Teaching kids about God/s: What group are you in and why?

What do you teach kids

  • There is a God/s

    Votes: 5 22.7%
  • There is no God/s

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • Wait till they are old enough and let them decide

    Votes: 14 63.6%

  • Total voters
    22
teach kids about humanity & love
teach kids about life & nature
teach kids about science

after that there's one question:

Why is not nothing ?


two possible answers

1) the universe has a cause, a plan, a beginning, a root, there's a maker -> there's a God
2) everything is (quantum-) chaos, our universe is a strange coincidence

After all the years studying different sciences I tend to answer 1), because our relativistic universe, the physics & mathmatic rules within, human & animal life are too perfect and fantastic to come into existance by pure chance.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
19,818
Location
Germany
The problem with option 3, is that really doesn't address the issue. I have never attempted to coerce my kids into following my beliefs, but they do know WHAT I believe. You can't ignore 'religion' in the modern world (nor throughout most of history), so YES, children must be taught about it. However, most religions don't make any sense unless the concept of GOD is explained. Now, children, being children are bound to ask their parents something along the lines of 'is God real'? At that point in time you have to address the question which option 3 avoids. Now, is it door number 1, or door number 2? :)
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,806
Location
Australia
Yes and No!! :) Religion is Important if you want to understand what is currently happening in large parts of the world. It's all relative and therefore impossible to rank where anything should fit in a list of what is most important.
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,806
Location
Australia
I understand the argument that this one relligion (and a few others) have a gigantic impact on history - but that doesn't mean that the religion in detail is important. The way it has impacted history is important, but not the religion in itself. At least, not more than any one other.

I agree. Religion has played an important part in shaping modern societies, but is a blunt, outmoded tool for keeping people in line (my opinion of course). And besides, the world is a much more exciting place to live in without believing that a wise and omnipotent deity is at the helm. It's chaos!
 
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
371
Location
Australia
The problem with option 3, is that really doesn't address the issue. I have never attempted to coerce my kids into following my beliefs, but they do know WHAT I believe. You can't ignore 'religion' in the modern world (nor throughout most of history), so YES, children must be taught about it. However, most religions don't make any sense unless the concept of GOD is explained. Now, children, being children are bound to ask their parents something along the lines of 'is God real'? At that point in time you have to address the question which option 3 avoids. Now, is it door number 1, or door number 2? :)

Why cant you say "you need to be older before YOU make that decision"?. Yes kids will ask but isnt it up to you to make a stronger foundation for them than "daddy/mommy told me"?
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
1,201
I'd go for three. When they start asking about the religions, I'll explain various religions that have existed in the past and exist today. I'll tell them what I believe if they ask, but support them in whatever decision they choose.

If they chose to reject modern science and instead become a creationist - well, I'd disagree, but I wouldn't try to enforce my will on them.
 
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
2,299
Location
VA
1) the universe has a cause, a plan, a beginning, a root, there's a maker -> there's a God
2) everything is (quantum-) chaos, our universe is a strange coincidence

False dichotomy.

human & animal life are too perfect and fantastic

I disagree on "perfect" and "fantastic".
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
False dichotomy.



I disagree on "perfect" and "fantastic".


False dichotomy -> then tell me more possibilities, please.

I disagree on "perfect" and "fantastic". -> what is more fantastic and perfect than a beautiful butterfly flying in wind and I can watch it and think and reflect about it ? - just one example.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
19,818
Location
Germany
I agree. Religion has played an important part in shaping modern societies, but is a blunt, outmoded tool for keeping people in line (my opinion of course). And besides, the world is a much more exciting place to live in without believing that a wise and omnipotent deity is at the helm. It's chaos!

It sounds like we don't REALLY agree, actually.

I'm not saying it's a "blunt or outmoded tool" - because I can't make that decision for anyone. To me, it's as legitimate a guide to life as any other. I just don't see why any specific religion should take up so much time in class. It seems a waste of mind space.

Personally, being a "weak agnostic" - I don't have a guideline - but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate that others do.
 
... what is more fantastic and perfect than a beautiful butterfly flying in wind and I can watch it and think and reflect about it ? - just one example.

Whenever someone starts talking about intelligent design or a "master plan" I can't help but think of 2 completely unrelated examples:

1) Eyelashes and their purpose. Eyelashes are supposed to keep stuff out of your eyes yet 9 out of 10 times you get something in your eye anyway it is ... yes, that's right: an eyelash. :rolleyes: I'm not saying eyelashes don't serve their purpose but intelligent design? No.

2) Sticky feces and hairy butts. Sorry, there is absolutely no way you'll be able to convince me that that particular combination can be part of any kind of divine plan, or if it is, it is most certainly not from a deity I would like to worship. Mean bastard :devil:

To get back to the topic at hand: While I would like to be able to claim that I'm a tolerant person and that I respect the choices people make no matter what they may be, I can't. If I were ever to have any kids I would fall squarely into choice number 2. What's more: the mother would agree with me since I can not imagine myself ever being able to live with a religious person, let alone sire a child with one. I'm simply too much of an incarnate atheist for that to be a viable scenario (this not a bash at religious persons, but rather a bit of self-realization).

