Religion: The Deuce

[morriswalters]

Another point for clarification. Exactly what things that a Religious parent teaches their child, or introduces their child to, do you consider indoctrination? How is the parent to explain to the child why they are left out when their parents do those acts considered indoctrination? How will this make a child feel?

Do you thus concede that harm can arise from this situation? Why should society enshrine the rights of parents to indoctrinate? I'm not arguing for the State to take over this job (that would be a burden of proof) or (necessarily) for any substantive change to the present system in practice, I am merely questioning why there should be a right to indoctrinate?

Propose an alternative method to handle it, if you can't propose a solution then your question is self answering.

[guenther]

? There is some problem. There is a problem of scarcity, disease, death, poverty and educational levels specifically self-awareness. Specifically in this instance there is a problem with cultures have a negative influence on general well-being.

You've made it very clear how much you'd be willing to let freedoms be removed in order to enforce your ideology. I am just thankful that your opinions are in a small minority, even here on a forum where you don't have to look hard to find people with no love for religion.

Since your post is just a rehashing of all the stuff we've been over numerous times, I'll let it go. The quality of your armchair psychoanalysis of me is representative of the quality of most of your arguments. But challenging your preconceptions has demonstrably been a fruitless endeavor. So I will just respect your right to believe whatever you want.

All of these things, to whatever degree your brand of Christianity imposes them, are the things that are stopping you from leaving.

They are stopping me from leaving? Not merely providing pressure against leaving? Do you realize how presumptive this sort of statement is? You could make the same pitch to my wife about all the costs of switching her marriage to another person. It's true that there are a lot of barriers involved. But then to conclude that all of those things are stopping her from leaving me is to completely ignore the idea that she might choose to stay with me even if those barriers were gone, or even if the bigger burden was with staying with me rather than abandoning me.

Indoctrination in particular, forces children into a belief system, before they have reached an age of sufficient maturity to actually decide that such a belief system is correct, and then builds up barriers that make it difficult for them to leave it. It is no coincidence that the single best predictor of a person's religion is that of their parents

If parents wait to expose their kids on religion, it does not remove any barriers imposed by neighbors, friends, or a future spouse. You could say it reduces the barriers of the parents, but then parents could raise their kids religious from birth and still be tolerant of them switching.

My parents would accept me regardless of the choices I make even with religion. How they raised me does not intrude upon my freedom to choose whatever religion I want.

But it is not a justification for why you should have a legal right to the status quo. If you have a right to something then you are asserting there being some moral or ethical good in you having that right in and of itself. It must not merely "not cause harm", there must be some positive good in you having it regardless of the present circumstances.

This is where I disagree. Rights are not about enshrining goodness, but about preventing worse things from happening. What the WBC people are doing is not a good thing, but we can recognize that giving the government the power to restrict that is worse, and opens the door to a lot of potential abuses. I cannot imagine how the government could infringe upon the current legal rights of parents in a way that's not very bad. Rights are a protection from government and a protection from the majority. They are not indicators that people are using their freedoms to do anything good whatsoever.

Talking about enshrining rights is irrelevant to me if it makes no practical difference. For it to be relevant, not having the right should mean something. We would have something different than what we currently have. I have to know what that is to compare it to what we have now. I'm not being coy about this; I simply don't know how to answer the question. To me this is like talking about the trouble of The Affordable Care Act without proposing any other solution to our health care problem. Or for an example I just heard, it's like debating whether the two-party system is bad without presenting any alternative (this very point gets raised during the debate).

Now, let's examine the issue of harm. Do you agree that
1) Some beliefs are harmful to society and to any form of enlightened thinking? (e.g. Racism, Prejudice, anti-empiricism) or indeed that there are beliefs and religious systems which are harmful to the individual (cults, oppressive religious moralities) and particularly the individual child?
2)Do you acknowledge that parents raising children in x belief makes that child more likely to follow that belief?

There are harmful beliefs, and parents can certainly do harm by raising their children to believe in them. But what I'm not getting is any sort of way to fix this. If you think unenshrining the right of parents will help fix this problem, then make that case.

Why should society enshrine the rights of parents to indoctrinate?

As far as I can tell, you're not really dealing with indoctrination. You're dealing with parents raising their kids to be religious. The thing with kids is that they become aware of things before they can really understand why. Children learn to speak at 2 years old, but there's so little they can really comprehend. Their concept of why they need to share with their siblings is limited and is very much rooted in "because mom and dad say so". And similarly the reasons why they go to church every week and why they hear stories from the Bible. Little children often want to just know the answers, they don't have the attention span or the capacity to understand why. I tell you this from personal experience because it is in my nature to give lengthy explanations, and my kids just stop listening. I want them to understand and as I learn methods to help them learn better, I put them into practice.

Of course, as kids get older, they care more and more about why. I am witnessing this as my daughter went from 2 to 3 and 3 to 4. She is piecing more things together and is starting to question the way things are. I am very much into letting kids explore and ask questions, and I am big on expecting my own kids to realize that all claims of truth need justification. In other words, I want kids to be taught good thinking skills.

Is what I'm describing indoctrination? It depends on how you define it. I do impart information in a non-critical way to my kids, but it's not out of my desire for them not to think about it, but rather their own limitations. And as their mental faculties becomes stronger, I want to foster them to think better. So if this is indoctrination, then you can't really avoid it. My strategy on promoting my religious beliefs is to maintain a position of truth much like I do with issues of morality. I have opinions on the rightness of late-term abortions and on whether gay should be used as a pejorative even though the truth of those claims is poorly defined (i.e. we lack objective tests to reveal the answer). I will present my belief on those claims and I will present my beliefs about God. But they will also know why I believe that way, and they can decide for themselves if those justifications are suitable. Both religion and morality represent areas where truth is poorly defined, but I don't see any harm in simply maintaining my own claims for truth there. There are certainly harmful ways in which I can promote those truths, but I reject that there's inherent harm in the promotion itself.

There are harmful things that are labeled indoctrination, but it's because of what it does, not what we call it. So when you talk about the right of parents to indoctrinate, I not only need to understand what it means to remove the right, but what you are describing as indoctrination. Is it indoctrinating during the time when kids have a poor ability to think critically and naturally trust whatever their parents say? If parents enforce and impart moral claims of rightness in a non-critical way to their kids (regardless of the kids' mental capacity) is this indoctrinating as well? Will the removal of the right impact this as it would religious indoctrination?

[duckshirt]

Just because kids are naturally pre-disposed to certain things doesn't mean they've lost freedom. My earliest memories were of my parents playing D&D, and their whole circle of friends were fellow gamers. And now my main hobby is D&D, and my main circle of friends are gamers. I'm sure my hobby choice was biased by my parents' decisions, but I don't feel like I have any less freedom in how I spend my free time. Similarly with religion, how am I not free to pick any religion I want? Who is stopping me? If you're trying to say that my biases are somehow inhibiting my freedom, I'll point you to this article.

