4 ms·

Oh really? What way of passing on knowledge do you have that is free of all bias?

izzydata 7y ago
Why do you believe this is a matter of bias? I'm talking about the difference between handing your child a book and whipping them into submission. Clearly one of those methods is terrible. I'd consider instilling fear of damnation on your children much closer to the latter. One of those things promotes critical thinking and the other locks them into a singular set of beliefs. I can't think of anything worse for society.
- instantwhat 7y ago
  > I'm talking about the difference between handing your child a book and whipping them into submission. Isn't that a false dichotomy?
  - izzydata 7y ago
    No, but you didn't read the rest of the comment to find out why.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > child a book and whipping them into submission That is an incredibly false dichotomy, and one at odds with the existence of many fine Catholics (my religion, and the only one I can really speak on) who questioned / refused to bow down to bad authority. I feel a more nuanced approach to religion would do everyone justice.
andrepd 7y ago
We can see by your sequence of comments that you're not in good faith. I believe that you understand exactly what is being discussed here but you are trying to derail the conversation. 'Passing on "knowledge"' in a religious setting means indoctrinating children from a very young age, very literally since they become sentient beings. You say something to the effect of "here is a set of things that are true: I'm daddy, she's mommy, the sky is blue, and Jesus is god." You present your faith as a dogmatic view that will become entrenched and an integral part of his/her identity. As something that is above questioning. I find this deeply wrong from an ethical point of view, but also very harmful from a practical point of view, as you're teaching them some very twisted things (obey without question or you will be punished; accept things from figures of authority without evidence; etc.).
- tathougies 7y ago
  > obey without question or you will be punished; accept things from figures of authority without evidence; etc.). That is a wild mischaracterization of religion. If you read sources like Thomas Aquinas or Catherine of Siena or Thomas More or Cardinal Newman (I can go on), you are not exposed to this kind of childish religious experience you are criticizing. All these people questioned and did not accept authority without evidence. I fail to see how telling your children what you believe is any different from your indoctrination. For example, you say 'I am mommy', 'I am daddy', as if that's not equally societally constructed. Now, I personally believe such things are from a transcendent creator. However, ignoring that, it is unclear why you think those statements are any more 'true' than mine. Not all societies have this, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that this is also not a form of cultural indoctrination. Now, of course an easy retort is that such things, while perhaps constructed, are still true, since a child is obviously brought up in a certain culture. However, most parents lessons to children go well beyond 'I am mommy'. Most parents give their children an entire worldview, which contains certain beliefs, etc, that cannot be justified on their own. One will then claim that well perhaps that is true, but the goal is to teach questioning. And while that is perhaps true, I do not see in my own generation and younger, a generation of questioners, so I'm unconvinced that such things are automatic the moment one gives up religion. But I'm convinceable, so please..
- instantwhat 7y ago
  > We can see by your sequence of comments that you're not in good faith. Whose sequence of comments? Each reply to izzydata in this thread has been by a different person. Are you accusing all of them of arguing in bad faith? I thought we were supposed to assume good faith here. > I believe that you understand exactly what is being discussed here but you are trying to derail the conversation. It seems to me that its izzydata's arguments that are false dichotomies and strawmen. > 'Passing on "knowledge"' in a religious setting means indoctrinating children from a very young age, very literally since they become sentient beings. Everything a parent teaches a child is "indoctrinating" them from a young age. You use the word "indoctrinating" in a pejorative way because you dislike religious people. > You say something to the effect of "here is a set of things that are true: I'm daddy, she's mommy, the sky is blue, and Jesus is god." So which of those 4 things are false? To you, obviously, the last. But to these hypothetical parents, that last item is true. Who are you, then, to tell these parents how to raise their children? Would you let them tell you how to raise yours? You would have them teach, "I'm daddy, she's mommy, the sky is blue, and Jesus is not real." By your own logic, you would then be just as guilty of indoctrination as these hypothetical Christian parents. Or perhaps you would have them teach, "I'm daddy/mommy, that's your other daddy/mommy, the sky is blue in some cultures, and Jesus was a guy that some people think existed, but you'll have to make up your own mind when you're older." And you would then have a very confused child on your hands. Are you actually a parent? > You present your faith as a dogmatic view that will become entrenched and an integral part of his/her identity. Everything a parent teaches a child becomes part of them. Few people think critically enough to overcome the ideas they were raised with. So what? Therefore, parents should teach children nothing? Answer their questions with, "You'll figure it out someday on your own. I don't want to prejudice you at this young age"? That would be silly. Every parent teaches their children what they believe is true. People have different beliefs, so children are taught different things. So what? Are you saying you know better than everyone else, so parents should teach their children what you think the truth is? > As something that is above questioning. I find this deeply wrong from an ethical point of view, You're the one who says that it's "above questioning." You have invented an image of these hypothetical parents in your mind. > but also very harmful from a practical point of view, as you're teaching them some very twisted things (obey without question or you will be punished; accept things from figures of authority without evidence; etc.). What do you think a small child should be taught? "Don't obey your parents without question. Do what feels right to you. Believe no claim without scientific proof." Followed by, "No, don't stick your finger in that power outlet! Because it will kill you! No, I'm not going to gather evidence of that for you! I'm your parent, so do what I say!" bzzzt It doesn't sound like you've actually raised children.

