The fundamental difference between religion/spirituality and science/reason, as far as I'm concerned is this: religion demands that you accept something as an indisputable truth and that questioning it is not only discouraged but forbidden and will be met with an arbitrarily horrific punishment (eternal damnation, etc), with what the specific something is dependent on the teacher, their interpretations and their intentions. As a mental framework, I don't think it's healthy for either individuals or societies to unquestioningly accept - or be made to accept - that any ideas are defacto sacred.
Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
I think that's a very narrow view of religion though, albeit one that is true of a lot and I agree is toxic. Ironically since you're a UK person, it's a type of religion I associate with the US and the American right (though I also know through friends growing up that it can be fairly common in some Muslim and Hindi groups)
I think a lot of times religion is used as a kind of cultural link: 'this is why we have these traditions, this is a moral we have that we can explain with this story' etc. And with that context I think it can be fine, even helpful to raise someone within a religious tradition
I guess I broadly agree with you mostly, but I would say that religion can be coherent with critical thinking and open-mindedness: it's cultural as much as its about fundamental belief
(and when it is about fundamental belief then yeah it's often awful)
I'm with Terence McKenna here: Culture is not your friend
Imagine how different society would be if people weren't introduced to religion until they were 18.
There probably wouldn't be much religion, how nice that would be. Religion would mostly cease to exists if children were not indoctrinated before they developed critical thinking skills.
Religion relies on naive children being brought into the fold, and to a lesser degree damaged and desperate adults needing hope or something to believe in.
Same place america is with safe sex: it doesn't solve any problems, just defers the issue of ignorance and learning until adulthood
What? Safe sex solves a significant amount of issues like sexually transmitted diseases and underage pregnancy. What In the world are you trying to say?
Yes, but people learn about it late (if at all), and we end up with lots of adolescents getting STIs/pregnant/etc.
What In the world are you trying to say?
America has a problem with sex ed because people don't learn about safe sex; many still learn abstinence only. This doesn't stop STIs nor teen pregnancies, it doesn't stop SA, it doesn't stop myths about men and womens reproductive systems from proliferating, it just defers the problem of educating people until later. Basically, America's sex ed is to avoid teaching people about sex, then hope they suddenly know how to have safe sex when they're 18 because they're 18.
Likewise, deferring learning about cults until they're 18 doesn't stop people from getting indoctrinated, it just expects 18 year olds unfamiliar with cult tactics to suddenly be immune to cult tactics because they're 18.
Are you really comparing learning about safe sex to indoctrination to cults?
No, i'm comparing learning about safe sex to learning about skepticism and critical thinking. Refusing firsthand experience with the cults that are ubiquitous won't save people from those cults, it will just keep them from developing the skills necessary to cut thtough the bullshit until they're suddenly thrown in the intellectual deep-end at 18.
No it's not ethical. I say this as a queer man indoctrinated in Christianity. I was lucky to make it through childhood without killing myself. I tried several times. Religion is a cancer that should be exterminated.
I am a trans woman who was raised Catholic, so I feel similarly. I’ve had to do so much work in therapy just to get to a place where I can accept myself for who I am. A lot of those old beliefs were baked in deeper than I realized.
I carry a lot of resentment towards my (very devout) parents for raising me in the church, but I also recognize my experience is not emblematic of every person’s experience being raised in a religious household.
It's not ethical to train your child's brain to believe fairytales. It's like foot binding, forcing an unnatural form on their growth. They grow up handicapped.
Where do you think the line is between practicing your own religion faithfully and unethically forcing your beliefs on someone else?
That's not just someone that's a child, their child. So, the question should be: where do you think a parent should stop being a parent who has authority over their child? And where a child stop being a child (someone being taken care of and who is subject to the authority of their parents) to become a person (someone responsible for themselves).
Parents are responsible for their kids up until the child is reaching the 'age of reason' (sorry, not sure how to say that in English: when the is (legally) able to live and decide by themselves). How would anyone be able to raise (be responsible for) a child and make decision without pushing their own values on the kid? I mean, for me it's almost impossible. You can give options, a lot of options, but there will still be limits. Heck, even the simplest 'eat your veggies', 'brush your teeth', or 'you must do your homework before you can play your video game' (or their exact opposites, aka 'do whatever you want, I don't care about you') is already telling a lot about what values the parents are pushing onto their children.
My parents raised me as the atheists they were. That too is an ethical/philosophical/moral personal choice they pushed onto me without me being able to object anything, right? They never asked me if I was an atheist, or not.
The funny thing is that them being hardcore atheists did not prevent them to tweak the system so I could be send to a private catholic school because my father knew it was the best school. Another (unethical?) choice of them on which I had little to say as a child. And to be frank with you, now aged 50+ this is probably the second of only two reasons I feel gratitude towards my parents (the first one being that I had a roof and I was fed up until I was able to leave): the teaching there was demanding but it was also amazingly good.
Like mentioned already I would say: it's the parent's call. Because if christian or whatever else parents should not be allowed to share their faith with their own child, then logic mandates that no parent at all should be allowed to share no personal value at all with their child. Then, no parent should be allowed to raise their own child.
That may not be bad, though: Plato considered the idea in his Republic, suggesting kids should not be raised by parents but by city (the Ancient Greek ancestor of our modern States and Nations) operated and controlled institutions. But then, the question instantly becomes: who will decide what this city/state/nation controlled education should be about?
Real great question, with no simple answer I'm afraid.
My parents raised me as the atheists they were. That too is an ethical/philosophical/moral personal choice they pushed onto me without me being able to object anything, right? They never asked me if I was an atheist, or not.