The issue isn't bias; the issue is switching costs. The penalty imposed upon an individual for defecting from one religion to another (or to no religion), is often extraordinarily high, and thus even though members may be intellectually "free" to choose another religion if they so desire, in practice, the barriers are often so high that defection is extremely difficult and painful. Think on it a moment: suppose that you wanted to switch from Christianity to Islam, or Christianity to atheism. What effects would that likely have on your relationships with your family? With your friends? With your community? If your spouse threatened to leave you over it, would you do it anyway? All of these things, to whatever degree your brand of Christianity imposes them, are the things that are stopping you from leaving. Even if you came to believe that Christianity is almost certainly wrong, it is entirely possible that you will find that the penalty for leaving is still too high to actually justify defecting. So, no, it isn't your bias that is inhibiting your freedom to choose whichever religion you wish; it is the problem that, in order to justify leaving Christianity to yourself, you need to account for all of the potential harms you will cause yourself and those around you, offset against the potential benefits of your new belief system. Since, in this respect, most religions are functionally equivalent, there is little movement of members between them.

Indoctrination in particular, forces children into a belief system, before they have reached an age of sufficient maturity to actually decide that such a belief system is correct, and then builds up barriers that make it difficult for them to leave it. It is no coincidence that the single best predictor of a person's religion is that of their parents

First of all, what do you mean by "single best predictor?"
Second of all, that doesn't imply indoctrination. Parents are also a good predictor of what job their kids will have, what school subjects or sports they're good at, the location they'll end up living, the foods they'll eat...
Third of all, why do you assume that this a problem with religion or religious people? Are you saying that atheists don't do this, or that they don't have any switching costs? Going by the logic you've given above, and the fact that the percentage of religious people has declined in the U.S. in the last 20 years it's easy to see that non-religious parents don't make it easier for their kids to switch to being religious.

[LaserGuy]

All of these things, to whatever degree your brand of Christianity imposes them, are the things that are stopping you from leaving.

They are stopping me from leaving? Not merely providing pressure against leaving? Do you realize how presumptive this sort of statement is? You could make the same pitch to my wife about all the costs of switching her marriage to another person. It's true that there are a lot of barriers involved. But then to conclude that all of those things are stopping her from leaving me is to completely ignore the idea that she might choose to stay with me even if those barriers were gone, or even if the bigger burden was with staying with me rather than abandoning me.

You did see where I said, immediately prior to this statement: "Suppose that you wanted to switch from Christianity to Islam, or Christianity to atheism", right? That is, I'm assuming a situation where, for whatever reason, there is another belief system that you would deem sufficiently preferable to Christianity that you'd consider switching. If Christianity is, as far as you can tell, preferable to the alternatives, then it doesn't matter what the switching cost is. I didn't try to present the claim that other belief systems are better; I made the case that even if you were to find a belief system that you thought was better than Christianity, there is still a significant probability that you wouldn't change religions anyway because of the huge switching penalty. If you like, think of it this way: suppose you're paying $10/mo for some service. If I offer you $8/mo for an equivalent service, then it is objectively better to switch; however, if your initial provider makes you pay $1000 to break contract, then even though I'm offering you a better deal, you aren't going to switch because it will take you 40 years to make up the penalty.

Indoctrination in particular, forces children into a belief system, before they have reached an age of sufficient maturity to actually decide that such a belief system is correct, and then builds up barriers that make it difficult for them to leave it. It is no coincidence that the single best predictor of a person's religion is that of their parents

If parents wait to expose their kids on religion, it does not remove any barriers imposed by neighbors, friends, or a future spouse. You could say it reduces the barriers of the parents, but then parents could raise their kids religious from birth and still be tolerant of them switching.

Their neighbours, friends, or future spouse are not choosing what religion they are in without their consent.

My parents would accept me regardless of the choices I make even with religion. How they raised me does not intrude upon my freedom to choose whatever religion I want.

You should consider yourself very fortunate then.

First of all, what do you mean by "single best predictor?"

For a given child, the religion that they will have for their adult life is more strongly correlated with the religion of their parents than any other factor by a significant margin. This isn't just true of a particular religion, but even of the specific denomination/sect of the particular religion that they end up in. I can dig up a couple studies if you're really curious for the details.

Second of all, that doesn't imply indoctrination. Parents are also a good predictor of what job their kids will have, what school subjects or sports they're good at, the location they'll end up living, the foods they'll eat...

Religion has no genetic component, so it isn't really sensible to compare it to things that are genetically inheritable. But yes, parents are a good predictor of a great many things about their children. This is an important reason why we should be especially careful in teaching our children things that may be harmful to their well-being.

Third of all, why do you assume that this a problem with religion or religious people? Are you saying that atheists don't do this, or that they don't have any switching costs?

I'm advocating not teaching children any particular belief system. This keeps the barriers as low as possible. If/once they decide to choose a particular belief system on their own, then they are responsible for their choice and the switching costs associated with changing that choice later in life.

[infernovia]

What do you guys think of this book: http://www.amazon.com/History-God-000-Y ... 0345384563

Here is an intro to the book:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg

[guenther]

You did see where I said, immediately prior to this statement: "Suppose that you wanted to switch from Christianity to Islam, or Christianity to atheism", right?

Alright, I did read a bit hastily there. My apologies. I can agree that if people want to switch religions but feel impaired because of outside pressures, that's a negative. But I don't think you've made a good case for why what you propose actually fixes that. I think a better way of addressing the problem is promoting a greater tolerance for diversity, which is independent of whether kids are exposed to religion when they're young.

Their neighbours, friends, or future spouse are not choosing what religion they are in without their consent.

My point is that you are presenting the pressure of neighbors, friends, and spouses as part of the barrier of switching, but what you propose doesn't deal with that at all. And even for the parents I don't think you're directly dealing with the problem. If the issue is with their intolerance for defecting to another religion, they can fix that by being more tolerant, which is an easier sell than convincing parents to withhold their religious beliefs from their kids.

And you're not dealing with the practicalities of how parents should actually withhold their religious beliefs. Can they be honest with what they believe, or do they need to hide it from their kids? How should they explain who they are talking to while kneeling with their eyes closed? Who should watches the kids while they're in church? Religion for many people isn't just a set of religious claims, but it's a way of living life. Christians in particular are called on to be beacons of light based on their beliefs, and how can they do that authentically when they can't even do it in their own home? It would be a lot of effort for parents to shield kids from this, which I can see as problematic without providing any real benefits.

You should consider yourself very fortunate then.

I am very happy with my parents.

