Jesus Camp

[footfootfoot]

Pangloss, the beliefs you cite are hardly worth passing along to children, no one should argue that. It becomes a stickier matter when someone dictates to you what beliefs you should pass along to your children. If the balance of power were different would you want to be compelled by others to pass along:

"Niggers are lazy and inferior." "Jews are stingy and control all the banks." "People who deny God are going to Hell." "Women should submit to their husbands." "Our faith is the ONLY true faith, and if you reject it, you too will burn in Hell.

I don't think so. As I stated earlier, you should feel compelled to start passing your beliefs along and no one should stop you from mounting a public awareness campaign that the racist beliefs you cited are pure bollocks. Pure, sweaty bollocks at that.

[Pangloss62]

I just think parents should not convince their children of the existence of supernatural phenomena, which form the basis for most every religion. Teach knowledge, skills, empirical truths, don't indoctrinate. Ethics and values are not contingent on religion. These can be taught as principles, not "beliefs."

[limey]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

.... Ethics and values are not contingent on religion. These can be taught as principles, not "beliefs."

Very neatly put. Can I use that?

[Pangloss62]

Can I use that?

Sure.

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

Ethics and values are not contingent on religion. These can be taught as principles, not "beliefs."

Why teach them if you don't believe that they are true? Do you have some empirical set of data that leads you to hold certain values? Or are you simply passing along a set of learned, and believed, ethical values?

This seems like a pretty artificial distinction to me.

[Pangloss62]

Do you have some empirical set of data that leads you to hold certain values?

Experience and history of past human behavior rather than "data." I generally follow Kant's Categorical Imperitive:

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law."

That boils down to the "Golden Rule," you know, the "do unto others" rule.

By following the above no "beliefs" are needed.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

I just think parents should not convince their children of the existence of supernatural phenomena, which form the basis for most every religion. Teach knowledge, skills, empirical truths, don't indoctrinate. Ethics and values are not contingent on religion. These can be taught as principles, not "beliefs."

Oh, now I got it. Parents shouldn't teach their children what they believe,
they should teach their children what you believe.
I think not.

I may not agree with what they teach their children, but I'll defend to the death their right to teach them. What do you propose, snatch all the children and put them in secular camps? Let the state raise them in a sterile setting?

[Griff]

...and folks wonder why we don't send our kids to public schools even though we are not religous nuts and are actually pretty open minded.

[Pangloss62]

they should teach their children what you believe.

You haven't been paying attention. I do not "believe" anything. Period. I said parents should not teach "beliefs." How hard is that to grasp? I'm not going to force anyone to do anything, I'm just saying it would be a better world if we got rid of "belief."

...and folks wonder why we don't send our kids to public schools

And why would an advocate of not teaching beliefs make for a "bad" public school teacher? I've taught college undergrads with great success and appreciation, and have engaged children in the study of history through volunteer work and through my job.

[footfootfoot]

Some of our PA parishoners here may check me out on this:
I think the Amish are in agreement with you hence 'rumspringa'. As I understood they feel that a child is not capable of making moral decisions i.e. joining a religion and so spend some time before commiting to formally joining the community. (probably full of inaccuracies)

[smoothmoniker]

The transition from "this is a way to live" to "this is the way you ought to live" is a transition from principle to belief.

I DO say I'm not sure but "I believe". I tell my son the truth and will continue to.
Those who do not deserve what they get.

[Pangloss62]

One man's rational advice is another person's belief and vice versa.

I disagree. There are major, intrinsic differences between rationality and belief.

Life is never going to break down into the nice tidy pigeonholes that you seem to want it to.

Why do you keep thinking that I'm trying to make "nice tidy pigeonholes?"

When you imply that all of life should be handled "rationally", then you are trying to make life simpler than it really is.

