What's wrong with Harry Potter?

[karlhenning]

Sure.  But it's not news.  Not in the least.  Bringing this to the table as if it somehow 'validates' Dawkins in his crusade against religion, is misguided.

[mn dave]

Sure.  But it's not news.  Not in the least.  Bringing this to the table as if it somehow 'validates' Dawkins in his crusade against religion, is misguided.

Who are you addressing? 

[karlhenning]

Who are you addressing? 

Bjorn's post, and your endorsement 

[mn dave]

Bjorn's post, and your endorsement 

I was just agreeing with him that this is how it should be done. No offense, but I feel a lot of time was wasted in trying to make me a Christian. At least in the way it was presented to me.

[Daidalos]

If he's raising his own children that way, that isn't indoctrination;  that's family values.

Trying to push his niche values on the children through the rest of the world, that can easily map onto indoctrination.

I wonder, how wide is that umbrella, family values? Does it encompass every belief a parent instills in his or her children? Does it cover patent falsehoods about the workings of this world? Does it extend to every flavour of philosophy and religion?

Once again, by analogy, would you call it family values, if a parent taught a child, that according to the Bible, women should be subservient to men, homosexuals and unruly children should be stoned, and that the world is 6 000 years old? Many fundamentalists do interpret their Bibles in such ways, and do impart their beliefs to their offspring. Should even this extreme example be considered family values, as it arguably can be categorised as "religious education"?

Nonsense again. To make up one's own mind supposes not only being presented with multiple choices, but also having discernment, a thing which is conspicuously absent in children.

I'm afraid Andrei has made an excellent point, Bjorn.  Perhaps a mother shouldn't feed her infant until the infant can make a decision about what it wants to eat, eh?  It's absurd (not that you are taking it to quite this degree, but your objection is somewhere on this sliding scale) to treat the family, which is the natural (to use the adjective advisedly) environment in which the young learn (among other things) values — it's absurd to treat the family as The Enemy, and Dawkins (e.g.) as The Savior.  At the very least, one has to leave it to the parents' judgement when their child is capable of making his own decisions about things.  It is the family who teach the child a framework for decision-making.

Granted, a child is not self-sufficient and is not born with fully developed faculties for reason. As you may have noted, I did not say the question of a parent "indoctrinating" their children into their religion is an easily solved dilemma, as there are other factors enmeshed, such as cultural identity and so on. Naturally, parents will influence their children to a considerable degree, it is unavoidable, natural, and desireable. As you say, the family is not The Enemy, and Dawkins is definitely not The Saviour. What I say is that the parents should recognise their great responsibility as they mold and shape their child. It is a precarious balance, as the the parents can wield undue influence over their children and they can seriously undermine the child's ability to think critically.

The best scenario would be, in my mind, one where parents explain to their children their own beliefs, and that other people have different beliefs. They involve the child in their religion insofar as it is connected to their culture, the communal Mass might be an example. I realise it is a difficult prospect to separate these, perhaps sometimes it's even impossible, but I think the parents should take every pain not to enforce (too harsh a word, again) a religious belief on their child. The most important reason why would be that the child cannot hope to comprehend something as complex as religious belief, and inducing it to believe at an early stage might rob it of any possibility in the future to come to its own decision on this most important of questions.

[karlhenning]

I was just agreeing with him that this is how it should be done. No offense, but I feel a lot of time was wasted in trying to make me a Christian. At least in the way it was presented to me.

No offense taken in the least, mon vieux.

[Florestan]

meant to say that in school, and at home, there should a greater instance of study and critique of religion (not only one).

Doing that at home supposes that the parents themselves have studied history and philosophy of religion and are able to discuss the issues, which is the case of perhaps 0.5 % of them, and I'm being generous.

When I went to school, we had only one paltry religion course in high school (slightly different from the US), and it was completely spineless. No real discussion of the issues and concerns common to all religions and philosophies.

At high-school level, this is indeed a mistake, but I'd bet the situation has got less to do with indoctrination than with a lack of qualified teachers.

I did not suggest that the child should make up its mind when three years old, or even fifteen years old. The child should be educated, as simply as that; presented with the facts, invited to think things through. The child should be allowed to make up its own mind, with the parents and educational system equipping it with the knowledge and intellectual tools to that eventually, perhaps when it has matured, the child (or adolescent, young adult, whatever), can think some things through for itself.

I don't object to that. But there is a hyerarchy of knowledge that must be respected. You can't teach philosophy of history or scientific episthemology in elementary school. In most educational systems, actually, these are studied at college level.

Considering this lack of discernment on their part, is it fair for parents to exploit (too harsh a word, but apt) that quality in their children and raise them in a way that almost certainly results in the child ending up with the same belief-system as the parent?

There are several issues here.

First, fairness has nothing to do with it. This is the way the vast majority of people raised their children all along recorded history. It's simply human nature, which cannot be changed.

Second, there is nothing a priori wrong with "child ending up with the same belief-system as the parent". Tradition and continuity are as much necessary in a civilized society as reform and change.

Third, to expect from parents to do what they can't do (see my first paragraph) is pointless. This is exactly why schools have been instituted: to supply children with education and knowledge that their parents can't give them.

Fourth, what a decent, moral and law-abiding parent teaches her / his child(ren) is no bussiness for anyone else, much less for the state.