What do you guys think of this book: http://www.amazon.com/History-God-000-Y ... 0345384563

Here is an intro to the book:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg

I have a book by Karen Armstrong on Mohammed that a Muslim friend gave me to read. I still need to do that. This book sounds interesting as well. I always like historical perspectives. I'll watch that video when I get the chance. Thanks!

[nitePhyyre]

This, 'should parent have the rights to raise their kids' tangent quite interesting. Although it might be better in its own thread, it isn't really a religious only topic. My take on the matter is that it is kind of disrespectful to future children to assume just because 2 people could figure out how to mash their genitals together that those people are best qualified to raise their offspring. I would be happier with a system where people could raise children once they have proved themselves responsible, not a system where anything goes until you prove that you are incompetent and have already caused damage.

I am aware of all the arguments for and against God. I know what the proper scientific answer should be to claims of God's existence. I come down on the side that God exists by adding in the subjective evidence from my own life and from what I have witnessed with others. I recognize that this doesn't hold objective weight, but I use it anyways. If what I am doing is not well described as thinking critically, I'm not concerned in the slightest. It is what it is, and I am honest about what it is.

Yes, if you are open and honest about using subjective experience when making non-subjective decision, you are not critically thinking. I'm glad we are all on the same page. The important question is this: Is it possible to "come down on the side that God exits" without that subjective experience?

Good and evil must come before God. Does the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (should a thing exist) show that there must be an objective morality which is greater even than God?

The simplest answer would be that he created Good and Evil in the days before he created man.

[Zcorp]

? There is some problem. There is a problem of scarcity, disease, death, poverty and educational levels specifically self-awareness. Specifically in this instance there is a problem with cultures have a negative influence on general well-being.

You've made it very clear how much you'd be willing to let freedoms be removed in order to enforce your ideology.

No...I've made it clear I don't think parents should have the 'freedom' to remove the freedom of thought and feeling in their children. I value the well-being of the child over the 'freedom' to indoctrinate yes. Don't us crappy rhetoric to paint me as a being against freedom.

[Jimmigee]

No...I've made it clear I don't think parents should have the 'freedom' to remove the freedom of thought and feeling in their children.

We should be clear that in the implied situation you will be removing parental freedoms, even if it is for the sake of the children (it is probably also worth noting, though it may not be 100% relevant, that children regularly have their freedoms restricted more than adults because they are not mentally developed enough to make good decisions).

I'm not saying that there should be no intervention in what a child is taught, but that is why we have schools. You value critial thinking highly, as do I, but I think you overstate how much religion in general effects it. You don't get critical thinking from not learning religion. You get it from being taught critical thinking.

[KrazyerKate]

This, 'should parent have the rights to raise their kids' tangent quite interesting. Although it might be better in its own thread, it isn't really a religious only topic. My take on the matter is that it is kind of disrespectful to future children to assume just because 2 people could figure out how to mash their genitals together that those people are best qualified to raise their offspring. I would be happier with a system where people could raise children once they have proved themselves responsible, not a system where anything goes until you prove that you are incompetent and have already caused damage.

I've seen this discussed before on various forums, and the general consensus is that it's close to impossible to impartially judge someone's competence as a parent beyond what Child Protective Services already does. What would disqualify someone from being allowed to have children? What would you do with people who had children without government permission?

[Zcorp]

No...I've made it clear I don't think parents should have the 'freedom' to remove the freedom of thought and feeling in their children.

We should be clear that in the implied situation you will be removing parental freedoms, even if it is for the sake of the children (it is probably also worth noting, though it may not be 100% relevant, that children regularly have their freedoms restricted more than adults because they are not mentally developed enough to make good decisions).

I'm not saying that there should be no intervention in what a child is taught, but that is why we have schools. You value critial thinking highly, as do I, but I think you overstate how much religion in general effects it. You don't get critical thinking from not learning religion. You get it from being taught critical thinking.

Aye, much like making laws that make it harass removes my freedom to harass. But lets be clear I'm not against freedom. I"m against freedom that takes away the freedom of others in general and specifically I'm talking about the freedom of indoctrination vs the freedom the childs thinking. I value the latter more than the former.

The problem is that schools have boards and elected officials, that out of school people are as significant a influence on a childs education, or more so, than people at school.

That if each child is indoctrinated I have to go through this whole process that many of us have gone through with guenther to show him how thinking God exists as fact is not critical thinking. That process of fighting through indoctrination is more time consuming than teaching critical thinking. It is also one that is politically unacceptable currently. Texas even moved in the other direction changing their curriculum by removing things that might challenge the faith.

To teach critical thinking there is a lot of political and social influences that have to be fought through. That is before we get to real educational issues like quantifying critical thinking, development and figuring out how to fit it in to school curriculum.

This, 'should parent have the rights to raise their kids' tangent quite interesting...

I've seen this discussed before on various forums, and the general consensus is that it's close to impossible to impartially judge someone's competence as a parent beyond what Child Protective Services already does. What would disqualify someone from being allowed to have children? What would you do with people who had children without government permission?

The conclusion generally reached is that of soft power. Make something outside of a culture more valuable economically or perceptually than ones own culture, such as a college degree in the case of KIPP schools. The two cultures that correlate most highly to poor education, in the states, are impoverished groups and Christian ones.

Various people have worked to deal with the impoverished groups. The ones that are successful have greatly changed the children's perception of their own culture or greatly reduced the time they spend within it. Which is generally a politically acceptable thing to do. It is much harder to sell in America that children should spend less time within Christian groups, especially considering it is many of the groups themselves that create the problem. We have no reason to believe that thinking God exists as fact and following Christian doctrine prohibits education in areas that do not conflict with that doctrine. But many Christian cultures place very little value on education or self-awareness. Christian cultures do not hold it as important within the doctrine, thats up to other influences in the child's life. It could be a specific pastor or priest, their parents, a teacher they bond with or various other things.

So when we have a mix of a few things in cultures we see a trend of reduced education. Not valuing education and an unlikeliness to experience view points besides ones own culture. Christians in America and the impoverished in general consistently have both of traits as a culture. Of course other factors are at play, like education that is in conflict with doctrine, or that value of going to school vs protect my turf from rival gangs.

[Jimmigee]

I'm not convinced that the line between "indoctrination" and "teaching" is that clear. Up to a certain point I'm not even sure you can teach a child with anything other than something equivalent to indoctrination. I also maintain that the focus ought to be on the teaching of critical thinking directly, not removing the learning of other beliefs which we don't consider meet our criteria for critical thinking.

Some people who hold (what I consider to be) irrational beliefs are entirely capable of critical thinking in other parts of their lives. Is it really so important that it is applied to everything?

I agree that when school policy is being decided to reduce children questioning their beliefs there is a problem, but I still don't think intervention at the parental level is justified, however much harder this makes the task.