I was brought up with choice number 3. I wasn't baptized and my parents never spoke of God/religion (but didn't speak against God/religion either), so when the time came for the confirmation preparations I was old enough to make my own choice (or as much my own as can be expected from a 14 year old kid). I have never regretted that choice and as I got older my agnosticism slowly turned into atheism to the point where I now truly do believe that the greatest threat to human progress is religion and its' disdain towards any deviation from the tired old rituals and thought patterns ... but that's way off topic, so I'll keep quite now :blush:
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
805
Location
Just outside of Copenhagen
Are eyelashes really supposed to keep stuff out of your eye? I thought they are there for beauty purposes.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
1,201
No one knows what eyelashes are supposed to do. All we can do is theorise.

If we actually KNEW - we'd be able to prove intelligent purpose behind evolution.

People also tend to forget that evolution is the best theory we can come up with. It seems pretty good, I'll grant that, but it's anything but certain.

It's just a word for something we don't fully understand.
 
This ended up a bit longer than I had anticipated HiddenX so forgive me.

False dichotomy -> then tell me more possibilities, please.

The false dichotomy you gave is that 2 exists at all.

When you meet the universe, you percieve the universe. Perception in cognitive psychology is when the human mind comprehend and order it's input.

We humans use words like "coincidence" and "pure chance" when something is beyond our capacity to comprehend (and percieve). Thus order and chaos are from our point of view. In fact, where one person see order, another can see chaos, vice versa.

The careful study of the universe may help us to understand some of it's basic properties. When we get aware of these properties we can predict the future with a good chance of being right. Plus is drawn to minus for example. This is an essential natural property of pretty much everything we percieve in this world.

So there is no "pure chance" or "coincidence" just because we fail to comprehend. Thanks to the basic properties of the contents of the universe it could not "happen" any other way.

Let's remember perception when we go to…

a cause, a plan, a beginning, a root, there's a maker -> there's a God
I disagree on "perfect" and "fantastic". -> what is more fantastic and perfect than a beautiful butterfly flying in wind and I can watch it and think and reflect about it ? - just one example.

Each one of the words "cause", "beginning", "perfect", "fantastic", "plan" or "maker" are human. First of all the most important skill of our perception is making patterns in which the idea of "cause" is very important to us. We cannot live without seeing patterns and they help us all day through. This is not a foolproof behavior. Sometimes we do not see patterns where they exist, sometimes we see patterns where they do not exist.

Now the idea "beginning" (or root) is a concept that pretty much only exist within human perception. To introduce the idea of "beginning" or "end" we must first percieve a concept that might begin and end. Freedom, a flower, the universe. Each of these concepts are in the mind of the perciever who comprehend the sum of it's parts. We are the only one who care about the beginning or end of these concepts.
Does "freedom" objectively exist so that it can begin and end? Well, freedom exist to us and that might be all that matter in the end. How about that "flower". The "flower" is what we percieve. In essence it's the sum of particles living their own lives and when that "flower" is dead and gone to us, the particles still exist but take other forms. Here is the important thing about that flower; it exists to us, regardless what reality have to say about it. We can understand that a flower is a flower to us, enjoy that flower and it's "beauty", but may also understand that it's all in our head. So now we come to the concept of the "universe". The idea of "beginning" or "end" applied to the "universe" is a problematic one, because the "universe" is one of those extremely abstract concepts that we humans use. The question is if we shouldn't even begin to discuss "beginning" of a concept we can't barely grasp or agree on. We can't even agree on "freedom" above, and some might call the flower above ugly and others "perfect".

Let's instead discuss the "maker" and "god".

There are two rules of our perception I wanted to lift forth here. The first is pareidolia. A healthy human being is an expert of seeing faces and comprehend voices. This is usually good, but it can also be problematic because we might see people where there aren't any, such as the Face of Mars or Electronic Voice Phenomenons. The second is Theory of Mind. A healthy human will spot another humans intention. This is also good, but we might see intention where there aren't any. We might for example begin to talk with our computers and cars when they do not behave like we want them to.

The problem with both of these is that we can humanify a non-human concept and try to percieve it's intention. We can percieve "luck" as "lady luck", a mountain as our "father", earth as our "mother", the economy as the "invisible hand", "society" as intelligent, the "state" as either helpful or evil etc. We can then believe that if we only rub these entities in the right way they may help us, so we might carry our lucky charm with us to Las Vegas, we may sacrifice fruits and a goat to the mountain and we might help Mother Nature even if "she" doesn't care about us at all. We might even think that "the state" or the "economy" will set everything right if we leave it alone.

Now percieving intention and a human-like intelligence behind the basic properties of the universe is thus an understandable behavior in any human being. But just like above, our perception is more often wrong than true.

