Many of our friends reacted with horror when they first found out we are raising our children Christian. The common response is something like, “I don’t want my children to be indoctrinated; I want them to be able to make up their own mind when they are old enough to decide!”. They eventually come to peace with the way we’re raising our kids, but it’s clearly a fundamental issue for many.
The decision to raise children atheist is typically couched as noble desire to give the children “freedom of choice”. Even people who are nominally spiritual, pay a great deal of lip service to “allowing the child to choose” (meaning, “shielding him from Christianity”), as this current discussion amongst homeschoolers attests. I think that all of this discussion about “freedom of choice” is terribly misleading.
If we really believe something, we tell our kids, and we explain why we believe it. Nobody says, “I choose to follow a path that believes in gravity, but I don’t tell my kids to avoid cliffs, since I want them to make up their own minds when they’re old enough.” We indoctrinate our kids with all sorts of beliefs about personal responsibility, financial responsibility, commitment to education, and so on. You teach your son that Mommy and Daddy love him. Some of these lessons are objectively defensible, some are more subjective, but educating a child means indoctrinating him.
If you’re holding off from teaching your kids something, it might just mean that you don’t really believe it. That’s what I think is going on with many of the responses on the homeschooling thread. People today often use “faith” as a part of their projected identity. Their “belief” is something they wear like clothes to signal something about themselves. If you choose faith like you choose clothes, you’ll want your children to do the same.
On the other hand, if you really believe something important, you’ll indoctrinate your kids. It’s your job. Part of your indoctrination may be to tell him that Christians are brainwashed, if you really believe that. In the case of many atheists, I think they really do believe it, and they simply don’t want their kids to become Christians. So this claim that “I don’t want to indoctrinate my kids” is a cop-out.
And either way, I think it’s also a cop-out to say that it’s about “letting the child decide”. No amount of indoctrination can stop a child from making his own choice when he is “old enough”. Young adults frequently throw aside all of their best training. Atheists become Christians, Christians become atheists, and young adults enter risky careers, pick up bad habits, and adopt poor financial strategies. Children sometimes decide that Mommy and Daddy never really loved them. You don’t mitigate this risk by pretending to have no beliefs. You mitigate the risk by being clear about what you believe, and why.
Nice post.
I’m an atheist and I’m the second type you list. If I have kids I plan to teach them atheism is true.
For me personally it just depends on what one means by indoctrination. But when you say
“No amount of indoctrination can stop a child from making his own choice when he is “old enough”.”
I would strongly disagree with this statement. Most children that are brought up in fundamentalist homes will remain fundamentalist into their adult lives. They will hold to the creationist view of origins, will take the bible as literally true, etc, and no matter what evidence goes contrary to their world view there seems to be a wall blocking off all reason and evidence.
I wouldn’t raise my children religious or atheist, I kinda like the idea Dan Dennett puts forward about a “Comparative Religions Class”. Would you have any objections to your child taking a class like this Josh?
@Dirk, @Reidish – Thanks!
@Atheist.pig – Good comment.
I agree with the “wall blocking off reason” comment regarding fundamentalism. I was simply saying that parents have no *guarantees*. Many fundamentalist children abandon fundamentalism, and I’m sure that some atheist children adopt religions that are hostile to reason.
In practice, I’m already raising my children in a sort of “comparative religions” class. Their friends include Jews, Muslims, Hindu, and Buddhist, as well as atheist; and we often discuss the traditions and stories of their friends’ faiths. In fact, I don’t think any of their classmates were raised WASP.
However, I don’t believe that all choices are equally valid. Some choices are better than others. I suspect that you would agree with this.
For example, the “choice” of building a wall between faith and reason is not a “choice” that is supported in our family. Religious “choices” that lead to beheading people are not supported. Religious beliefs that are supported by “argument from tautology” are not considered valid. In other words, there are lots of good reasons for rejecting certain beliefs, and being a good father is partly about teaching children how to reject bad beliefs.
