Why is it absurd? On what point is it absurd? Atheism cannot want faiths to thrive, and they do not thrive unless they are well understood and taught. In that respect, and as you yourself pointed out, it is effectively a non-religious faith.
In any case, in practice, no parent can ever adopt a neutral position. They live out their own lives according to their own beliefs, and children inevitably learn from that. How does your Olympian view cope with the reality of how parent/child relationships actually work?
I don't get the arguments about letting the child choose as an adult. As has been said already, children get to choose about basically everything as adults--if they wish to leave off brushing their teeth then, they'll do so. So my raising my son in the Christian faith does not force Christianity on him lifelong, as if he were some sort of robot.
It's hard to reject, or even to properly accept, something you have been conditioned to believe is normal.
But there's also this: If you have something in your life that you seriously believe to be the way, the truth, and the life, the best thing that ever happened to you, the thing that humanity was made for, and so on and so forth--why ever would you withhold it from your child? It would be worse than withholding vaccinations on the grounds that the child can "choose" to be vaccinated as an adult.
Because what you believe in is only one subjective truth among many possible subjective truths. A pagan, atheist, white supremacist, artist, ethical vegan, communist, or whatever could use exactly the same argument and condition their child accordingly.
I prefer to show the child the available choices and ask them to question each of them. If they find one that agrees with them, all well and good.
Because what you believe in is only one subjective truth among many possible subjective truths. A pagan, atheist, white supremacist, artist, ethical vegan, communist, or whatever could use exactly the same argument and condition their child accordingly.
I prefer to show the child the available choices and ask them to question each of them. If they find one that agrees with them, all well and good.
The underlying foolishness of your position is that it assumes that the individual is the bedrock of reality. By my lights, humans are essentially communal. For example, we don't refrain from teaching our children to speak our native tongue until they grow up enough to choose which language they want to learn (the very notion is nonsense, of course.) There may be baggage that comes with learning, say, English as one's first language -- but it is just part and parcel of becoming civilized. To withhold the culture of the parent from the child until that child reaches some age of reason is not just cruel - it is impossible. The parent cannot cease being a member of their culture, and the child would never reach an age of reason if the parent could. The notion that instilling our understandings into our children is destructive assumes that there is some quivering blob of enlightenment that is being crushed by our meddling. While that notion may seem romantic (or, bizarrely, hard-nosed) to you, all the evidence we have is that humans are pretty stupid in isolation. It is culture that raises us up to a point that we can have what you might call a thought, not our personal and private inner genius. And, of course, pagans, atheists, etc. will do exactly the same for their children -- as they should and must.
I prefer to show the child the available choices and ask them to question each of them. If they find one that agrees with them, all well and good.
This is the Olympian cloud cuckoo land I was objecting to before. It is simply not possible for children to float above their parents' lives. If those lives are formed and informed by faith, the lives of the children will be as well. It is inevitable, and may as well be done well.
Colin Smith's post completely misrepresents religious faith. It is not a matter of propositional assent to a doctrinal formula. It is a way of relating to the world and everything in it which has to be experienced.
Could you unpack this a bit? I'm sure the failing is on my side but it sounds like "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously" to me.
I prefer to show the child the available choices and ask them to question each of them. If they find one that agrees with them, all well and good.
This is the Olympian cloud cuckoo land I was objecting to before. It is simply not possible for children to float above their parents' lives. If those lives are formed and informed by faith, the lives of the children will be as well. It is inevitable, and may as well be done well.
Depends on what you mean by done well. If you mean asserting that my beliefs are true, don't agree. If you mean, these are my beliefs, you can share them, OK. One is permissive, the other coercive.
The idea that what are referred to as 'Christian values' have only been known and in place for a couple of thousand years is, of course, entirely wrong.
Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? Is it based on any knowledge of Greek or Roman or Chinese moral attitudes?
Or is it a dogmatic opinion held in the absence of evidence.
I cited a historian. Who have you cited as evidence?
Our species has survived because people evolved to behave in ways which enabled survival and the ones who did not were not numerous enough to cause our extinction.
This is nonsense pseudo-science. Humans are not subject to group selection.
The Romans and Greeks routinely abandoned and exposed unwanted infants. Leaving children that they didn't want to die does not seem to have impaired their survival. Why would it?
Most species in nature that practice parental care survive by having an optimistic number of children and then abandoning those that they can't look after. The human species survived doing the same.
Most Empires in the ancient world survived by massacring any neighbours who resisted them or who were a threat.
The Mongols massacred every city that tried to resist them. It's been estimated that they reduced the total population of humanity by 10%. Did that stop the human species from surviving? No, because the next generation recovered the numbers, with a rather higher proportion of Mongol genes in the overall gene pool. The Mongols were by no means unusual. Sacking cities and massacring the inhabitants has been standard practice in most of human history. The Roman's did it. The Persians did it. The Greeks did it.
Medieval Christian Europe was not a particularly peaceful place by modern standards. But unlike any earlier period of history there were a lot of people worrying that it was too violent. We hear about Christian armies massacring cities because it was unusual and people objected (man bites dog, news). We don't hear about the Romans doing the same, because it was the usual practice (dog bites man, no news). For example if you read about Corinth under the Romans you may come across a note pointing out that the city Paul visited was not the same city as the ancient Greek city of that name: the Romans had destroyed that and refounded it. This is not a big deal because the Romans did it often. (I can think of two other instances off the top of my head: Carthage and Jerusalem, but that's because both are notable for other reasons).
Point is: if you look at the historical record the claim that all societies share Christian values is simply not supported by the evidence.