[Zcorp]

I'm not convinced that the line between "indoctrination" and "teaching" is that clear. Up to a certain point I'm not even sure you can teach a child with anything other than something equivalent to indoctrination. I also maintain that the focus ought to be on the teaching of critical thinking directly, not removing the learning of other beliefs which we don't consider meet our criteria for critical thinking.

Really? Do you think teaching them the ABC's and Addition is indoctrination?

Some people who hold (what I consider to be) irrational beliefs are entirely capable of critical thinking in other parts of their lives. Is it really so important that it is applied to everything?

What beliefs do you consider to be irrational, and how are they demonstrating critical thinking?

It is important for people to think critically about something or abstain from having influence over the result. When we are participating in a government that is built to give each person above 18 equal influence we have societal problems when people are not thinking critically. Those problems influence our laws and policies which then influence the people and further generations. Within a family unit this includes thinking critically about what you are teaching your children or not teaching them that one path is superior irrationally.

I agree that when school policy is being decided to reduce children questioning their beliefs there is a problem, but I still don't think intervention at the parental level is justified, however much harder this makes the task.

Parents make up part of the PTA and school boards, they have a huge amount of influence over what is ok for teachers to teach and how they do it or the general policies of the school. Adults make the decisions for our kids and generally in favor of themselves. I'm not suggesting any direct way to deal with parents nor has anyone else to my recollection. Mostly it has been a question, when the parent is acting in the best interest of themselves and not of their child why is that a right of the parent? What about the child's right to its own well-being, and who should be stepping in to do something for the child?

I was musing on the possibility that as we start valuing the well-being of the children it seems rational for a governing force to intervene when a parent is negatively influencing the child's well-being. We already do to some extent with our current child abuse laws. As I was poor in how I presented this concept there has been some confusion in what was meant, and that confusion has carried over to Whimsical going through a more direct socratic questioning process.

[guenther]

This, 'should parent have the rights to raise their kids' tangent quite interesting. Although it might be better in its own thread, it isn't really a religious only topic. My take on the matter is that it is kind of disrespectful to future children to assume just because 2 people could figure out how to mash their genitals together that those people are best qualified to raise their offspring. I would be happier with a system where people could raise children once they have proved themselves responsible, not a system where anything goes until you prove that you are incompetent and have already caused damage.

Let's hope that the people in charge of designing and administering that competency test don't have any problems with prejudices and are immune from the pressures of politics. Otherwise, they might abuse the power to slowly decimate the populations of the people they don't like or don't agree with.

The important question is this: Is it possible to "come down on the side that God exits" without that subjective experience?

Do you mean without that subjective experience as part of the argument? Clearly that's possible because people do it all the time. However, those arguments are empirically weak and not something that belongs in science where theories are supported by the weight of the objective evidence.

Or do you mean that regardless of how I defend my beliefs, would I come down on the side that God exists without my personal subjective experiences? Well it depends on what experiences I had instead. But it seems very reasonable that there are some set of experiences I could have had that wouldn't have made me conclude that God exists.

You've made it very clear how much you'd be willing to let freedoms be removed in order to enforce your ideology.

No...I've made it clear I don't think parents should have the 'freedom' to remove the freedom of thought and feeling in their children. I value the well-being of the child over the 'freedom' to indoctrinate yes. Don't us crappy rhetoric to paint me as a being against freedom.

I didn't say you were against freedom. Nor do I think it makes sense to present the dichotomy of either for or against freedom since we all clearly believe that some freedoms are good and some are bad. I am not painting you in any way that you haven't painted yourself. I am highlighting that you have an extreme position on whether we should have the freedom to promote God existing as a fact. And I bet it's extreme even among people that don't believe God exists.

I was musing on the possibility that as we start valuing the well-being of the children it seems rational for a governing force to intervene when a parent is negatively influencing the child's well-being. We already do to some extent with our current child abuse laws. As I was poor in how I presented this concept there has been some confusion in what was meant, and that confusion has carried over to Whimsical going through a more direct socratic questioning process.

You said, "Indoctrination decreases our well-being, and thus once it becomes politically acceptable to make it illegal it will become illegal if society is doing its job well." And then shortly after that we had this exchange:

So I'm correct that you are saying it will be illegal for a parent to teach their children that God exists as fact? And that churches as they largely exist today will be outlawed as well? And simply saying that God exists as fact would be restricted as well since that's instructing with doctrine? This is how I'm reading your response, but I just want clear confirmation since this is a very strong statement. [EDIT: Below I got confirmation. Wow.]

Yes, that God Exists is not a fact, teaching it as such is indoctrination. It is the exact thing we are discussing earlier, valuing something over the well-being of that individual. In this cause valuing instilling faith that God exists as fact more than their freedom in learning.

You said "it will become illegal if society is doing its job well", which demonstrates that you think that outlawing this is part of society's job. That's a pretty clear endorsement. And the second quote is where I stepped through examples of what precisely would be illegal. You can say there was confusion on what you meant, but your message here is pretty clear.

Maybe you didn't want this to be the highlight of your argument, but regardless you said it. Are you actually changing your position on any of this? Or are you simply regretting that you said it out loud? If such a law gained enough political acceptance to come up for a vote, would you support it or oppose it?

[Zcorp]

I didn't say you were against freedom. Nor do I think it makes sense to present the dichotomy of either for or against freedom since we all clearly believe that some freedoms are good and some are bad. I am not painting you in any way that you haven't painted yourself. I am highlighting that you have an extreme position on whether we should have the freedom to promote God existing as a fact. And I bet it's extreme even among people that don't believe God exists.

You think that I find indoctrination bad is extreme? Really?

You said "it will become illegal if society is doing its job well", which demonstrates that you think that outlawing this is part of society's job. That's a pretty clear endorsement. And the second quote is where I stepped through examples of what precisely would be illegal. You can say there was confusion on what you meant, but your message here is pretty clear.

Yes, I think that societies job is to increase its participants well-being. Indoctrination harms our well-being, and as I said I presented the concept quite poorly. To try and correct my mistake, how about... it will become illegal or socially unacceptable. The result will be akin to anti-discrimination laws which force social change quicker than political acceptance through hard power, or it will happen by changing culture through soft power. We've made leaps and bounds already in challenging indoctrination (in lots of different beliefs not just Christian or religious ones) and tools like the internet are just making it easier.

Maybe you didn't want this to be the highlight of your argument, but regardless you said it. Are you actually changing your position on any of this? Or are you simply regretting that you said it out loud? If such a law gained enough political acceptance to come up for a vote, would you support it or oppose it?

I'm regretting that I did not present what I was saying fully. Societies place is to increase our well-being and indoctrination harms that. It will be dealt with one way or another, or society will have failed at its job as we regress (or we will have failed society, depending no how you want to look at it).