That sounds like fun and informative for all involved. (I bet Jesus always comes out as the nicest and bestest)
Sometimes He’s the jealousest and vengefulest, too
In both religion and politics I express my opinion clearly before the kids. But I often supplement it with a list of dear friends who believe the opposite of me and remind my kids, “See, lots of our friends are smarter and nicer than Daddy and yet they believe the opposite. But we are still friends. I may be wrong. And maybe you will believe like them someday– cause it doesn’t matter, I will always love you.
Which I fully believe (well, at least in the range of things we were discussing — smile).
BUT !
If I said to my kid — I believe that the world is flat and a demon will cut of the penis of anyone who disagrees.
Well, that would be a joke to an adult and abuse to a young mind.
So, teaching hell is abusive indoctrination to children. They are very susceptible to these cheap manipulations and religion is pregnant with things like this. Don’t get me wrong, it is possible to teach religion with out abuse, but it is hard. I also feel exclusive tribalism is poison to a young mind.
Regardless of what you believe about hell, you probably tell your kids that cliffs are vertical, and that they could die if they get too close to the edge.
That would be a joke to an experienced rock-climber like me, or to someone high on angel dust who thinks he can fly. It would probably even be child abuse to ask your kids to vividly imagine the 20 story fall and subsequent crushing death. But it’s definitely not child abuse to tell them to stay away from the edge, and give them some warning to underscore the seriousness.
I have a little collection of comic books from Japan, India , China and USA put out by serious religious groups. These comics illustrate hell to children and teach them that is real so they must do what their religion says. And guess what, their religions all disagree.
It is a great (evil) tool.
But you are right — if you incredulously believe that stuff, I guess you should abuse children. For your god certainly abuses people.
Likewise, If you believe you only get one chance to salvation in this life and otherwise you get tortured for eternity, then torturing someone in this life to believe would be virtuous.
Bizarre beliefs can lead to bizarre (if not outright wicked) behaviors.
@Sabio – I thought comic books depicting hell were the exclusive domain of western Christians. I know a lot about hinduism, buddhism, and jainism and don’t recall Japan, India, or China believing in hell; let alone preaching it to kids. In fact, it is illegal to do that in China.
Obviously, I don’t condone comic books like that. I just question your idea that this is a feature of the domestic religions in the other countries you cite. I know an Indian guy who was “traumatized” by comic books depicting Ganesh’s beheading of a little boy, but that’s pretty different from talking about hell.
I do remember similar comic books put out by Nancy Reagan, showing the Breugelesque horrors that awaited anyone who smoked marijuana. Ms. Reagan had a bigger budget than any fundamentalist propaganda organization I ever saw, and the depictions of torment and pain in her comic books were far worse than anything I ever saw in a Christian comic book. Personally, I don’t think it was child abuse — it was just stupid.
“Likewise, If you believe you only get one chance to salvation in this life and otherwise you get tortured for eternity, then torturing someone in this life to believe would be virtuous.”
I don’t know any mainstream religion which believes in hell and also supports torturing people into belief. The fact that you’ll go to hell for religiously torturing people seems to have been a good deterrent, for the most part. So I guess you’re talking about a hypothetical religion. If you ever discover such a religion, let me know, and I’ll join you in condemning it.
I strongly agree with Sabio on the hell doctrine. For me its the single most evil and psychologically damaging concept ever thought of.
I’ve seen first hand the psychological damage it can inflict on people, especially children.
@A.p, @Sabio – Thanks for the comments, BTW. My nit-picking at some of Sabio’s minor points shouldn’t be seen as dismissive of the central concern.
Honestly, I was as puzzled by the complaints about the “injustice of hell” as I was about the reported importance of the “problem of evil”. When I was an atheist, it never would have occurred to me to make either argument. But it seems that the “problem of evil” and the “injustice of hell” are considered to be two of the strongest arguments for atheism. The fact that neither argument ever resonated with me might just be evidence of autism or sociopathy on my part. I dunno.
Is it accurate to summarize the primary issue this way? “If I love someone, it is inconceivable for me to love someone or something who would condemn the person I love to eternal suffering. In fact, it would be proper for me to hate such a being!”