I was weaned on the idea of the axial age, which argues that a number of religions and philosophies emerged, which elevated transcendence as a key quest, and also highlighted non-violence, neighbourliness, and so on.
I always found it fascinating, but of course, the key problem is that there is no evidence for it. Sure, you can compare Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, and so on, and talk about a pause for liberty (Jaspers), and it's hunky dory, but how do you substantiate it? MacCulloch calls it a baggy monster. I would call it an interesting guess.
The idea that what are referred to as 'Christian values' have only been known and in place for a couple of thousand years is, of course, entirely wrong.
Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? Is it based on any knowledge of Greek or Roman or Chinese moral attitudes?
Or is it a dogmatic opinion held in the absence of evidence.
I cited a historian. Who have you cited as evidence?
Our species has survived because people evolved to behave in ways which enabled survival and the ones who did not were not numerous enough to cause our extinction.
This is nonsense pseudo-science. Humans are not subject to group selection.
The Romans and Greeks routinely abandoned and exposed unwanted infants. Leaving children that they didn't want to die does not seem to have impaired their survival. Why would it?
Most species in nature that practice parental care survive by having an optimistic number of children and then abandoning those that they can't look after. The human species survived doing the same.
Most Empires in the ancient world survived by massacring any neighbours who resisted them or who were a threat.
The Mongols massacred every city that tried to resist them. It's been estimated that they reduced the total population of humanity by 10%. Did that stop the human species from surviving? No, because the next generation recovered the numbers, with a rather higher proportion of Mongol genes in the overall gene pool. The Mongols were by no means unusual. Sacking cities and massacring the inhabitants has been standard practice in most of human history. The Roman's did it. The Persians did it. The Greeks did it.
Medieval Christian Europe was not a particularly peaceful place by modern standards. But unlike any earlier period of history there were a lot of people worrying that it was too violent. We hear about Christian armies massacring cities because it was unusual and people objected (man bites dog, news). We don't hear about the Romans doing the same, because it was the usual practice (dog bites man, no news). For example if you read about Corinth under the Romans you may come across a note pointing out that the city Paul visited was not the same city as the ancient Greek city of that name: the Romans had destroyed that and refounded it. This is not a big deal because the Romans did it often. (I can think of two other instances off the top of my head: Carthage and Jerusalem, but that's because both are notable for other reasons).
Point is: if you look at the historical record the claim that all societies share Christian values is simply not supported by the evidence.
And if you look at the vicious infighting of Catholics v Protestants, the oppression of native peoples in the Americas, the persecution of Jews, and so on, you'll find that many so-called Christian societies did not follow Christian values.
The underlying foolishness of your position is that it assumes that the individual is the bedrock of reality. By my lights, humans are essentially communal. For example, we don't refrain from teaching our children to speak our native tongue until they grow up enough to choose which language they want to learn (the very notion is nonsense, of course.) There may be baggage that comes with learning, say, English as one's first language -- but it is just part and parcel of becoming civilized. To withhold the culture of the parent from the child until that child reaches some age of reason is not just cruel - it is impossible. The parent cannot cease being a member of their culture, and the child would never reach an age of reason if the parent could. The notion that instilling our understandings into our children is destructive assumes that there is some quivering blob of enlightenment that is being crushed by our meddling. While that notion may seem romantic (or, bizarrely, hard-nosed) to you, all the evidence we have is that humans are pretty stupid in isolation. It is culture that raises us up to a point that we can have what you might call a thought, not our personal and private inner genius. And, of course, pagans, atheists, etc. will do exactly the same for their children -- as they should and must.
The individual is the bedrock of the individual's reality. I don't in truth regard religious belief as a 'culture'. I see it more as a hobby or area of special interest. That includes my atheism.
Depends on what you mean by done well. If you mean asserting that my beliefs are true, don't agree. If you mean, these are my beliefs, you can share them, OK. One is permissive, the other coercive.
Agreed. And with that goes the idea that if a child chooses other beliefs then that is also fine.
Depends on what you mean by done well. If you mean asserting that my beliefs are true, don't agree. If you mean, these are my beliefs, you can share them, OK. One is permissive, the other coercive.
Agreed. And with that goes the idea that if a child chooses other beliefs then that is also fine.
Although it's difficult to define coercive. My parents were atheists of the indifferent variety, and I ended up at 16, going to Catholic mass. But school religion was coercive, go to assembly, sing hymns, listen to Bible readings. But why?
[<snip>
Because what you believe in is only one subjective truth among many possible subjective truths. A pagan, atheist, white supremacist, artist, ethical vegan, communist, or whatever could use exactly the same argument and condition their child accordingly.
Your belief that this is the case is ‘is only one subjective truth among many possible subjective truths’. Why is it better to raise a child in that belief than in any other?
IME, parenting children is not about ‘conditioning’ them, although inevitably they will pick up what you deeply believe from the behaviour that flows from it. What you say but don’t live they will draw their own conclusions about. Ultimately, ISTM, any form of upbringing which is predicated on ‘conditioning’ people is liable to fail in its object, and to produce damaged human beings.
A Christian view of the world which is surprised to find the values that matter are also present in non-Christian societies, IMO, has a defective view of creation.
Similarly a Christian view of the world which is surprised that evil can be found in societies or organisations which are or claim to be Christian has either an over-realised eschatology or a naive view of human fallibility.
Agreed. And with that goes the idea that if a child chooses other beliefs then that is also fine.
Although it's difficult to define coercive. My parents were atheists of the indifferent variety, and I ended up at 16, going to Catholic mass. But school religion was coercive, go to assembly, sing hymns, listen to Bible readings. But why?