[morriswalters]

The word rights keeps popping up, and indoctrination. But the only possibilities that exist other than letting parents raise their children, is to have someone else do it, either by proxy, that is by giving the parents a script, or by taking the children to raise. Are you suggesting another way? And if so, what? Do you on any level think that teaching children life skills is the same as teaching the ABC's? Do you honestly think that you can somehow figure a way to teach a child anything that doesn't involve setting yourself as an example? How would you do that? For approximately the first five years of life parents are the primary source of everything that children need. They are like little recorders. They throw back at you everything you show them. They copy your language, including accents, they imitate the way you walk, they do as you do, not as you say. Do you know anything about raising children?

Critical thinking doesn't mean anything that you can precisely define. Even the people who talk about it can't agree on exactly what it is. It's foolish to think that all ideas will have a metric to categorize them with. Particularly one that everyone can agree with. To define harm as a physical idea, which has a relatively easy to understand metric, is different then trying to define the harm caused by ideas. Someone has to choose.

By the way, Societies place is to protect me from well meaning people as well as Cads. It's purpose is to allow me the greatest freedom possible. I am responsible for my well being.

[guenther]

I didn't say you were against freedom. Nor do I think it makes sense to present the dichotomy of either for or against freedom since we all clearly believe that some freedoms are good and some are bad. I am not painting you in any way that you haven't painted yourself. I am highlighting that you have an extreme position on whether we should have the freedom to promote God existing as a fact. And I bet it's extreme even among people that don't believe God exists.

You think that I find indoctrination bad is extreme? Really?

It's like you only think word games and straw men are bad when you are not the one using them.

Maybe you didn't want this to be the highlight of your argument, but regardless you said it. Are you actually changing your position on any of this? Or are you simply regretting that you said it out loud? If such a law gained enough political acceptance to come up for a vote, would you support it or oppose it?

I'm regretting that I did not present what I was saying fully. Societies place is to increase our well-being and indoctrination harms that. It will be dealt with one way or another, or society will have failed at its job as we regress (or we will have failed society, depending no how you want to look at it).

I get that you wish you had presented your case better, but re-framing it now doesn't change what you said. And so far you have not recanted in any way.

You are avoiding my question which is very straightforwards. The nature of the hypothetical law is very clear based on what I quoted. So I'm asking you if you would support or oppose it if it gained enough political ground to come to a vote.

[Zcorp]

It's like you only think word games and straw men are bad when you are not the one using them.

What games am I playing? We've gone over that teaching god as fact is indoctrination, and yes specifically that indoctrination is harmful as well.

I get that you wish you had presented your case better, but re-framing it now doesn't change what you said. And so far you have not recanted in any way.

? what I said was a error, I said that three times now. It was not a complete picture of the possibilities merely half of them.

You are avoiding my question which is very straightforwards. The nature of the hypothetical law is very clear based on what I quoted. So I'm asking you if you would support or oppose it if it gained enough political ground to come to a vote.

It would depend upon the specifics of enforcement and the law itself. For things like Ken Ham is doing, I'd certainly make it illegal, as for the result of breaking that law it would require a bit more thought and research put in to this and what was being proposed. In the case of children coming to school and believing that God existed as fact I'd support a law that sent social servies to educate the parents of the conflict created with the indoctrination and with teaching their children critical thinking and various areas of education specific to the beliefs being indoctrinated and teach the child the difference between facts and beliefs. This could include bringing the parents into the classrooms and showing them the lessons or running them through the lessons.

This would have to include how this is being funded, and such, as well.

This is just one idea of something I'd support.

and really, what is the value stating I said something wrong (except to correct it). What is more important what I said in error or what I meant? Unless you are trying to 'win' something here rather than understand something. This isn't a game about who said something poorly.

[guenther]

What games am I playing? We've gone over that teaching god as fact is indoctrination, and yes specifically that indoctrination is harmful as well.

I said: "I am highlighting that you have an extreme position on whether we should have the freedom to promote God existing as a fact."

You said: "You think that I find indoctrination bad is extreme? Really?"

You recast my statement of what I was saying is extreme.

It would depend upon the specifics of enforcement and the law itself. For things like Ken Ham is doing, I'd certainly make it illegal. In the case of children coming to school and believing that God existed as fact I'd support a law that sent social servies to educate the parents of the conflict that causes with teaching their children critical thinking and various areas of education specific to the beliefs being indoctrinated and teach the child the difference between facts and beliefs. This would include bringing the parents into the classrooms and showing them the lessons or running them through them.

What if the parents refused to comply? Could this be used by social services to build a case that they are unfit to raise their kids?

EDIT: And let me also mention that the hypothetical law also dealt with the fact that most churches as they exist now would be illegal. And that simply saying that God exists as fact would be illegal.

[Zcorp]

What games am I playing? We've gone over that teaching god as fact is indoctrination, and yes specifically that indoctrination is harmful as well.

I said: "I am highlighting that you have an extreme position on whether we should have the freedom to promote God existing as a fact."

You said: "You think that I find indoctrination bad is extreme? Really?"

You recast my statement of what I was saying is extreme.

I restated your position for what it is, and used a simpler word for the concept than re-typing the phrase 'teaching God exists as fact.'

Teaching that God exists as fact IS indoctrination, simply because there is an incongruence between what you might feel about that word and what you are doing doesn't change what it is.

What if the parents refused to comply? Could this be used by social services to build a case that they are unfit to raise their kids?

It iss a good question, and as I'm not a lawyer nor social services worker as of now I'm to ignorant to propose answer. I'd have to do research on ways that benefit the child the most, possible alternatives and their effect. How much the threat of losing the kids (negative punishment) changes parent behavior and even if the parents learn from the social workers and teachers. This is what I meant by the details and specifics of the Bill.

And this is why collaboration in law is quite important, unless one person has extensive experience in each area of the effect the laws passed can often be negative or even counter-productive. The problem is, the childs well-being is threatened, the answer is improving the child's well-being. Problems might be removing the child from the parents care, as that can decrease the childs well-being more than educating vs indoctrinating the child. So finding a way that improves the childs well-being is the goal, and sometimes that does mean removing them from their parents despite those bonds.

EDIT: And let me also mention that the hypothetical law also dealt with the fact that most churches as they exist now would be illegal. And that simply saying that God exists as fact would be illegal.

No the hypothetical does nothing to outlaw faith. It outlaws indoctrination. The legality of churches and their practices would be an different problem.

[marky66]

I have been Very Busy for the past few weeks and have not been able to read this thread as fast as people contribute and I had to skip over a few pages, so I apologize if this has been covered.

Indoctrination harms our well-being

You keep stating this as if it is an established fact. What is your basis for this claim?

"Well-being" doesn't just include maximum ability to reason; sometimes it can mean joy in spite of adversity, comfort in times of sorrow, protection from someone powerful enough to create the universe, redemption from evil they might inflict upon others, etc. Religious teachings are often a very effective coping mechanism for young minds; I would argue that one will harm a child's well-being by not providing these coping mechanisms.

