6 ms·

From the article: > As to religion, my parents said that they believed that God really does exist and that the Bible is a historical record of man's interactio

From the article: > As to religion, my parents said that they believed that God really does exist and that the Bible is a historical record of man's interactions with a real God... Just by saying the fact that they themselves believe in god, they are giving the child a reason to bias towards that answer, aren't they? In the mind of the child, the foremost authority on all things occurring in the world around them is their parents, are they not? The best way to answer this question is simply, "Noone knows", and leave it at that. Any further explanation will only lead the child one or another. Actually, not its not, because even by saying "Noone knows" you suggest a direction of thought, pushing them towards agnosticism rather than Catholicism, or Judaism, or Muslimism, or Whatever-ism. There is no right answer to this question. No matter what, by answering this question you are effecting the way they think about it. So just don't answer the question.

reidman 18y ago
"So just don't answer the question." Are you seriously suggesting this? It seems clear to me (and presumably to anyone else who has ever interacted with curious children) that this is a completely impractical and unrealistic solution. Have you ever tried _not answering_ a question from a kid? ;) This dramatic influence-avoidance thing seems pretty ridiculous.
- jdanieli 18y ago
  I'm saying that if you do not want to influence them in any way the only option is to not answer the question. Otherwise, you ARE influencing them. I'm not saying whether or not it is possible to not answer the question when a child asks you one. I'm not saying you SHOULDN'T answer the question. But if you do not want to influence a child's thought patters in any given situation you have to not say anything (though likely silence will also influence them in some way as well). Hence why I said, "There is no right answer to this question". "This dramatic influence-avoidance thing seems pretty ridiculous." yes, it is ridiculous, which is why we lie to kids, because we have to give them some answer they will be satisfied with. There is no way to NOT lie to kids and not be pretty ridiculous.
  - mark-t 18y ago
    The best situation is probably for the parents to disagree, actually.
    - jdanieli 18y ago
      I'm not sure disagreeing makes much sense if the question is "Is there a God?" What are you disagreeing to? That there isn't a god? Then you will be lying to your child and this is what the thread is about NOT doing. If instead you mean, you must always disagree with whatever your child's opinion is, I don't disagree. You have to argue both sides of any philosophical question though, less you accidentally push your own beliefs on them, and this is extremely difficult to do correctly. Orson Scott Card's character Han Fei-Tzu is an excellent example of the type of teaching discipline I hold sacred. When someone makes an opinion about anything, you have to argue the other-side as well as you possibly can, and if your charge changes their mind, you have to switch sides and argue for that side. This requires an incredible amount of knowledge and intelligence which most parents are not going to be able to replicate. Teaching in this matter will force the child to learn how to look at any problem from different viewpoints.
  - euccastro 18y ago
    You made the topic slip from lying to influencing. Influencing their children is a big part of what parents do. It's called "education." It's unavoidable, and there's nothing wrong with it if you do it with honesty and respect.
    - jdanieli 18y ago
      I agree, influencing is what parents do, but influencing is also a form of lying: > Influence: the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways. The effect in the case of parents is that the children will end up believing the same things as their parents did. This is completely distinct from education, because education is the teaching of what is known to be true, or at least a non-biased account of the available information. This is something most people cannot do as its very difficult to do right. Either you stick to known facts (1 + 1 = 2) or you give a non-biased account of history (say, a war) by arguing for and against both for both sides equally. If you look at any moment in history and think someone was evil or good, you probably misunderstand something and need to go back to that topic and learn more. Influence breeds from a onesidedness that is not evident in education. Education breeds from understanding. If one tells their children they believe in god and this makes them believe in god, is it really significantly different then saying there is a god? Either way they still have a choice, to believe you are right or not. As they are the child's parents, isn't it almost guaranteed that they'd trust your judgment at such a young age? (I'm assuming an age of around 4 years old.) > It's unavoidable, and there's nothing wrong with it if you do it with honesty and respect. This is also true, almost. As described above it will take more energy to fully explain the correct answer to any question then the child is willing to listen to. I'm not arguing that there is something wrong with it. I'm just acknowledging that it is lying, albeit unintentional and without malice, but it is still lying.
axod 18y ago
"Scientific evidence to date suggests there is no God" IMHO That's the truth, and the facts.
- axod 18y ago
  Luckily the question doesn't really come up in a community of non religious types.
  - noonespecial 18y ago
    I think the community here just knows that science is not really the right tool to use to decide if God exists or not. We probably also know that the argument degrades rather quickly once started.
    - axod 18y ago
      Oh I was meaning in my real life community. In the UK I think religion is quite a bit rarer these days, so it doesn't really come up as a topic of conversation here.
- jdanieli 18y ago
  The truth is also that scientific evidence to date does not suggest there isn't a god. Unless, of course, you know of something I don't. Ideas such a creationism have long since been dissolved, but the existence of God? Not so much. Additionally, I believe there was a very good essay somewhere that argued there was a heaven and a hell. Saying that if we know there are an infinite number of other dimensions with an infinite number of possibilities, whose to say there isn't one where ONLY good things happen and one where ONLY bad things happen. These places would be heaven and hell, respectively. Of course, if someone is actually sent to one of these places, they will immediately change it if they do something contrary to what is expected in that specific realm, no longer making it heaven or hell, and a new heaven or hell takes its place where that even didn't happen. So, if heaven and hell exist, who is to say god does not?
  - 18y ago

reidman 18y ago

"So just don't answer the question." Are you seriously suggesting this? It seems clear to me (and presumably to anyone else who has ever interacted with curious children) that this is a completely impractical and unrealistic solution. Have you ever tried _not answering_ a question from a kid? ;) This dramatic influence-avoidance thing seems pretty ridiculous.