Same experience as me, minus Catholic Mass. I think the Christianity on offer at school was cultural rather than anything else. We might as well have been singing Land of Hope and Glory.
[<snip>
Because what you believe in is only one subjective truth among many possible subjective truths. A pagan, atheist, white supremacist, artist, ethical vegan, communist, or whatever could use exactly the same argument and condition their child accordingly.
Snipped.
Your belief that this is the case is ‘is only one subjective truth among many possible subjective truths’. Why is it better to raise a child in that belief than in any other?
It's not better to raise a child in any one belief. My idea is to allow, as much as possible, the child to have a range of experiences from which they can choose whatever resonates best with them.
[<snip>
Because what you believe in is only one subjective truth among many possible subjective truths. A pagan, atheist, white supremacist, artist, ethical vegan, communist, or whatever could use exactly the same argument and condition their child accordingly.
Snipped.
Your belief that this is the case is ‘is only one subjective truth among many possible subjective truths’. Why is it better to raise a child in that belief than in any other?
It's not better to raise a child in any one belief. My idea is to allow, as much as possible, the child to have a range of experiences from which they can choose whatever resonates best with them.
The tacit assumption in that approach is that all the range are equally valid - which is your subjective truth, and into which your professed approach conditions them (to use your language).
I don't in truth regard religious belief as a 'culture'. I see it more as a hobby or area of special interest.
That may explain the difference here. I see it as an essential part—indeed, probably the essence—of who I am. I would imagine that feeling is shared by many others who have posted.
@Robert Armin, I fear the title of the thread has taken on a life of its own, apart from the question you raised in the OP. I totally agree that it’s not healthy to teach children to suppress emotions like anger. But I’d have to add, I was not taught as a child that being Christian meant “be nice and don’t get angry.”
[<snip>
Because what you believe in is only one subjective truth among many possible subjective truths. A pagan, atheist, white supremacist, artist, ethical vegan, communist, or whatever could use exactly the same argument and condition their child accordingly.
Snipped.
Your belief that this is the case is ‘is only one subjective truth among many possible subjective truths’. Why is it better to raise a child in that belief than in any other?
It's not better to raise a child in any one belief. My idea is to allow, as much as possible, the child to have a range of experiences from which they can choose whatever resonates best with them.
The tacit assumption in that approach is that all the range are equally valid - which is your subjective truth, and into which your professed approach conditions them (to use your language).
True. The alternative where everyone insists their truth is the only valid truth boggles my mind.
[<snip>
Because what you believe in is only one subjective truth among many possible subjective truths. A pagan, atheist, white supremacist, artist, ethical vegan, communist, or whatever could use exactly the same argument and condition their child accordingly.
Snipped.
Your belief that this is the case is ‘is only one subjective truth among many possible subjective truths’. Why is it better to raise a child in that belief than in any other?
It's not better to raise a child in any one belief. My idea is to allow, as much as possible, the child to have a range of experiences from which they can choose whatever resonates best with them.
The tacit assumption in that approach is that all the range are equally valid - which is your subjective truth, and into which your professed approach conditions them (to use your language).
True. The alternative where everyone insists their truth is the only valid truth boggles my mind.
The underlying foolishness of your position is that it assumes that the individual is the bedrock of reality. By my lights, humans are essentially communal. For example, we don't refrain from teaching our children to speak our native tongue until they grow up enough to choose which language they want to learn (the very notion is nonsense, of course.) There may be baggage that comes with learning, say, English as one's first language -- but it is just part and parcel of becoming civilized. To withhold the culture of the parent from the child until that child reaches some age of reason is not just cruel - it is impossible. The parent cannot cease being a member of their culture, and the child would never reach an age of reason if the parent could. The notion that instilling our understandings into our children is destructive assumes that there is some quivering blob of enlightenment that is being crushed by our meddling. While that notion may seem romantic (or, bizarrely, hard-nosed) to you, all the evidence we have is that humans are pretty stupid in isolation. It is culture that raises us up to a point that we can have what you might call a thought, not our personal and private inner genius. And, of course, pagans, atheists, etc. will do exactly the same for their children -- as they should and must.
The individual is the bedrock of the individual's reality. I don't in truth regard religious belief as a 'culture'. I see it more as a hobby or area of special interest. That includes my atheism.
If it's just a hobby then why object to it any more than you would a parent taking their child fishing every weekend?
If it's just a hobby then why object to it any more than you would a parent taking their child fishing every weekend?
If the child isn't enjoying the fishing or isn't being exposed to other interests I'd object to it. I'm, not objecting to teaching Christianity, as such. It's the absence of teaching about all the other beliefs.
Corrected (I hope) quote attribution. BroJames Purgatory Host
Is it really an alternative? Or are you tacitly insisting that your truth (that all truths are subjectively equal) is the only valid truth?
It simply doesn't make any sense to me that there's only one truth that a select few have got right.
I find this odd because it doesn’t fit any area of my experience of life except things that are simply matters of taste.
The red standing figure at the crossing means don’t cross.
The electricity in the overhead wires on the railway will probably kill or seriously injure you if you touch it.
The polio vaccine gives a high level of immune protection against the disease.
Ascending too fast from a dive depth of 30 metres or more is liable to give you the bends.
There are no competing truths there. Either the statements are true or they are not.
Sure there are epistemological issues in the area of religious belief - but they are about what and how we know, not about the possibility of co-existing different competing truths.
But the assertion that Christian values were new, carries a heavy load, doesn't it? How will this be demonstrated?
I am labouring under the impression that I provided some supporting considerations.