Zoophilic and paedophilic practises would of course not be taught, since they are illegal

There was a time when homosexual practices were illegal too and as such they were not taught. Do you imply that, would someday paedophilic or zoophilic practices become legal, they ought to be taught?

(This is not to say that I would homosexual practices be illegal, mind you!
)

I see nothing wrong, however, with sex education that informs children that there are people who are attracted to their own sex.

I expected that, of course. Still, there are some major problems which would arise as a result that you may figure out easily.

[mn dave]

First, fairness has nothing to do with it. This is the way the vast majority of people raised their children all along recorded history. It's simply human nature, which cannot be changed.

Second, there is nothing a priori wrong with "child ending up with the same belief-system as the parent". Tradition and continuity are as much necessary in a civilized society as reform and change.

Too bad.

[Al Moritz]

I think your parents did a fine job, and you are a credt to them.

Agreed.

[Florestan]

To address the original topic, with this crusade for replacing Andersen or Charles Perrault with Thomas Kuhn or Steven Jay Gould, Dawkins has turned into a living proof that too much learning drives one crazy.

[mn dave]

To address the original topic, with this crusade for replacing Andersen or Charles Perrault with Thomas Kuhn or Steven Jay Gould, Dawkins has turned into a living proof that too much learning drives one crazy.

There is such a thing as thinking too much, I think.   

[karlhenning]

Once again, by analogy, would you call it family values, if a parent taught a child, that according to the Bible, women should be subservient to men, homosexuals and unruly children should be stoned, and that the world is 6 000 years old?

You're deviating from the point;  I have no objection, I'm just saying.

1.  It is a great error of simplification to bandy the phrase "according to the Bible" as an "Authority ATM."  The Bible (we've discussed this several times before, I am sure you recall, Bjorn) is quite a complicated document;  IMO this is why the Church Fathers drew up the Creeds, rather than give every believer a copy of the Bible at home.  It takes a certain amount of intellectual responsibility to make sense of the Bible, and not everyone makes the effort to acquire that responsibility.

2.  As I understand Christian values, it is not anywhere so baldly simple a matter as "women should be subservient to men."

3.  I was raised a Christian, and I hope I have lived in a manner true to the faith;  I was never, even indirectly, taught that "homosexuals and unruly children should be stoned."

4.  The Bible does not teach that the the world is 6,000 years old.  There is an instructive and amusing story in that, which I will not take time to explore right at the moment.

5.  Probably, a great many families who try to raise their children in a faith, make mistakes.  What is the point, Bjorn, in substituting for those mistakes, Dawkins's tendentious mistakes?

[karlhenning]

To address the original topic, with this crusade for replacing Andersen or Charles Perrault with Thomas Kuhn or Steven Jay Gould, Dawkins has turned into a living proof that too much learning drives one crazy.

I forget who said it, but not long ago I ran across the remark:  Only an intellectual could say something so stupid.

[Florestan]

I forget who said it, but not long ago I ran across the remark:  Only an intellectual could say something so stupid.

So true!

The points you made above are excellent, Karl.

[mn dave]

It takes a certain amount of intellectual responsibility to make sense of the Bible, and not everyone makes the effort to acquire that responsibility.

Hardly anyone IMO. And there's your problem.

[karlhenning]

Hardly anyone IMO. And there's your problem.

Then your quarrel is with Martin Luther, not with me 

[Florestan]

Hardly anyone IMO.

Hardly anyone of those whose books you read or whom you talk to, maybe. But the world is bigger than that.  

[Daidalos]

Doing that at home supposes that the parents themselves have studied history and philosophy of religion and are able to discuss the issues, which is the case of perhaps 0.5 % of them, and I'm being generous.

That's a fair point, however parents can still strive not to be overtly prejudicial when it concerns religion: others and their own.

At high-school level, this is indeed a mistake, but I'd bet the situation has got less to do with indoctrination than with a lack of qualified teachers.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that it had anything to do with indoctrination. I only consider it sad that there is little possibility for children and adolescents to be exposed to these ideas.

I don't object to that. But there is a hyerarchy of knowledge that must be respected. You can't teach philosophy of history or scientific episthemology in elementary school. In most educational systems, actually, these are studied at college level.

The suggestion would be to preserve this hierarchy, but prepare the child throughout its upbringing to eventually confront these questions. The educational system can be changed to accomodate this, or at least bring a greater emphasis to the critique and evaluation of religion (and philosophy, and well, everything).

There was a time when homosexual practices were illegal too and as such they were not taught. Do you imply that, would someday paedophilic or zoophilic practices become legal, they ought to be taught?

(This is not to say that I would homosexual practices be illegal, mind you!
)

No, I don't think they should be taught even if they became legal. I don't see how the state can gauge the issues of consent inherent to zoophilia and paedophilia. That, for me, is the critical distinction between the practices of zoophilia and paedophilia, and the practice of homosexuality.

[Josquin des Prez]

The best ideas hardly ever win. Look at classical music vs. pop.

The best ideas never win because "family values" have been nearly obliterated among a large chunk of our population. Kids are told to "do their own thing" and reject all parental and scholastic authority and advice as a useless and limiting burden to their "free" development.

Of course, kids end up making all the wrong decisions, usually falling pray of corporate manipulation masquerading as "popular culture", and society as a whole becomes more and more deranged with each passing generation.

[mn dave]

Hardly anyone of those whose books you read or whom you talk to, maybe. But the world is bigger than that.  

Bah. I still stand by what I said. Just read the news.