jdanieli 18y ago
I'm saying that if you do not want to influence them in any way the only option is to not answer the question. Otherwise, you ARE influencing them. I'm not saying whether or not it is possible to not answer the question when a child asks you one. I'm not saying you SHOULDN'T answer the question. But if you do not want to influence a child's thought patters in any given situation you have to not say anything (though likely silence will also influence them in some way as well). Hence why I said, "There is no right answer to this question". "This dramatic influence-avoidance thing seems pretty ridiculous." yes, it is ridiculous, which is why we lie to kids, because we have to give them some answer they will be satisfied with. There is no way to NOT lie to kids and not be pretty ridiculous.
- mark-t 18y ago
  The best situation is probably for the parents to disagree, actually.
  - jdanieli 18y ago
    I'm not sure disagreeing makes much sense if the question is "Is there a God?" What are you disagreeing to? That there isn't a god? Then you will be lying to your child and this is what the thread is about NOT doing. If instead you mean, you must always disagree with whatever your child's opinion is, I don't disagree. You have to argue both sides of any philosophical question though, less you accidentally push your own beliefs on them, and this is extremely difficult to do correctly. Orson Scott Card's character Han Fei-Tzu is an excellent example of the type of teaching discipline I hold sacred. When someone makes an opinion about anything, you have to argue the other-side as well as you possibly can, and if your charge changes their mind, you have to switch sides and argue for that side. This requires an incredible amount of knowledge and intelligence which most parents are not going to be able to replicate. Teaching in this matter will force the child to learn how to look at any problem from different viewpoints.
- euccastro 18y ago
  You made the topic slip from lying to influencing. Influencing their children is a big part of what parents do. It's called "education." It's unavoidable, and there's nothing wrong with it if you do it with honesty and respect.
  - jdanieli 18y ago
    I agree, influencing is what parents do, but influencing is also a form of lying: > Influence: the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways. The effect in the case of parents is that the children will end up believing the same things as their parents did. This is completely distinct from education, because education is the teaching of what is known to be true, or at least a non-biased account of the available information. This is something most people cannot do as its very difficult to do right. Either you stick to known facts (1 + 1 = 2) or you give a non-biased account of history (say, a war) by arguing for and against both for both sides equally. If you look at any moment in history and think someone was evil or good, you probably misunderstand something and need to go back to that topic and learn more. Influence breeds from a onesidedness that is not evident in education. Education breeds from understanding. If one tells their children they believe in god and this makes them believe in god, is it really significantly different then saying there is a god? Either way they still have a choice, to believe you are right or not. As they are the child's parents, isn't it almost guaranteed that they'd trust your judgment at such a young age? (I'm assuming an age of around 4 years old.) > It's unavoidable, and there's nothing wrong with it if you do it with honesty and respect. This is also true, almost. As described above it will take more energy to fully explain the correct answer to any question then the child is willing to listen to. I'm not arguing that there is something wrong with it. I'm just acknowledging that it is lying, albeit unintentional and without malice, but it is still lying.

axod 18y ago

"Scientific evidence to date suggests there is no God" IMHO That's the truth, and the facts.

axod 18y ago
Luckily the question doesn't really come up in a community of non religious types.
- noonespecial 18y ago
  I think the community here just knows that science is not really the right tool to use to decide if God exists or not. We probably also know that the argument degrades rather quickly once started.
  - axod 18y ago
    Oh I was meaning in my real life community. In the UK I think religion is quite a bit rarer these days, so it doesn't really come up as a topic of conversation here.
jdanieli 18y ago
The truth is also that scientific evidence to date does not suggest there isn't a god. Unless, of course, you know of something I don't. Ideas such a creationism have long since been dissolved, but the existence of God? Not so much. Additionally, I believe there was a very good essay somewhere that argued there was a heaven and a hell. Saying that if we know there are an infinite number of other dimensions with an infinite number of possibilities, whose to say there isn't one where ONLY good things happen and one where ONLY bad things happen. These places would be heaven and hell, respectively. Of course, if someone is actually sent to one of these places, they will immediately change it if they do something contrary to what is expected in that specific realm, no longer making it heaven or hell, and a new heaven or hell takes its place where that even didn't happen. So, if heaven and hell exist, who is to say god does not?
- 18y ago