Well, Jainism and Buddhism opposed violence, pointed to transcendence, and supposedly "laid moral foundations for humanity", (Jaspers). So you are saying that Christian values were new in the Middle East, or globally?
Is it really an alternative? Or are you tacitly insisting that your truth (that all truths are subjectively equal) is the only valid truth?
It simply doesn't make any sense to me that there's only one truth that a select few have got right.
Yes, I get that. And I respect it. And it would make perfect sense to me for you to teach that position to your children.
But whether it makes sense to you or not is irrelevant to my point, which is that by your terms you’re advocating the same thing you say others shouldn’t do, except you’re taking it a step further. You’re saying that I, as a Christian, shouldn’t raise my children according to my subjective truth, but instead should raise them according to your subjective truth.
Re the OP question about assertiveness and anger, it is important to teach not only 'Gentle Jesus, meek and mild' but also stories such as the turning over of the tables of the money changers in the temple. Asking the children what they make of such examples would be quite revealing and they can be used to launch a discussion about when, and how, people should assert themselves, whilst still - of course - being kind, etc.
Why is it absurd? On what point is it absurd? Atheism cannot want faiths to thrive, and they do not thrive unless they are well understood and taught. In that respect, and as you yourself pointed out, it is effectively a non-religious faith.
In any case, in practice, no parent can ever adopt a neutral position. They live out their own lives according to their own beliefs, and children inevitably learn from that. How does your Olympian view cope with the reality of how parent/child relationships actually work?
The atheists I know, and for instance the writers and producers of the NSS points of view, do not want religions not to thrive, since that is an impossible position. They first of all would like faith beliefs not to have any privileged status and then work securely forward from that.
Point is: if you look at the historical record the claim that all societies share Christian values is simply not supported by the evidence.
Nor did I claim that - quite the opposite I thought. I was pointing out that the range of behaviours humans display and use enabled the species to survive. gradually, they were codified in different times and different places in different ways by different people and this did not begin about 2,000 years ago. Just because Christians like to call them Christian values does not change their evolution.
If children aren't taught about it, how are they supposed to know about it ?
The most important word there is about. To tell, teach, children that e.g. Jesus loves them, without being able to provide one scrap of verifiable (etc etc) evidence is more like indoctrination. A similar comment applies to all faith beliefs. However, to teach them how and why people believe is to educate them about beliefs.
When a parent believes that it is the truth that Jesus loves all children, it is right and beneficial to tell them so, and not to withhold the truth from them. It is only what might be harmful to a child that should be withheld, eg telling the child that they must always be nice and never be angry.
When a parent believes that it is the truth that Jesus loves all children, it is right and beneficial to tell them so, and not to withhold the truth from them. It is only what might be harmful to a child that should be withheld, eg telling the child that they must always be nice and never be angry.
Yes, I quite agree that the parent is quite right in telling a child that they believe something to be true, but not imply that it is verifiably so.
the point which has come up several times about being nice and not angry I have found very interesting. I have been trying to remember whether or not this was taught when I was a child with the link to the CofE background of life.
When I see people telling other people their beliefs are foolish, I am reminded of what Paul said when he claimed to be preaching the cross of Christ which is shear foolishness.
Regarding the question of what are Christian values, I came across This video which suggest our sense of individualism and the real roots of the Christian faith are quite different.
Is it really an alternative? Or are you tacitly insisting that your truth (that all truths are subjectively equal) is the only valid truth?
It simply doesn't make any sense to me that there's only one truth that a select few have got right.
That's true for you.
More seriously, you're talking as if the entirety of Christianity is one truth. But, even considering only those doctrines that are considered central by the majority of Christians, Christianity comprises several different doctrines. Obviously a lot of Christianity is shared by Judaism. Quite a lot is shared by Islam. Christians can build and seek common ground with Hinduism and Buddhism.
So: the choice between there being one truth, entirely right and the others entirely wrong, and lots of truths, each subjectively valid and perfect for the people who hold it (and by implication entirely wrong for anyone else?), is a false dilemma.
And if you look at the vicious infighting of Catholics v Protestants, the oppression of native peoples in the Americas, the persecution of Jews, and so on, you'll find that many so-called Christian societies did not follow Christian values.
That's your subjective truth.
Seriously though, yes. (I did say something about Christian armies massacring people.) Christians wouldn't be the first people not to always follow the values promulgated by their society or the last. But there were voices objecting to all of the above. For instance, the Dominicans, led by De las Casas, for example, managed to get the King of Spain to rule that Indians had rights. (I've not heard that the ruling was particularly observed by the Spanish landowners, to be fair.) But the Romans would have had no qualms at all that I've heard of. The closest I can think of is a speech in Tacitus which he gives to a British chieftain preparing his people for a last stand. I don't think Tacitus meant his readers to endorse it.
If children aren't taught about it, how are they supposed to know about it ?
The most important word there is about. To tell, teach, children that e.g. Jesus loves them, without being able to provide one scrap of verifiable (etc etc) evidence is more like indoctrination. A similar comment applies to all faith beliefs. However, to teach them how and why people believe is to educate them about beliefs.
I don't get the arguments about letting the child choose as an adult. As has been said already, children get to choose about basically everything as adults--if they wish to leave off brushing their teeth then, they'll do so. So my raising my son in the Christian faith does not force Christianity on him lifelong, as if he were some sort of robot.
It's hard to reject, or even to properly accept, something you have been conditioned to believe is normal.
But there's also this: If you have something in your life that you seriously believe to be the way, the truth, and the life, the best thing that ever happened to you, the thing that humanity was made for, and so on and so forth--why ever would you withhold it from your child? It would be worse than withholding vaccinations on the grounds that the child can "choose" to be vaccinated as an adult.