[guenther]

I restated your position for what it is, and used a simpler word for the concept than re-typing the phrase 'teaching God exists as fact.'

I was talking about legal freedom, you were talking about indoctrination being bad. That's not the same thing. I said you had an extreme position because you were willing to let those freedoms be taken away. I did not say that you had an extreme position because you felt that indoctrination was bad.

It iss a good question, and as I'm not a lawyer nor social services worker as of now I'm to ignorant to propose answer. I'd have to do research on ways that benefit the child the most, possible alternatives and their effect. How much the threat of losing the kids (negative punishment) changes parent behavior and even if the parents learn from the social workers and teachers. This is what I meant by the details and specifics of the Bill.

And this is why collaboration in law is quite important, unless one person has extensive experience in each area of the effect the laws passed can often be negative or even counter-productive. The problem is, the childs well-being is threatened, the answer is improving the child's well-being. Problems might be removing the child from the parents care, as that can decrease the childs well-being more than educating vs indoctrinating the child. So finding a way that improves the childs well-being is the goal, and sometimes that does mean removing them from their parents despite those bonds.

So in your mind it's about efficacy. If threatening to take away kids could get parents to better comply, it sounds like you'd support it.

No the hypothetical does nothing to outlaw faith. It outlaws indoctrination. The legality of churches and their practices would be an different problem.

I'm not talking about faith. You are not reading what I quoted. Based on how you defined indoctrination, I asked for clarification on three specific examples. The first was with parents teaching their kids. The second dealt with churches promoting that God exists as fact to both the adult members and to children in Sunday School (that's what most churches do today). And the third was a person simply proclaiming out loud that God exists as fact. You responded to the whole paragraph of all three examples with "Yes, that God Exists is not a fact, teaching it as such is indoctrination." And this in in the context of where we were talking about indoctrination being illegal.

Since you endorsed that sort of law in the past, I asked you again today if you still would endorse such a law. And I'm not asking if you would sign off on any piece of legislation regardless of how it's written. My point is that most would reject something like this simply because it's an unacceptable breach of freedom. While considering efficacy is a good thing, the people that would consider this an acceptable use of our laws are thankfully in the minority, even here on these forums.

I get what your goal is. I get that you're well-intentioned and want to put the well-being of children first. But your position is extreme. You have a willingness to enforce your beliefs on this by taking away freedoms that currently exist. That's what I said before.

[Zcorp]

I was talking about legal freedom, you were talking about indoctrination being bad. That's not the same thing. I said you had an extreme position because you were willing to let those freedoms be taken away. I did not say that you had an extreme position because you felt that indoctrination was bad.

You called it extreme that I valued the freedom of the childs education over that of the parents freedom to indoctrinate. Correct?

So in your mind it's about efficacy. If threatening to take away kids could get parents to better comply, it sounds like you'd support it.

I'm not sure, I'm not a fan of coercion. There would have to be a good argument for me to support it even in the short run...which is again what I mean by the specifics and details of the Bill.

I get what your goal is. I get that you're well-intentioned and want to put the well-being of children first. But your position is extreme. You have a willingness to enforce your beliefs on this by taking away freedoms that currently exist. That's what I said before.

I don't think either of us can speak to what the majority or minority of people think on these forums. Have data to back it up? And a supporting argument besides an appeal to popularity?

I'm willing to empower children to expect education rather then indoctrination and give them a freedom you want to take away from them.

I'm not talking about faith. You are not reading what I quoted. Based on how you defined indoctrination, I asked for clarification on three specific examples. The first was with parents teaching their kids. The second dealt with churches promoting that God exists as fact to both the adult members and to children in Sunday School (that's what most churches do today). And the third was a person simply proclaiming out loud that God exists as fact. You responded to the whole paragraph of all three examples with "Yes, that God Exists is not a fact, teaching it as such is indoctrination." And this in in the context of where we were talking about indoctrination being illegal.

I'm using a standard definitions for indoctrination here, they aren't 'my definitions' implying that I'm changing the standard one.

I've discussed this at length with you. How are the parents teaching their faith, the churches and the sunday schools? That they exist and share a faith does not mean they indoctrinate. There is a way to educate children on faith which is quite distinct from indoctrination. The same would apply with the second two, although sunday schools might be of particular danger as they rarely tend to educate.

Teaching that God exists as fact is not education.

[guenther]

You called it extreme that I valued the freedom of the childs education over that of the parents freedom to indoctrinate. Correct?

No. It's the specific expression of your value in that you'd be willing to support laws that take away existing parent liberties. I'm saying that to support this, or even to consider supporting this based on efficacy, is extreme.

I don't think either of us can speak to what the majority or minority of people think on these forums. Have data to back it up? And a supporting argument besides an appeal to popularity?

I'm taking a guess based on my experiences and based on what people have said in the thread. If anyone agrees with you, here's a good opportunity for them to speak up.

And I'm not claiming that popularity makes it right or wrong. I'm stating that I'm thankful that you have a minority opinion. If I'm wrong and your position is less extreme, that makes me less thankful.

I've discussed this at length with you. How are the parents teaching their faith, the churches and the sunday schools? That they exist and share a faith does not mean they indoctrinate. There is a way to educate children on faith which is quite distinct from indoctrination. The same would apply with the second two, although sunday schools might be of particular danger as they rarely tend to educate.

Sunday schools are what I particularly thought you would object to when I brought up the example. But I didn't know how you felt about the adult worship as well. Every church I've been to includes a clear message that God is real, God can be trusted, God wants a relationship, and God wants obedience. While they will acknowledge that some don't believe, they present their case as fact (a claim about reality), not opinion (a claim about how people feel). They are most certainly instructing in a body of doctrine or principles, which matches the definition you cited. (When I said "how you defined indoctrination", I didn't mean that you invented the definition. I meant it matched the definition from the dictionary that you cited.)

I'm willing to empower children to expect education rather then indoctrination and give them a freedom you want to take away from them.

I'm very aware of what your position is. I'm just passing on the opportunity to challenge you on it. I've already expressed how and why I disagree with your whole take. I'll let you hash it out with anyone else that wants to take issue with it, like marky66.

I mainly continued here because of the issue of legality. You said you were unclear, and I said that you were very clear. It turns out that you did provide a useful clarification about efficacy (even though I think what you propose is very bad, thinking about efficacy is always a good thing). But I still stand by my statements regarding your position here. That combined with our very lengthy and very unproductive history makes me have little interest in challenging your position. (And there are other reasons that I shared in our PM discussion.)