If so, I think it’s a pretty profound and disturbing issue.
IMO, the “death cab for cuties” song, “I will follow you into the dark”, dealt with roughly this issue. I wrote about that song and sentiment here. I was also dancing around the same issue here.
Couldn’t tell if you were doubting me.
Now you can’t say you “know a lot” since you had never heard about these. Also, it is hare to “know a lot” if you have never lived amidst or practiced these faiths.
When I spoke of “China”, I meant Taiwan (I lived in both mainland and the island).
I couldn’t tell if you were trying to challenge me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_%28Buddhism%29
Hindu Hell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka
It is not obvious at all why you condone comic books like that. It is the same warning of your supposed cliff only done much better!! You should be jumping with joy.
I refuse to argue “traumatized”, vs. “abuse” vs. “stupid” vs. whatever other word you want. I don’t have time for such debate.
Teaching children about hell is WRONG.
The inquisition tortured into belief. It has happened in the past. Islam is mainstream and in parts of islam they still do that. See, the human mind can take bizarre beliefs and do terrible things with them.
@ Joshua,
I just read your last comment. Two thoughts:
(1) Autism and Hell
Justin, are you autistic? I have two readers who are. It would enlighten the dialogue. Because having different brains and hugely different experiences set up for different judgments and beliefs. So, my point, it would likewise be ironic to base a simple judgment to heaven or hell for completely different animals UNLESS these systems were created by humans — and, yep, they were, so I guess it is not surprising.
(2)“When I was an atheist”
This phrase of yours humors me a bit. I use to be a Christian, but I was a certain type of Christian. There are a huge variety of Christians. There are a huge variety of Atheists. If a foreigner asked me to explain America — they are often naively assuming that just because I am an American that I truly understand or can explain America. Heck, my 10-year-old son is an atheist — which really amounts to saying nothing about him.
Last point:
Hell (as I hope I have illustrated) is concept reaching across a huge number of cultures. Is that because they are all reaching for something that is true?
But a huge number of cultures also:
* experience optical illusions
* murder to steal property
* commit adultery
* form tribal rules to stop mixing with other tribes
Like these, maybe “Hell” is just a universal perversion of the human mind– one we should learn to transcend.
I took in-person lectures on Tibetan Buddhism under Gelek Rinpoche for nearly 2 years. I used to work with Dagchen Rinpoche’s son, and attended his monastery from time to time as well. And I’ve been to the Tibetan Buddhist temple in China a few times. I figured I would know if Buddhists preached hell. I thought you might be talking about some small tribal or shamanistic religion.
When you said that Hell is an abusive doctrine, I assumed you meant a place “you get tortured for eternity” (your exact words). Naraka is completely different. You’re an ex-Christian who claims to have practiced Buddhism; so I thought you would know better than to mix the two up. And I certainly wouldn’t expect you to use words like “eternity” when talking about Naraka. Even the death promised by Nancy Reagan’s comic books is more final than Naraka.
I first saw an illustration of Naraka when I was 14, attending a competition at another junior high school. I’m surprised that you have a problem with Naraka; it just seems like the logical necessity of a system where the cycle of samsara leads up and down. What, exactly, do you think would be more logical than Naraka?
Heck, we see the living equivalent of Naraka all the time around us. Hundreds of millions of people born into vicious squalor who remain trapped there their whole life. In real life, it’s way easier to stay at the top than it is to escape the bottom. Would that, too, be a “perversion of the human mind we should learn to transcend”?
BTW, I don’t see your point about “when I was an atheist”. I was explicitly pointing out that not all atheists make the same arguments I did. That was kind of the point.
And your comment about autism is incoherent to me. Are you comparing autistic people to animals? I know several people with Asperger’s (two in my hallway at work) and am borderline myself. Temple Grandin has Asperger’s and has compared autistic people to animals, and I don’t think most Aspergers people would be offended by the association, but I can’t tell what your point is.
I don’t think our dialogue is productive.
It seems you understand and we disagree.
May you keep enjoying your preaching of hell.