Because what you believe in is only one subjective truth among many possible subjective truths. A pagan, atheist, white supremacist, artist, ethical vegan, communist, or whatever could use exactly the same argument and condition their child accordingly.
I prefer to show the child the available choices and ask them to question each of them. If they find one that agrees with them, all well and good.
First of all, you are never going to be able to show a child even a tenth of the choices that are out there, let alone do it equal-handedly. Nor should you, IMHO. One of the reasons we have elders is so that we can (hopefully) benefit from their (alleged) wisdom.
Now, about subjective truth. You need to define this. It appears from your usage that you mean "subject on which many people disagree without being held by rest of the human race to be complete lunatics." Correct me if that's wrong.
The problem lies in the word "truth." It does NOT mean "opinion" or "standpoint" or "position on subject X." It means something that is in fact correct, accurate, factual, corresponding to reality, regardless of the opinions of people.
Now you and I differ in our opinion of the status of Christianity, apparently. I believe it is in fact truth; you, it seems, do not.
That's fine. But what is not fine (or logical, or sensible) is to expect me to adjust my treatment of it to fit your opinion. I have evaluated it to be true, and therefore will behave accordingly (which includes handing it on to my children). I regret the fact that you think my evaluation to be in error, and therefore my behavior; but I am no more likely to change to suit you than I would be if I evaluated that creature coming down the street to be a polar bear while you took it to be a teddybear. While regretting our differences, I would still run right into the house and shut the door--and take my children with me.
Utterly absurd comment re atheists. I'd also point out that atheism is also a belief and a way of "relating to the world and everything in it which has to be experienced".
My main point is that Christianity is only one our of a myriad of possible faith positions any one of which may be a best fit with someone's needs and all of which are of equal value and validity.
No they aren't.
Are you really saying that if a person were fool enough to believe that the ancient religion of the Aztecs with its gods and human sacrifice were the best fit for them, then that is of equal value and validity and so their needs should be accommodated and indulged?
For a start, a crucial question is whether a religion is objectively true or not. You accept that atheism is a belief. If there is no God and no supernatural, then atheism is true and all other belief systems are false, delusional. If there is a God, or some gods or any supernatural, then atheism is false, and some religions may be more true or less true than others.
That is still the case if you don't feel able to assert with complete confidence that atheism is the true and only explanation.
Even if you say you don't know or that people cannot know, those statements are not identical.
Point is: if you look at the historical record the claim that all societies share Christian values is simply not supported by the evidence.
Nor did I claim that - quite the opposite I thought. I was pointing out that the range of behaviours humans display and use enabled the species to survive. gradually, they were codified in different times and different places in different ways by different people and this did not begin about 2,000 years ago. Just because Christians like to call them Christian values does not change their evolution.
Ok - it seems we're agreeing that different societies have different values. That is, the moral code of a society is much underdetermined by the minimum needed for the society and enough of the individuals to survive and reproduce. (Why are you still talking about enabling the species to survive? Presumably because it sounds more like science even though from a scientific point of view it is rubbish. But also because you're having it both ways: you acknowledge that different societies have different ethics, but you want to try to take that back, so as not to acknowledge that Christianity has a different ethical code.)
And we can agree that Christian ethics has roots in Jewish ethics, mostly, and Greek ethics, to a lesser extent.
But as far as saying that Christian ethics had and developed distinctive aspects, and that many of those aspects are fundamental to modern secular ethics, you haven't offered any good reason to disagree with that at all.
I'm getting confused. Of course many moral codes talk about the importance of forgiveness. But many don't. It would have been antithetical to the values of ancient Rome, although not to Judaism. To say that Jesus made it central to his message seems to me a simple statement of fact, and in no way denigrates any other system.
Are you really saying that if a person were fool enough to believe that the ancient religion of the Aztecs with its gods and human sacrifice were the best fit for them, then that is of equal value and validity and so their needs should be accommodated and indulged?
For a start, a crucial question is whether a religion is objectively true or not. You accept that atheism is a belief. If there is no God and no supernatural, then atheism is true and all other belief systems are false, delusional. If there is a God, or some gods or any supernatural, then atheism is false, and some religions may be more true or less true than others.
That is still the case if you don't feel able to assert with complete confidence that atheism is the true and only explanation.
Even if you say you don't know or that people cannot know, those statements are not identical.
People are free to worship the Aztec Gods, but not free to make sacrifices to them.
At the moment I know a Daoist, a Buddhist, a few pagans, a Christian, and an atheist. They all seem perfectly happy with their beliefs and the idea that only one (or none) of them is right makes no sense to me. Similarly, the idea that the only true belief out of thousands of possible beliefs is the one you happen to believe in defies probability.
I think you argument that atheism either is or is not true is simplistic. My view is that much of reality is subjective and created by the individual. We do not have the mental capacity to comprehend an objective reality.
NB. The supernatural and atheism are perfectly compatible. Atheism only denies God, not every possible permutation of the supernatural.
I don't get the arguments about letting the child choose as an adult. As has been said already, children get to choose about basically everything as adults--if they wish to leave off brushing their teeth then, they'll do so. So my raising my son in the Christian faith does not force Christianity on him lifelong, as if he were some sort of robot.
It's hard to reject, or even to properly accept, something you have been conditioned to believe is normal.
But there's also this: If you have something in your life that you seriously believe to be the way, the truth, and the life, the best thing that ever happened to you, the thing that humanity was made for, and so on and so forth--why ever would you withhold it from your child? It would be worse than withholding vaccinations on the grounds that the child can "choose" to be vaccinated as an adult.