[Zcorp]

Sunday schools are what I particularly thought you would object to when I brought up the example. But I didn't know how you felt about the adult worship as well. Every church I've been to includes a clear message that God is real, God can be trusted, God wants a relationship, and God wants obedience. While they will acknowledge that some don't believe, they present their case as fact (a claim about reality), not opinion (a claim about how people feel). They are most certainly instructing in a body of doctrine or principles, which matches the definition you cited. (When I said "how you defined indoctrination", I didn't mean that you invented the definition. I meant it matched the definition from the dictionary that you cited.)

Presenting something that requires faith and giving reason for why you have faith is different than presenting beliefs as fact. Some adults who go to church confuse faith and fact and thats is a problem. But for adults that understand the difference and go to express their faith in a community of people who share their faith is something I have little problem with. The problem is spreading that faith through indoctrination and teaching something that is inherently irrational as if it was rational or fact. There is a difference between the concepts of faith and fact, and to more easily express that difference we've given them different names.

I understand that you find my position extreme, just like I'm sure you understand that I find it unfortunate that people choose to indoctrinate their children. I suppose I consider the difference to be that of well-being. I see no intent to increase the well-being of children or adults by indoctrinating them, I don't understand how lying to children by telling them that God exists as fact does anything for the child and it directly relates to there ability to think critically. The only gain is to the adult and the religion's influence, if the adult cared about the child's well-being the adult should educate them instead of indoctrinate them.

I also find it disheartening that you think efficacy would be irrelevant, that for some reason I'm not reasonable. That you would assume the worst of me and possibly other people you discuss things with rather than the best, it is an unfortunate position to start from

[guenther]

Where did I assume the worst of you and possibly other people? And are you saying I started with that assumption way back in the Utility of Religion thread when we started debating?

[Zcorp]

Where did I assume the worst of you and possibly other people? And are you saying I started with that assumption way back in the Utility of Religion thread when we started debating?

You assumed that I thought efficacy was for some reason irrelevant. Or more specifically were for some reason impressed or amazed that I would mention it...not really a good way to have a discussion if you assume incompetence from the other side.

"It turns out that you did provide a useful clarification about efficacy (even though I think what you propose is very bad, thinking about efficacy is always a good thing)."

That I had to clarify at all that what we should work toward what is actually good at increasing human well-being rather than something else...is disheartening.

And while it is getting annoying playing this game of rhetoric with you, I feel I have to do it again as I didn't address this in my last post.

No. It's the specific expression of your value in that you'd be willing to support laws that take away existing parent liberties. I'm saying that to support this, or even to consider supporting this based on efficacy, is extreme.

I'm willing to support what is best for society, its people and its future. If that means taking away some liberties that currently exist from parents that is what should happen, either through hard or soft power. Although I'd prefer soft, which is difficult with people preventing true education from happening due to their religious beliefs.

I'm not in favor of taking away parent liberties willy-nilly, I'm in favor of taking away parent liberties that harm children and society.

Most states have very specific laws on how you can strike a child and there are many groups trying to remove one of the last acceptable ways, spanking, from that list as well. As there is quite a bit of evidence that its not a good way to modify child behavior and that it can cause some psychological harm. Child abuse laws are an example of taking away parent liberties in favor of child well-being, I'm sure you are not against those. How do you perceive this to be different?

[guenther]

You assumed that I thought efficacy was for some reason irrelevant. Or more specifically were for some reason impressed or amazed that I would mention it...not really a good way to have a discussion if you assume incompetence from the other side.

It's not that I assumed you didn't care about efficacy, I'm saying that when your language represents that concern, it's a good thing. I assumed you cared about efficacy up front. The hypothetical wasn't to get you into agreeing to laws that don't do what they were supposed to do. But rather it was to address the boundaries of what freedoms are OK to breach. When I said that your statement about efficacy was a "useful clarification", I was actually trying to give you credit for thinking about the problem beyond the simple assumptions we made. In fact, I assumed that the mistake that you admitted to was not having this clarification up front. Earlier I had accused you of dodging your previous statements by re-framing the issue, but then I was giving you credit that what you said was actually relevant and useful.

My apologies for that coming across as a critique when it was meant to give you credit.

I'm willing to support what is best for society, its people and its future. If that means taking away some liberties that currently exist from parents that is what should happen, either through hard or soft power. Although I'd prefer soft, which is difficult with people preventing true education from happening due to their religious beliefs.

I recognize this, and I tried to convey that by acknowledging that you have good intentions. But a lot of people that pass restrictive laws do so with good intentions. That doesn't mean they will have good results.

Most states have very specific laws on how you can strike a child and there are many groups trying to remove one of the last acceptable ways, spanking, from that list as well. As there is quite a bit of evidence that its not a good way to modify child behavior and that it can cause some psychological harm. Child abuse laws are an example of taking away parent liberties in favor of child well-being, I'm sure you are not against those. How do you perceive this to be different?

I accept that child abuse is harmful. I don't accept that when parents teach their children that God exists as fact it's causing harm. If I accepted your case about harm, then it would be similar.

[Zcorp]

I accept that child abuse is harmful. I don't accept that when parents teach their children that God exists as fact it's causing harm. If I accepted your case about harm, then it would be similar.

At which point you have to argue that Critical Thinking is less valuable to our well-being than a belief that God exists as fact. We are again back to the conflict of reason and faith.

[guenther]

At which point you have to argue that Critical Thinking is less valuable to our well-being than a belief that God exists as fact. We are again back to the conflict of reason and faith.

And I have already explained why I don't think they conflict. Faith conflicts with the ideology that ALL beliefs should be established through a critical thinking process. But faith doesn't impair the ability to use those skills (at least my claim is that it doesn't, and I already described possible experiments to test this claim). I don't see critical thinking as an ideal, I think it's a useful tool. And I want people trained in this tool. But if people want to accept claims of God based on faith, I reject that they are doing something inferior to people that demand scientific evidence before believing.

In my mind, the problem isn't in believing in a factual claim about God, but in using bad arguments to defend that claim. If people want to defend it with "because it feels right", that's OK, not everyone needs strong or detailed arguments for their beliefs. But when people start interpreting science poorly to defend their claims, then you have a problem. So if people can be taught to not make this sort of confusion, that's a good thing.

But again, while it's unfortunate when people do make this confusion, I don't think a belief in Creationism really diminishes the quality of a person. While I'd like to see it corrected, I personally believe our capacity to care for others is much more important. This I do see as an ideal and is a moral issue.

[Zcorp]

At which point you have to argue that Critical Thinking is less valuable to our well-being than a belief that God exists as fact. We are again back to the conflict of reason and faith.

And I have already explained why I don't think they conflict. Faith conflicts with the ideology that ALL beliefs should be established through a critical thinking process. But faith doesn't impair the ability to use those skills (at least my claim is that it doesn't, and I already described possible experiments to test this claim). I don't see critical thinking as an ideal, I think it's a useful tool. And I want people trained in this tool. But if people want to accept claims of God based on faith, I reject that they are doing something inferior to people that demand scientific evidence before believing.