But all might not be lost to our troublesome thinking. The philosophy of knowledge and the philosophy of science have the goal of developing methods to avoid our mistakes. By being aware of the perception process, where it might misfire, and use external tools like rigid data collection, we might actually distinguish correct patterns from incorrect patterns. And we might still enjoy the experiences that is the essential part of our nature, such as enjoying a flower that we percieve as perfect, after we tossed out all the withered ones ofcourse.


Now, lets discuss "making". What does it mean to "make"? To make something must be made. Making is a subject rearranging something into a concept. We can make a can of coke. We can make chaos. We can make babies and we can make flowers.

The question is how much we make, when we merely guide the basic properties of nature that we know about. When we melt what goes into a can of coke we apply our insight in the properties of the universe (use heat to rearrange what's otherwise solid). When we make babies we do not construct babies. We might breed a flower but we cannot build life.

So the idea that someone "made" the universe because "everything that is created has a creator" is a troublesome idea to begin with. Most of the time, the nature simply realign itself without any intelligence involved.

But lets for once accept the idea of nature as a person like we humans normally do in our head. Then nature makes stuff out of itself. Nature makes air. Nature makes humans. Nature makes the universe. If we accept nature itself as a maker, a human-like intelligence like "God" on top of that is meaningless. Deism is the notion that nature is God and create itself.

What you say then, is that any creator needs a creator. Humans need a creator (nature) which needs a creator (God). This idea, as has been pointed out, is an endless regress without explanative power since you merely end up with "what created God". I rather stick with "nature".
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
Are eyelashes really supposed to keep stuff out of your eye? I thought they are there for beauty purposes.

May be both.

Many cases an evolutionary advantage due to one reason may become an evolutionary advantage for another reason. Eye lashes can thus go from mere survival (keeping eyes clean) to a sexual advantage (beauty).
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
Sorry, I forget to speak about "making". What does it mean to "make"? To make something must be made. Making is a subject rearranging something into a concept. We can make a can of coke. We can make chaos. We can make babies and we can make flowers.

The question is how much we make, when we merely guide the basic properties of nature that we know about. When we melt what goes into a can of coke we apply our insight in the properties of the universe (use heat to rearrange what's otherwise solid). When we make babies we do not construct babies. We might breed a flower but we cannot build life.

So the idea that someone "made" the universe because "everything that is created has a creator" is a troublesome idea to begin with. Most of the time, the nature simply realign itself without any intelligence involved.

But lets for once accept the idea of nature as a person like we humans normally do in our head. Then nature makes stuff out of itself. Nature makes air. Nature makes humans. Nature makes the universe. If we accept nature itself as a maker, a human-like intelligence like "God" on top of that is meaningless. Deism is the notion that nature is God and create itself.

What you say then, is that any creator needs a creator. Humans need a creator (nature) which needs a creator (God). This idea, as has been pointed out, is an endless regress without explanative power since you merely end up with "what created God". I rather stick with "nature".
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
About humans been perfect : you can choke everytime you swallow food or liquids , this is a major design flaw .


* i know that we have evolved from animals that swallowed air instead of breathing

There's also that nerve that goes from one side of your neck, down into your chest, around your heart, and up to the other side of the neck, traveling like 2 feet to cover a distance of a few inches.
 
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
2,299
Location
VA
Well, the first response in the poll is flawed. You can't prove there is a God. You can have faith there is a God (and God himself could of course prove it to you should He so choose), but no mortal can prove the existence of God.

That being said, are we talking about our own children or just teaching children in general (IE via school. society, etc.)?

For my own children, I will definitely be teaching them faith in God and Christ. I consider that one of the most important duties I have as a parent. That said, when they are old enough to make their own decisions, I will respect whatever decision they make, even if I don't agree with it.

For society or school or whatever, I think that teaching children something like a comparative religions course would be of great benefit.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,353
Location
Austin, TX
@JemyM

Please don't take my words too literal.

Please replace "perfect and beautyful" with the more neutral word "complex".

My thesis or should I say believe is (I can't prove it - I think nobody can):

The world I exist in is too complex and too well arranged that I think
the world has NOT created/invented itself out of nothing.

Examples of beauty:

Euler's identity:

e^(i*π)+1=0

The number 0, the additive identity.

The number 1, the multiplicative identity.

The number π, which is ubiquitous in trigonometry, the geometry of Euclidean space, and analytical mathematics (π = 3.14159265…)

The number e, the base of natural logarithms, which occurs widely in mathematical and scientific analysis (e = 2.718281828…). Both π and e are transcendental numbers.

The number i, the imaginary unit of the complex numbers, a field of numbers that contains the roots of all polynomials (that are not constants), and whose study leads to deeper insights into many areas of algebra and calculus, such as integration in calculus.


Richard Feynman about the complexity of nature (example electromagnetic spectrum)

The Infamous Double Slit Experiment

Mass–energy equivalence
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
19,818
Location
Germany
Back
Top Bottom