Because what you believe in is only one subjective truth among many possible subjective truths. A pagan, atheist, white supremacist, artist, ethical vegan, communist, or whatever could use exactly the same argument and condition their child accordingly.
I prefer to show the child the available choices and ask them to question each of them. If they find one that agrees with them, all well and good.
First of all, you are never going to be able to show a child even a tenth of the choices that are out there, let alone do it equal-handedly. Nor should you, IMHO. One of the reasons we have elders is so that we can (hopefully) benefit from their (alleged) wisdom.
Now, about subjective truth. You need to define this. It appears from your usage that you mean "subject on which many people disagree without being held by rest of the human race to be complete lunatics." Correct me if that's wrong.
The problem lies in the word "truth." It does NOT mean "opinion" or "standpoint" or "position on subject X." It means something that is in fact correct, accurate, factual, corresponding to reality, regardless of the opinions of people.
Now you and I differ in our opinion of the status of Christianity, apparently. I believe it is in fact truth; you, it seems, do not.
That's fine. But what is not fine (or logical, or sensible) is to expect me to adjust my treatment of it to fit your opinion. I have evaluated it to be true, and therefore will behave accordingly (which includes handing it on to my children). I regret the fact that you think my evaluation to be in error, and therefore my behavior; but I am no more likely to change to suit you than I would be if I evaluated that creature coming down the street to be a polar bear while you took it to be a teddybear. While regretting our differences, I would still run right into the house and shut the door--and take my children with me.
I'm using subjective truth as a term to describe all of an individual's experience of life. Given we do not have the ability to comprehend objective truth there are as many truths as they are organisms able to sense their surroundings.
When I see people telling other people their beliefs are foolish, I am reminded of what Paul said when he claimed to be preaching the cross of Christ which is shear foolishness.
Regarding the question of what are Christian values, I came across This video which suggest our sense of individualism and the real roots of the Christian faith are quite different.
No one here has said that anyone's beliefs are foolish.
True that, that some atheists accept the supernatural in non-theistic forms.
How is a religion objectively true? Does this mean it's true, even if no-one believes it?
Did Christianity exist before Christ? And if not, then did it come into being as an objective truth or as a subjective truth via the (alleged) experiences of those who (allegedly) wrote the gospels?
Point is: if you look at the historical record the claim that all societies share Christian values is simply not supported by the evidence.
Nor did I claim that - quite the opposite I thought. I was pointing out that the range of behaviours humans display and use enabled the species to survive. gradually, they were codified in different times and different places in different ways by different people and this did not begin about 2,000 years ago. Just because Christians like to call them Christian values does not change their evolution.
Ok - it seems we're agreeing that different societies have different values. That is, the moral code of a society is much underdetermined by the minimum needed for the society and enough of the individuals to survive and reproduce. (Why are you still talking about enabling the species to survive? Presumably because it sounds more like science even though from a scientific point of view it is rubbish.
I mention it because it is part of how we came to be who and what we are. Once fire was used and groups of humans sat together around it, there would have been, wouldnd’t there, one who used his or her imagination to telllllllll a bit of a story occasionally? This would have helped hold the group together. There is of course no proof of this, but consistent interpretation of archaeological evidence seems to indicate that people told stories, because they thought that for example articles were needed by the dead.
Could you please say y you think my reference to survival (of the species) is rubbish?
But also because you're having it both ways: you acknowledge that different societies have different ethics, but you want to try to take that back, so as not to acknowledge that Christianity has a different ethical code.)
What is it that is so different in the ethical code ofChristianity that sets it quite apart? I refer again to the basic need for most people to
do things for the good of others as well as for themselves most of the time for the species as a whole to survive' and yes, I do agree that the ethical code of Christianity has the roots you refer to.
I have listened to the last sentences several times but not quite sure of what reasons you are looking for.
True that, that some atheists accept the supernatural in non-theistic forms.
How is a religion objectively true? Does this mean it's true, even if no-one believes it?
Did Christianity exist before Christ? And if not, then did it come into being as an objective truth or as a subjective truth via the (alleged) experiences of those who (allegedly) wrote the gospels?
I can get the idea that Christ exists before or outside time, but don't see how that is objectively true. I thought that objectivity pertained to natural phenomena, which this isn't.
Comments
In any case, in practice, no parent can ever adopt a neutral position. They live out their own lives according to their own beliefs, and children inevitably learn from that. How does your Olympian view cope with the reality of how parent/child relationships actually work?
It's hard to reject, or even to properly accept, something you have been conditioned to believe is normal.
Because what you believe in is only one subjective truth among many possible subjective truths. A pagan, atheist, white supremacist, artist, ethical vegan, communist, or whatever could use exactly the same argument and condition their child accordingly.
I prefer to show the child the available choices and ask them to question each of them. If they find one that agrees with them, all well and good.
The underlying foolishness of your position is that it assumes that the individual is the bedrock of reality. By my lights, humans are essentially communal. For example, we don't refrain from teaching our children to speak our native tongue until they grow up enough to choose which language they want to learn (the very notion is nonsense, of course.) There may be baggage that comes with learning, say, English as one's first language -- but it is just part and parcel of becoming civilized. To withhold the culture of the parent from the child until that child reaches some age of reason is not just cruel - it is impossible. The parent cannot cease being a member of their culture, and the child would never reach an age of reason if the parent could. The notion that instilling our understandings into our children is destructive assumes that there is some quivering blob of enlightenment that is being crushed by our meddling. While that notion may seem romantic (or, bizarrely, hard-nosed) to you, all the evidence we have is that humans are pretty stupid in isolation. It is culture that raises us up to a point that we can have what you might call a thought, not our personal and private inner genius. And, of course, pagans, atheists, etc. will do exactly the same for their children -- as they should and must.