How do you raise a kid to be atheist? Not teaching them faith based topics is not the same as teaching them to be religious. It's just the default setting.
That's the fundamental problem with your post, regardless of your personal experience with "hardcore atheists" which sounds to me as if they were likely to lean into the "anti religious" angle.
That’s the fundamental problem with your post,
If you say so. Thx for the useful insight.
That's a pretty snarky tone for dodging the actual question.
That was an excellent and well-thought out response, thank you for sharing it! It’s a thorny question for sure, and I appreciate your nuanced view
Glad to know. Like I said, it's a complex question but a very interesting one. Do not hesitate, if you want to discuss it further. I don't know about you, but I've always considered it a huge boost, I was about to write 'a blessing' but that would certainly not have been a smart choice of words ;), the ability to have articulated discussions about even the most... delicate questions.
I'd say yes, as long as they're tolerant of their children questioning those beliefs and developing their own later on in life. Parents will always make an impression on their kids, that's just what being a parent is. It can get more nuanced of course. Teaching your kids homophobia is unethical, but that's regardless of whether it's for religious or other reasons.
The problem with "faith" is its literal meaning: belief that is not based on evidence.
A society based on faith can only work is everybody has the same faith (think: Ancient Rome, theocracies, communist countries). The only reason modern Western democracies work is precisely that they are not based on faith but rather on evidence, on reason, on truth-seeking. This is the amazing and historically anomalous heritage of the enlightenment and it's looking more fragile by the day.
Teaching kids fairytales and calling it truth is the reason religion exists. It's the reason it's so hard for adults to leave the religions they assimilated as children. And in a free society where we have to find a way to live together, it's profoundly dangerous.
So my answer is: no.
think: Ancient Rome,
As far as I know, Ancient Rome (pre-christian) welcomed many and very different faiths.
I think the ethics mostly come into how you raise them, religion or not. It's ethical to teach kindness and empathy. It's ethical to allow your kids to explore while asking them questions that help that exploration. You can do those kinds of things no matter what faith (or non-faith) you practice.
Speaking as someone who was raised in an environment that gave lip service to kindness and empathy but was really very harsh, judgmental, and rigid, only one of my siblings kept something reasonably approximating my parents' faith. The rest of us are mostly some variety of pagan. Each of us had a painful journey out of our parents' faith to something. No matter how you raise your kids, they are their own people and will come to their own conclusions. You can make the path much more difficult than it needs to be or you can set them up for a much less traumatic journey.
Definitely think that kids should be explained different beliefs early on.. plus they should be respected if they don't want to follow the same beliefs, and be able to opt out of any traditions.. though I suppose the faith I follow tends to be a lot less "damned to hecc" than some others, so to some parents if breaking a tradition means making their kid go to hell that's probably a lot tougher of a thing than im imagining it to be
I think it's important to teach children the cultural traditions of their family and religion can be a good tool to teach children the social contracts of ethical behavior. The abstract metaphysical elements of faith can be a good substitute until they're old enough to understand the usefulness of moral behavior from a social contract perspective.
The line is crossed when religion is used as a tool to teach bigotry. But the world is made richer by cultural traditions and those should be carried on.
This would be true if religion were not so often used to suppress and hurt people.
It's true that it's unethical to raise children in a way that suppresses or hurts them or tells them to do that to others, but that isn't a requirement of religion, even if it's a trend of some. There exists an entire globe of different faiths and practitioners of varying levels of orthodoxy, to malign every last one of them as abusive and harmful isn't just a gross over generalization, it simply isn't a truthful representation of many many faith practitioners.
The history books are full of religions' heinous crimes against humanity. Maybe there is some religion out there that is purely benevolent but I have never heard of it in the sea of counterexamples.
If you are currently trapped in a religion, I am here to tell you that you can escape. Once you do, a lot becomes much more clear.
It is also important to remember that religions are human organizational structures, but their basis of authority is "because I said so." We see this structure arise over and over until it is eventually removed for something more based in reality.
it's nice to have culture or whatever, but practicing a religion is inherently unethical as it is giving legitimacy to a scam and perpetuating objectively bad ideas
Not all religions are abrahamic
They are all unethical tho
religion itself is a categorically problematic approach
Yes, it's their familial culture and it's up to the kid to decide whether to break out from that or not later
Their kid, their call up until the point the child's safety is in danger.
I have no more right to tell them how to raise their kids than they have about my entirely hypothetical and undesired kids. I may not agree with their choices and they may not agree with mine, I may think they are raising their kids to be less moral, they may think the same with the added bonus that I'm condemning mine to an eternity of torment.
That's life in a pluralistic society.
Their kid, their call up until the point the child’s safety is in danger.
You're answering the legal question instead of OP's ethical question. You're not wrong in your legal answer, but that wasn't what OP was asking.
I think that's the ethical answer too.
We can't know who is right, so I don't see any ethical way to intervene.
I hate when I see parents giving their kids a screen instead of interacting with them or worse, ignoring their kid im favour of their phone. But again, I don't feel it is ethical to interfere.
If a child is homosexual, I would argue its unethical to teach them they are freak of nature and they are wrong or broken. However, its not illegal.
It's act vs rule ethics, what is ethical in a particular situation may not be broadly applicable to society.
Edit: And from the religious parents perspective, letting your beloved child suffer an eternity of torment is probably not super moral. I may disagree but that's their perspective and there's no arbiter make the call.
If it impacts someone else besides yourself.