PS. Relevence of that to religion

[jack]

A 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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I _THINK_ that an atheist is one who believes in the non existence of god as in has made a decision. I also think that an agnostic is someone who has made a decision that they can never know for certain either way. I would conclude that both terms are incorrectly applied to those who have no interest in god related matters and those who are undecided respectively. My memory for the meaning of words is not all it could be so I might be wrong.
Abner

[cornute.livejournal.com]

I usually use "nontheist" to encompass "there definitely isn't any God" atheists and also agnostics; I suppose it'd also apply to people who've never noticed the lack, too.

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.

[pavanne.livejournal.com]

I agree that both atheism and agnosticism require a decision.

But that doesn't leave much space for someone who doesn't know and doesn't care, and has never given the matter much thought. I would generally file them under 'agnostic', but as an agnostic who has thought about it and decided I will never know and it doesn't matter, I feel I should resent this slightly. But not as much as I should resent being lumped in with atheists, who can be almost as bad as religious types for dogma.

[(Anonymous)]

We need a new word then. Any ideas?
Abner

[nameandnature]

There are some people who use weak and strong atheism to distinguish the two positions you mention. An agnostic was originally someone who said it was formally impossible to prove one way or the other, but these days tends to be used for the "don't know" position, regardless of whether that person thinks that proof is theoretically possible.

[yrieithydd.livejournal.com]

This sounds remarkably like conversations Christians have about whether children brought up in a Christian family are by default Christian unless they decide otherwise or whether they should only be considered Christian when they make their own decision (ok it's further complicated by the issue of baptism). The answer usually depends on various other views Christians hold.

Whatever position one holds on the existence or otherwise of God, there is an element of assumption. Logically, strong agnosticism* is the best position, but even there assumptions have been made, eg, that logic is the only tool available for this debate. These assumptions are part of that about which we cannot be neutral when bringing up children. It's the unproveable axioms. Thus we are left with faith.

*I would distinguish strong agnosticism -- we cannot know (logically) whether or not God exists -- from weak agnositicism -- I do not know (for whatever reason, not considered it etc) whether or not God exists, but acknowledge there might be evidence I don't know about.

Q: What's the difference between an agnostic and an atheist? A: I don't know and I don't care

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

"Apathist" has often been used to mean someone who actively or passively doesn't think about it, often in jest, but seriously too :)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

As to the difference between atheist and agnostic I've argued until my voice is hoarse about it, and it always comes down to defining "believe" and "know". So I won't bother bringing it up again :)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Non-theist sounds usefully accurate :)

And yes, that sounds plausible...

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's a useful distinction -- if I say "strong atheist" most people get the idea. Though I try to avoid all these terms because I've never found any that at least half of people don't disagree about, for instance wikipedia defines a difference between "belief of lack" and "lack of belief" which is something I would say, but cannot assign a coherant meaning to :)

c

[(Anonymous)]

.Good luck!

Hello all I'm new here !

[(Anonymous)]

Just wanted to say Hello to everyone.
Much to read and learn here, I'm sure I will enjoy !