This is the Olympian cloud cuckoo land I was objecting to before. It is simply not possible for children to float above their parents' lives. If those lives are formed and informed by faith, the lives of the children will be as well. It is inevitable, and may as well be done well.
Could you unpack this a bit? I'm sure the failing is on my side but it sounds like "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously" to me.
Depends on what you mean by done well. If you mean asserting that my beliefs are true, don't agree. If you mean, these are my beliefs, you can share them, OK. One is permissive, the other coercive.
Or is it a dogmatic opinion held in the absence of evidence.
I cited a historian. Who have you cited as evidence?
This is nonsense pseudo-science. Humans are not subject to group selection.
The Romans and Greeks routinely abandoned and exposed unwanted infants. Leaving children that they didn't want to die does not seem to have impaired their survival. Why would it?
Most species in nature that practice parental care survive by having an optimistic number of children and then abandoning those that they can't look after. The human species survived doing the same.
Most Empires in the ancient world survived by massacring any neighbours who resisted them or who were a threat.
The Mongols massacred every city that tried to resist them. It's been estimated that they reduced the total population of humanity by 10%. Did that stop the human species from surviving? No, because the next generation recovered the numbers, with a rather higher proportion of Mongol genes in the overall gene pool. The Mongols were by no means unusual. Sacking cities and massacring the inhabitants has been standard practice in most of human history. The Roman's did it. The Persians did it. The Greeks did it.
Medieval Christian Europe was not a particularly peaceful place by modern standards. But unlike any earlier period of history there were a lot of people worrying that it was too violent. We hear about Christian armies massacring cities because it was unusual and people objected (man bites dog, news). We don't hear about the Romans doing the same, because it was the usual practice (dog bites man, no news). For example if you read about Corinth under the Romans you may come across a note pointing out that the city Paul visited was not the same city as the ancient Greek city of that name: the Romans had destroyed that and refounded it. This is not a big deal because the Romans did it often. (I can think of two other instances off the top of my head: Carthage and Jerusalem, but that's because both are notable for other reasons).
Point is: if you look at the historical record the claim that all societies share Christian values is simply not supported by the evidence.
I always found it fascinating, but of course, the key problem is that there is no evidence for it. Sure, you can compare Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, and so on, and talk about a pause for liberty (Jaspers), and it's hunky dory, but how do you substantiate it? MacCulloch calls it a baggy monster. I would call it an interesting guess.
And if you look at the vicious infighting of Catholics v Protestants, the oppression of native peoples in the Americas, the persecution of Jews, and so on, you'll find that many so-called Christian societies did not follow Christian values.
The individual is the bedrock of the individual's reality. I don't in truth regard religious belief as a 'culture'. I see it more as a hobby or area of special interest. That includes my atheism.
Agreed. And with that goes the idea that if a child chooses other beliefs then that is also fine.
Although it's difficult to define coercive. My parents were atheists of the indifferent variety, and I ended up at 16, going to Catholic mass. But school religion was coercive, go to assembly, sing hymns, listen to Bible readings. But why?
Your belief that this is the case is ‘is only one subjective truth among many possible subjective truths’. Why is it better to raise a child in that belief than in any other?
IME, parenting children is not about ‘conditioning’ them, although inevitably they will pick up what you deeply believe from the behaviour that flows from it. What you say but don’t live they will draw their own conclusions about. Ultimately, ISTM, any form of upbringing which is predicated on ‘conditioning’ people is liable to fail in its object, and to produce damaged human beings.
A Christian view of the world which is surprised to find the values that matter are also present in non-Christian societies, IMO, has a defective view of creation.
Similarly a Christian view of the world which is surprised that evil can be found in societies or organisations which are or claim to be Christian has either an over-realised eschatology or a naive view of human fallibility.
Same experience as me, minus Catholic Mass. I think the Christianity on offer at school was cultural rather than anything else. We might as well have been singing Land of Hope and Glory.
@Robert Armin, I fear the title of the thread has taken on a life of its own, apart from the question you raised in the OP. I totally agree that it’s not healthy to teach children to suppress emotions like anger. But I’d have to add, I was not taught as a child that being Christian meant “be nice and don’t get angry.”
True. The alternative where everyone insists their truth is the only valid truth boggles my mind.
Corrected quote attribution. BroJames Purgatory Host
Is it really an alternative? Or are you tacitly insisting that your truth (that all truths are subjectively equal) is the only valid truth?
If it's just a hobby then why object to it any more than you would a parent taking their child fishing every weekend?
If the child isn't enjoying the fishing or isn't being exposed to other interests I'd object to it. I'm, not objecting to teaching Christianity, as such. It's the absence of teaching about all the other beliefs.
Corrected (I hope) quote attribution. BroJames Purgatory Host
It simply doesn't make any sense to me that there's only one truth that a select few have got right.
The red standing figure at the crossing means don’t cross.
The electricity in the overhead wires on the railway will probably kill or seriously injure you if you touch it.
The polio vaccine gives a high level of immune protection against the disease.
Ascending too fast from a dive depth of 30 metres or more is liable to give you the bends.
There are no competing truths there. Either the statements are true or they are not.
Sure there are epistemological issues in the area of religious belief - but they are about what and how we know, not about the possibility of co-existing different competing truths.
