Dec. 20th, 2006
I doubt a child can articulate the difference between "don't touch the electric socket" and "don't touch the cracks in the pavement or the bears'll get you", but I think they understand one. Most of the time, they'll act on the former rather than the latter, but in their head, all jostle equally for space.
We encourage this with little fables like "Eat your crusts and it'll make your hair curl" and "Father Christmas" and "Jack and the Beanstalk" and "Newton's laws" that aren't exactly true, but we say, and expect to be "believed".
And on the whole it seems to do most people little harm and possibly a lot of good (though there are occasional unfortunate moments).
However, isn't this exactly the way many adults work? People believe "Eskimos have 500 words for snow" and "Aliens visit earth" and "astrology works" and a lot of the time don't put as much weight in them as day-to-day things, but fight vociferously for their right to believe it. And yet this really annoys me (see also the furore on science reporting, eg. in language log).
Is there a fundamental difference? Is it more important that adults know what truth is? Do most people grow out of it? Or is it just normal and I should let them be happy?
We encourage this with little fables like "Eat your crusts and it'll make your hair curl" and "Father Christmas" and "Jack and the Beanstalk" and "Newton's laws" that aren't exactly true, but we say, and expect to be "believed".
And on the whole it seems to do most people little harm and possibly a lot of good (though there are occasional unfortunate moments).
However, isn't this exactly the way many adults work? People believe "Eskimos have 500 words for snow" and "Aliens visit earth" and "astrology works" and a lot of the time don't put as much weight in them as day-to-day things, but fight vociferously for their right to believe it. And yet this really annoys me (see also the furore on science reporting, eg. in language log).
Is there a fundamental difference? Is it more important that adults know what truth is? Do most people grow out of it? Or is it just normal and I should let them be happy?
PS. Relevence of that to religion
Dec. 20th, 2006 04:59 pmA large and difficult example is religion. When I was 5, I don't remember it very well, but I was atheist[1] because my parents were, but could mouth a lot of platitudes about God that I learnt at school. But that never really affected my daily life in any way except for odd musings about God floating around in space, dodging the moon :)
FWIW, firstly, I don't mind any of that, and don't think it had any particular effect on me, good or bad, now I've a chance to decide for myself.
And secondly, observe that teaching some superficial religion to me never made any difference to me. If someone had got across the idea that God was a person I was talking to and asking for things, well, it might have made a difference to me, but the main impression I had was that it was like Father Christmas, a ritual you went through when you were supposed to, and a set of words you said on demand, and never *thought* about.
But I wonder, could you do any different? Probably the default way to raise a child wrt beliefs is that the parents, school, and TV agree and tell the child what they believe, and later on explain what some other people think, and not forbid it if the child is interested, and hope they come back. This seems to work more or less.
But sooner or later, there'll be a conflict. It could be soon if the parents disagree about something important. And it's impossible to bring a child up as a blank slate. Even if you could decide which beliefs are positive and which negative, it's not automatically right to teach only the negative ones.
And yet, can you teach a "wait and see" approach? It seems likely the best you can manage if you teach both is *two* different fairy stories neither of which are truly believed.
[1] Do you use "atheist" for someone who doesn't believe in God, however you define that, or only for someone who have thought about it and made a positive decision to reject it? I have kinship with the latter, but have always used the word for the former, to the consternation of some who assume the other way round, since only decisive atheists are vocal about it.
FWIW, firstly, I don't mind any of that, and don't think it had any particular effect on me, good or bad, now I've a chance to decide for myself.
And secondly, observe that teaching some superficial religion to me never made any difference to me. If someone had got across the idea that God was a person I was talking to and asking for things, well, it might have made a difference to me, but the main impression I had was that it was like Father Christmas, a ritual you went through when you were supposed to, and a set of words you said on demand, and never *thought* about.
But I wonder, could you do any different? Probably the default way to raise a child wrt beliefs is that the parents, school, and TV agree and tell the child what they believe, and later on explain what some other people think, and not forbid it if the child is interested, and hope they come back. This seems to work more or less.
But sooner or later, there'll be a conflict. It could be soon if the parents disagree about something important. And it's impossible to bring a child up as a blank slate. Even if you could decide which beliefs are positive and which negative, it's not automatically right to teach only the negative ones.
And yet, can you teach a "wait and see" approach? It seems likely the best you can manage if you teach both is *two* different fairy stories neither of which are truly believed.
[1] Do you use "atheist" for someone who doesn't believe in God, however you define that, or only for someone who have thought about it and made a positive decision to reject it? I have kinship with the latter, but have always used the word for the former, to the consternation of some who assume the other way round, since only decisive atheists are vocal about it.