexual orientation doesn't matter, slavery is wrong etc) but as far as any god belief goes I won't go into it with them.

My question is for both atheists and theists. If your position is logical, and you raise them to be critical thinkers, they should reach the same conclusion as you. If your position is religious, god should surely show them the light... why do we feel it's so important for our kids to believe the same things as us? If we raise them with the values that we believe to be good, shouldn't that be enough?

God belief isnt a value, its a belief ... just before anyone starts with that stuff

I believe that it is not only a deep need but also a human asset that we "put on truths" in the form of imaginings, beliefs, stories, plays, musical performances, etc... because we must escape reality in order to digest and assimilate reality. To make changes deeper than our conscious selves can self-effect, we need to heed the urgings of subconscious voices whispering...and listen to our fantasies. Give them life before they overwhelm us, but give them limits so that they don't substitute themselves for our shared experience of reality. Whether we call ourselves Christians, Muslims, Furries or Atheists...we put on these stories in our minds and allow them to make us feel and make us think. Then we must in openness and sincerity come back from such fantasies and apply our inspiration and motivation to the work of making ourselves and our society better.

The world that is and the world we imagine are two sides of the same coin...truth is like that.

 

[sealchan]

Under that definition, everything is a "belief system" - which is pretty much on par with solipsism, which doesn't really get us anywhere.

In the end, secular ideas and evidence will hold up in court - religious-based ideas and evidence will not. Why don't you go think on why that is and then come back to me. The differences are stark and very real, you don't have to acknowledge this for the majority of the rest of the world to do so and move forward without you.

It is a solipsism so long as you hold to a "mono-modal" sense of truth...namely that all truth can be known through a single, rational system for determining truth.

As in nature, so in our epistemology, we need more than one way of knowing truth to break free of the issues of self-reference that any single rational way of knowing truth eventually falls into and that lead us to a rational course of self-destruction for the sake of our "one way" of thinking.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It is a solipsism so long as you hold to a "mono-modal" sense of truth...namely that all truth can be known through a single, rational system for determining truth.

As in nature, so in our epistemology, we need more than one way of knowing truth to break free of the issues of self-reference that any single rational way of knowing truth eventually falls into and that lead us to a rational course of self-destruction for the sake of our "one way" of thinking.

All I am calling for is that anything inter-subjectively important that is claimed as "truth" be demonstrable. If it isn't, then it doesn't get to be counted as inter-subjective or objective "truth." Period.

You want to say a painting I think is ugly is beautiful? I'm not going to call foul or ask for a demonstration - I literally do not care... because the difference isn't important. You want to claim that an all-knowing entity (that you cannot in any way demonstrate) created me and will decide what happens to me if I don't follow its rules? We have a problem.

 

[sealchan]

All I am calling for is that anything inter-subjectively important that is claimed as "truth" be demonstrable. If it isn't, then it doesn't get to be counted as inter-subjective or objective "truth." Period.

You want to say a painting I think is ugly is beautiful? I'm not going to call foul or ask for a demonstration - I literally do not care... because the difference isn't important. You want to claim that an all-knowing entity (that you cannot in any way demonstrate) created me and will decide what happens to me if I don't follow its rules? We have a problem.

You destroy too much truth I think with this approach. If, in our inter-subjectivity, we find a lot of variability then that does not mean there is no truth. It just means there is a weak objective view on the matter. Belief, IMO, is a form of art appreciation although it has been perverted into a philosophical, scientific matter. This is because objectivity is given entirely too much emphasis in all areas. What is personal and historical is treated as "only subjective" and no basis for anything of truth-value. In that view most of what makes us ourselves is of no importance.

What is demonstrable is limited to what can be made simple...and perhaps the history of science is the development of technologies that allow us to create simple little corners of the Universe where what happens is reproducible. But the much larger realm of economics and politics and psychology and culture deal with truth as well. Truths often more practical, more consequential and more personal and therefore more real than laboratory determined truths.