Well, Jainism and Buddhism opposed violence, pointed to transcendence, and supposedly "laid moral foundations for humanity", (Jaspers). So you are saying that Christian values were new in the Middle East, or globally?
But whether it makes sense to you or not is irrelevant to my point, which is that by your terms you’re advocating the same thing you say others shouldn’t do, except you’re taking it a step further. You’re saying that I, as a Christian, shouldn’t raise my children according to my subjective truth, but instead should raise them according to your subjective truth.
the point which has come up several times about being nice and not angry I have found very interesting. I have been trying to remember whether or not this was taught when I was a child with the link to the CofE background of life.
Regarding the question of what are Christian values, I came across This video which suggest our sense of individualism and the real roots of the Christian faith are quite different.
More seriously, you're talking as if the entirety of Christianity is one truth. But, even considering only those doctrines that are considered central by the majority of Christians, Christianity comprises several different doctrines. Obviously a lot of Christianity is shared by Judaism. Quite a lot is shared by Islam. Christians can build and seek common ground with Hinduism and Buddhism.
So: the choice between there being one truth, entirely right and the others entirely wrong, and lots of truths, each subjectively valid and perfect for the people who hold it (and by implication entirely wrong for anyone else?), is a false dilemma.
Seriously though, yes. (I did say something about Christian armies massacring people.) Christians wouldn't be the first people not to always follow the values promulgated by their society or the last. But there were voices objecting to all of the above. For instance, the Dominicans, led by De las Casas, for example, managed to get the King of Spain to rule that Indians had rights. (I've not heard that the ruling was particularly observed by the Spanish landowners, to be fair.) But the Romans would have had no qualms at all that I've heard of. The closest I can think of is a speech in Tacitus which he gives to a British chieftain preparing his people for a last stand. I don't think Tacitus meant his readers to endorse it.
It is suficient to tell them what the gospels say
And yet teenagers do this all the time!
First of all, you are never going to be able to show a child even a tenth of the choices that are out there, let alone do it equal-handedly. Nor should you, IMHO. One of the reasons we have elders is so that we can (hopefully) benefit from their (alleged) wisdom.
Now, about subjective truth. You need to define this. It appears from your usage that you mean "subject on which many people disagree without being held by rest of the human race to be complete lunatics." Correct me if that's wrong.
The problem lies in the word "truth." It does NOT mean "opinion" or "standpoint" or "position on subject X." It means something that is in fact correct, accurate, factual, corresponding to reality, regardless of the opinions of people.
Now you and I differ in our opinion of the status of Christianity, apparently. I believe it is in fact truth; you, it seems, do not.
That's fine. But what is not fine (or logical, or sensible) is to expect me to adjust my treatment of it to fit your opinion. I have evaluated it to be true, and therefore will behave accordingly (which includes handing it on to my children). I regret the fact that you think my evaluation to be in error, and therefore my behavior; but I am no more likely to change to suit you than I would be if I evaluated that creature coming down the street to be a polar bear while you took it to be a teddybear. While regretting our differences, I would still run right into the house and shut the door--and take my children with me.
Are you really saying that if a person were fool enough to believe that the ancient religion of the Aztecs with its gods and human sacrifice were the best fit for them, then that is of equal value and validity and so their needs should be accommodated and indulged?
For a start, a crucial question is whether a religion is objectively true or not. You accept that atheism is a belief. If there is no God and no supernatural, then atheism is true and all other belief systems are false, delusional. If there is a God, or some gods or any supernatural, then atheism is false, and some religions may be more true or less true than others.
That is still the case if you don't feel able to assert with complete confidence that atheism is the true and only explanation.
Even if you say you don't know or that people cannot know, those statements are not identical.
Indeed. And it frustrates me no end that it is unanswerable.
And we can agree that Christian ethics has roots in Jewish ethics, mostly, and Greek ethics, to a lesser extent.
But as far as saying that Christian ethics had and developed distinctive aspects, and that many of those aspects are fundamental to modern secular ethics, you haven't offered any good reason to disagree with that at all.
People are free to worship the Aztec Gods, but not free to make sacrifices to them.
At the moment I know a Daoist, a Buddhist, a few pagans, a Christian, and an atheist. They all seem perfectly happy with their beliefs and the idea that only one (or none) of them is right makes no sense to me. Similarly, the idea that the only true belief out of thousands of possible beliefs is the one you happen to believe in defies probability.
I think you argument that atheism either is or is not true is simplistic. My view is that much of reality is subjective and created by the individual. We do not have the mental capacity to comprehend an objective reality.
NB. The supernatural and atheism are perfectly compatible. Atheism only denies God, not every possible permutation of the supernatural.
I'm using subjective truth as a term to describe all of an individual's experience of life. Given we do not have the ability to comprehend objective truth there are as many truths as they are organisms able to sense their surroundings.
No one here has said that anyone's beliefs are foolish.
How is a religion objectively true? Does this mean it's true, even if no-one believes it?
Did Christianity exist before Christ? And if not, then did it come into being as an objective truth or as a subjective truth via the (alleged) experiences of those who (allegedly) wrote the gospels?
Could you please say y you think my reference to survival (of the species) is rubbish? What is it that is so different in the ethical code ofChristianity that sets it quite apart? I refer again to the basic need for most people to
do things for the good of others as well as for themselves most of the time for the species as a whole to survive' and yes, I do agree that the ethical code of Christianity has the roots you refer to.
I have listened to the last sentences several times but not quite sure of what reasons you are looking for.
I fear I have muddled the tags.
I can get the idea that Christ exists before or outside time, but don't see how that is objectively true. I thought that objectivity pertained to natural phenomena, which this isn't.