Why do you believe this is a matter of bias? I'm talking about the difference between handing your child a book and whipping them into submission. Clearly one of those methods is terrible. I'd consider instilling fear of damnation on your children much closer to the latter. One of those things promotes critical thinking and the other locks them into a singular set of beliefs. I can't think of anything worse for society.

instantwhat 7y ago
> I'm talking about the difference between handing your child a book and whipping them into submission. Isn't that a false dichotomy?
- izzydata 7y ago
  No, but you didn't read the rest of the comment to find out why.
tathougies 7y ago
> child a book and whipping them into submission That is an incredibly false dichotomy, and one at odds with the existence of many fine Catholics (my religion, and the only one I can really speak on) who questioned / refused to bow down to bad authority. I feel a more nuanced approach to religion would do everyone justice.

andrepd 7y ago

We can see by your sequence of comments that you're not in good faith. I believe that you understand exactly what is being discussed here but you are trying to derail the conversation. 'Passing on "knowledge"' in a religious setting means indoctrinating children from a very young age, very literally since they become sentient beings. You say something to the effect of "here is a set of things that are true: I'm daddy, she's mommy, the sky is blue, and Jesus is god." You present your faith as a dogmatic view that will become entrenched and an integral part of his/her identity. As something that is above questioning. I find this deeply wrong from an ethical point of view, but also very harmful from a practical point of view, as you're teaching them some very twisted things (obey without question or you will be punished; accept things from figures of authority without evidence; etc.).

tathougies 7y ago
> obey without question or you will be punished; accept things from figures of authority without evidence; etc.). That is a wild mischaracterization of religion. If you read sources like Thomas Aquinas or Catherine of Siena or Thomas More or Cardinal Newman (I can go on), you are not exposed to this kind of childish religious experience you are criticizing. All these people questioned and did not accept authority without evidence. I fail to see how telling your children what you believe is any different from your indoctrination. For example, you say 'I am mommy', 'I am daddy', as if that's not equally societally constructed. Now, I personally believe such things are from a transcendent creator. However, ignoring that, it is unclear why you think those statements are any more 'true' than mine. Not all societies have this, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that this is also not a form of cultural indoctrination. Now, of course an easy retort is that such things, while perhaps constructed, are still true, since a child is obviously brought up in a certain culture. However, most parents lessons to children go well beyond 'I am mommy'. Most parents give their children an entire worldview, which contains certain beliefs, etc, that cannot be justified on their own. One will then claim that well perhaps that is true, but the goal is to teach questioning. And while that is perhaps true, I do not see in my own generation and younger, a generation of questioners, so I'm unconvinced that such things are automatic the moment one gives up religion. But I'm convinceable, so please..
instantwhat 7y ago
> We can see by your sequence of comments that you're not in good faith. Whose sequence of comments? Each reply to izzydata in this thread has been by a different person. Are you accusing all of them of arguing in bad faith? I thought we were supposed to assume good faith here. > I believe that you understand exactly what is being discussed here but you are trying to derail the conversation. It seems to me that its izzydata's arguments that are false dichotomies and strawmen. > 'Passing on "knowledge"' in a religious setting means indoctrinating children from a very young age, very literally since they become sentient beings. Everything a parent teaches a child is "indoctrinating" them from a young age. You use the word "indoctrinating" in a pejorative way because you dislike religious people. > You say something to the effect of "here is a set of things that are true: I'm daddy, she's mommy, the sky is blue, and Jesus is god." So which of those 4 things are false? To you, obviously, the last. But to these hypothetical parents, that last item is true. Who are you, then, to tell these parents how to raise their children? Would you let them tell you how to raise yours? You would have them teach, "I'm daddy, she's mommy, the sky is blue, and Jesus is not real." By your own logic, you would then be just as guilty of indoctrination as these hypothetical Christian parents. Or perhaps you would have them teach, "I'm daddy/mommy, that's your other daddy/mommy, the sky is blue in some cultures, and Jesus was a guy that some people think existed, but you'll have to make up your own mind when you're older." And you would then have a very confused child on your hands. Are you actually a parent? > You present your faith as a dogmatic view that will become entrenched and an integral part of his/her identity. Everything a parent teaches a child becomes part of them. Few people think critically enough to overcome the ideas they were raised with. So what? Therefore, parents should teach children nothing? Answer their questions with, "You'll figure it out someday on your own. I don't want to prejudice you at this young age"? That would be silly. Every parent teaches their children what they believe is true. People have different beliefs, so children are taught different things. So what? Are you saying you know better than everyone else, so parents should teach their children what you think the truth is? > As something that is above questioning. I find this deeply wrong from an ethical point of view, You're the one who says that it's "above questioning." You have invented an image of these hypothetical parents in your mind. > but also very harmful from a practical point of view, as you're teaching them some very twisted things (obey without question or you will be punished; accept things from figures of authority without evidence; etc.). What do you think a small child should be taught? "Don't obey your parents without question. Do what feels right to you. Believe no claim without scientific proof." Followed by, "No, don't stick your finger in that power outlet! Because it will kill you! No, I'm not going to gather evidence of that for you! I'm your parent, so do what I say!" bzzzt It doesn't sound like you've actually raised children.