We just created an example of where they conflict. So they do conflict no matter how much you want to claim or believe they don't. I don't really know how this is something you are not understanding. I don't want to define and explain these terms again, so lets try this.

If A believes X is best the best way to fix a car and B believes Y is best and X != Y, A & B's beliefs conflict.

Now in this instance you are saying that B can accept Y and it is not superior to A accepting X. What happens when A is right and B is wrong? Are they still equal, is Y not an inferior position?

What about when M is a part of X and N is a part of Y.
What is M if right and N is wrong? If they are in other ways equal Is Y not then inferior to X?

But again, while it's unfortunate when people do make this confusion, I don't think a belief in Creationism really diminishes the quality of a person. While I'd like to see it corrected, I personally believe our capacity to care for others is much more important. This I do see as an ideal and is a moral issue.

I'm not speaking about the quality of a person, I'm speaking about the quality of education. Telling people that Creationism is correct is inferior to telling people that evolution is correct. While the person teaching creationism could very well have the best intentions for their students that doesn't make them less wrong or less unreasonable.

[guenther]

If A believes X is best the best way to fix a car and B believes Y is best and X != Y, A & B's beliefs conflict.

Now in this instance you are saying that B can accept Y and it is not superior to A accepting X. What happens when A is right and B is wrong? Are they still equal, is Y not an inferior position?

If A is right, the clearly X is the best way to fix a car and Y is inferior. What I'm saying is that it's poorly defined if X or Y is is better. Fixing a car has clear objectives, so it's easy to actually test which method is superior. Even science has a clear objective, so it's easy to see which methods of adding to science are superior. But the objective on forming our beliefs about the world around us is poorly defined. You can say your beliefs about God are superior to mine, but what metric did you apply to conclude that? You hold critical thinking as an ideal, so on that scale, sure yours is superior. But I reject that scale as being ideological in nature.

A scale I would accept is that the quality of beliefs are determined by the quality of choices people make. This is why I say critical thinking is a tool. There are very many cases where it helps people make better choices. But I think it's easy for people to fool themselves that they have thought critically when they haven't, and thus they are prone to certain types of errors (biases). And this is especially true for the types of beliefs that are important to how we make choices but are hard to objectively validate. Morality is exactly this type of problem. So are religious claims.

Faith is another tool that is specific to our nature. Robots that are perfectly able to always be rational have no need of such a tool. But people are prone, and faith is one way that people stay faithful to a specific path despite our biases. As I've said before, faith is really about being faithful (or in other words, the utility of faith is to improve people's faithfulness). Of course, the quality of people's choices depends in part on the quality of the path to which they are faithful. My claim has always been that there are healthy ways to be Christian and to promote Christianity. And such a Christianity is not in conflict with any of the tools that measurably produce good results (like reason, science, education, etc.)

[Zcorp]

But I reject that scale as being ideological in nature.

Just because two things are ideologies doesn't make them equal.

A scale I would accept is that the quality of beliefs are determined by the quality of choices people make. This is why I say critical thinking is a tool. There are very many cases where it helps people make better choices. But I think it's easy for people to fool themselves that they have thought critically when they haven't, and thus they are prone to certain types of errors (biases). And this is especially true for the types of beliefs that are important to how we make choices but are hard to objectively validate. Morality is exactly this type of problem. So are religious claims.

So because people are prone to making errors and can be bad critical thinkers its best to go by faith rather than teach them how to be better thinkers? Morality often is not that type of problem at all. Religious claims are not hard to objectively validate or invalidate when we are talking about the effect they have moral behavior. Or when they assert unknowns as facts.

Faith is another tool that is specific to our nature. Robots that are perfectly able to always be rational have no need of such a tool. But people are prone, and faith is one way that people stay faithful to a specific path despite our biases. As I've said before, faith is really about being faithful (or in other words, the utility of faith is to improve people's faithfulness). Of course, the quality of people's choices depends in part on the quality of the path to which they are faithful. My claim has always been that there are healthy ways to be Christian and to promote Christianity. And such a Christianity is not in conflict with any of the tools that measurably produce good results (like reason, science, education, etc.)

Robots are not capable of always being rational, robots do what they are programed to do. If a man gets in the way of a squishing robot the robot will squish him unless its been programmed to recognize that it is a man and stop itself.

Being rational or a critical thinker != being a robot as much as people who advocate that we are primarily emotional beings want us to believe that.

Faith has shown to be a really shitty tool at keeping people on a specific path actually. Abstinence only programs had that same belief. And yes its great at keeping people believing something but really bad at creating behavior that is consistently in congruence with those beliefs.

And still denying that there is no conflict does not remove the conflict, and my questions weren't rhetorical...again.

[guenther]

So because people are prone to making errors and can be bad critical thinkers its best to go by faith rather than teach them how to be better thinkers?

I want people with and without faith to be taught to be better thinkers. I've said that a lot.

And still denying that there is no conflict does not remove the conflict, and my questions weren't rhetorical...again.

My answer to the second set of question with M and N are pretty similar to the answers I gave regarding X and Y. If you know that M is right and N is wrong, then everything is easier to answer. However, I wasn't sure what you meant by M and N being part of X and Y respectively. How that relationship is defined will determine what you can infer about X and Y. For example, N might be that wearing your lucky hat while applying Y to the car, which is pretty much irrelevant to whether Y is successful or not.

[Zcorp]

So because people are prone to making errors and can be bad critical thinkers its best to go by faith rather than teach them how to be better thinkers?

I want people with and without faith to be taught to be better thinkers. I've said that a lot.

An aspect of thinking well is understanding the difference between facts and non-facts...if you want people to think well why teach them that God exists as fact?

[guenther]

How about because I believe it's true?

[mmmcannibalism]

How about because I believe it's true?

Fact and thing I have persuasive argument for aren't the same thing.

I believe extraterrestrial life exists based on consideration of how life develops and the sheer number of planets. That doesn't make aliens exist a fact.

[guenther]

Are you stating your feelings of likelihood? Or are you claiming that extraterrestrial life actually exists? Some people do the latter (e.g. as I've heard listening to Coast to Coast AM), and they assert it as a fact. They will treat it as a known truth, not merely their best guess. Just because people assert something as a fact doesn't mean it's actually a fact.

[Thirty-one]

Are you stating your feelings of likelihood?

I believe extraterrestrial life exists based on consideration of how life develops and the sheer number of planets. That doesn't make aliens exist a fact.

Unless he was editing his post while you were making yours, he was pretty clear on that.

[guenther]

Unless he was editing his post while you were making yours, he was pretty clear on that.

I think you missed my point. There are people that treat extraterrestrial existence as a fact, but I don't think mmmcannibalism's statement was that kind of statement. And more broadly my point was that just because someone claims it's true doesn't mean it's actually true.