PS. Relevence of that to religion
Dec. 20th, 2006 04:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackA 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.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-20 05:56 pm (UTC)People in general, and children most of all, seem to need what can best be called "wonder." "Why is the sky blue? Why is tickling fun? How does the bird know where to get food? Is there something I can do to make good things happen to me more?" We need to seek answers and explanations for the enormous amount of information that pours in through the senses, and filling this need feels good. Theists fill it partly with religion and partly with science and hedonism and other stuff; nontheists leave out the religion part.
Each person balances the aspects of wonder for themselves; nontheists are sort of like vegetarians, in that they abstain from one sort of wonder but fill up on the rest. I'd be afraid that parents who were theists themselves, in attempting to raise a nontheist child, would mistake one sort of wonder for the other and try to stifle all of it (like those crazy people who feed their children non-fat milk and such, not understanding that the kids need the fat to build brain cells). Grownups don't have such a high need for wonder as children do, so it'd be an easy mistake to make.
I've read a few things that seem to indicate that children who are forced to "grow up and be rational" too early (not always due to abuse-- for instance, a child who becomes the caretaker for an ill parent) sometimes miss out on some critical aspects of wonder and end up trying to make that up in the rest of their lives as adults.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-21 12:44 am (UTC)And yes, that sounds plausible...