Quite the opposite. It's beliefs and belief systems that try to make life simpler than it really is. "The earth is flat." "The sun revolves around the earth." "God is all-powerful and omnicient." "The Bible is infallible." That's the main purpose of beliefs; to try and explain things you can't explain.

Doing the rational thing is not always the right thing.

I already told you I don't use "right" or "wrong" as absolutes. By using the term as above, you presuppose there is such a thing as "the right thing."

If you use only rationality as a measure, then people would follow the current legal standards and whatever their peers would applaud.

They would? Wasn't (and isn't) the struggle for Civil Rights about NOT following current legal standards and going against your peers? People had to break laws to change them to a more rational view. It was irrational to segregate humans based upon race. Segregation's irrationality is what allowed it to be attacked in the first place. You have it all backwards.


You couldn't be more wrong about rationality being some kind of cop out. Being a rationalist is a very hard and difficult way to be, but it's the most honest. We are few when compared to all the believers in the world. All their beliefs give them comfort in what is, essentially, a meaningless void filled with chunks of matter. They invoke a "God" that they are told "loves" them. They conjure the idea of "heaven" where they will reside after they die. They speak of their "souls" and what's in their "heart," as if that was not the pump that circulates their blood but some metaphysical entity that defines who they are.

No. If I wanted life to be easier, I would certainly have "beliefs." I wouldn't have to tell girlfriends a month or so into the relationship that "No. I don't believe in love," and watch them cringe in disappointment at my honesty. It's hard to find women who are rationalists. All the ones I've known had kids and became soccer moms. When these kinds of women have kids they usually get all soft intellectually. Some hormones must change them from witty, smart, critical thinkers into malleable and maudlin mush.

Rationalists like me are slandered, shunned, and called names. They are told by others that "You want to have it easy." They have to live in a world made up mostly of people that believe in superstitions, are suspicious of you if you actually state that you don't believe in God, and get mad if you point out their irrationality. What's worse, I've run into people at parties who say, after I tell them my view of reality, that they "feel sorry for me." How condescending. I would not mind empathy, but please, don't feel "sorry" for me. I feel sorry for them, but I have the manners to hold my tongue (that's what I like about the Cellar; I can say what I want).

One of the most difficult things about living the rational life relates to making choices and decisions. I think the worst advice anybody could give is telling you to "do what you feel in your heart." How meaningless. When people start making decisions this way, it's usually the wrong one. Women choose to stay with abusive men; men stay with boring, emotionally suffocating women; etc.

Besides, primates are not monogamous, so this whole notion of the permanent, fidelitous relationship goes against all our instincts (at least in our reproductive years). We have these big brains that can help us understand our instinctual controls and determine and guide rational behavior in light of them, but we let our emotions rule. Then when the divorce or breakup comes, we have to find blame in ourselves or others, rather than realize it's completely natural to have many relationships over time. We should make the ones we have as good as we can for as long as they last, not promise to "love" each other till "death do we part." We are caught in the evolutionary trap of being instinctually tribal but culturally reclusive (nuclear family).

[dar512]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

They would? Wasn't (and isn't) the struggle for Civil Rights about NOT following current legal standards and going against your peers? People had to break laws to change them to a more rational view. It was irrational to segregate humans based upon race. Segregation's irrationality is what allowed it to be attacked in the first place. You have it all backwards.

Why is it irrational to segregate humans based upon race? I'm a white guy in the 1940s. I benefit from it.

You're still fooling yourself. The philosophy that all men are equal is a belief. You can call it a principle if you like, but you believe in the principle.

[mrnoodle]

Your children look to you for what to believe. When they reach an age that they start forming their own beliefs based on their own experiences, they will critically examine the beliefs you taught them and draw their own conclusions.

Until then, if you don't teach your children "what to believe", someone else will. Your kids are bombarded every day with messages about what they should believe. What good are you doing if you eliminate parental input? Is it somehow healthier for your kids to get their worldview from the Disney Channel and Nickelodeon than from your own example/advice? I think not.