Can it not be universally prefereble to teach children religion?

[Thomas-Jefferson]

Hi there.

 

I was just wondering if it cannot be universally prefereble to teach children religion, to give a bit of context it cannot be universally prefereble to rape because 2 people raping each other is just sex thus rape is immoral/un-ethical because by it's definition it uses force against someone who doesn't consent to your action.

 

I understand that telling young, un-developed minds to worship a god or go to hell and be tortured for eternity is a terrible thing to do but (and maybe I don't understand UPB properly yet) is the non-consent of a forceful action the only criteria to determine it's morality/immorality?

 

If so is teaching children religion immoral? How does it fill the criteria? Because the children usually don't explicitly give or withdraw consent.

 

This sounds like a stupid question but it's really confusing me. Thanks in advance.

[ParaSait]

There are no stupid questions when it comes to UPB, it can be quite challenging to understand!

 

I would say that a child is intellectually vulnerable. Their knowledge about themselves and the world as well as their rational faculties are not developed enough yet to give them full responsibility for their actions. If a person is genuinely not aware about something, you can't hold him responsible for it.

If I present to you two buttons, and I tell you that button A kills a kitten and button B releases it from its cage, but the truth is that the functions of the buttons really work the other way around, you cannot be held responsible for the murder of a kitten by pressing button B. The one responsible would be me, because I lied to you about it.

Similarly, if a stranger in a van offers a kid a candy and tells him or her that he has much more candy at his home and it's going to be great, the child isn't responsible for choosing to enter the van. You can't expect the child to figure out that he's really lying.

 

Now, teaching a child religion is essentially lying. You talk about a big reward and a big punishment for behaving or not behaving according to a certain set of rules, and tell them that it's not you but God who's inflicting it upon them, and you present it to the child as an objective truth. You cannot reasonably expect the child to have a capability of skepticism that an adult mind has. This makes it a threat of violence, and thus immoral. A rather subtle one, because the responsibility for the threat is delegated to a god, and the coercion is well-hidden since the child "chooses" to obey or disobey him.

[dsayers]

is the non-consent of a forceful action the only criteria to determine it's morality/immorality?

 

Yes, though I find this wording to be tedious. I find the qualifier of "forceful" as superfluous. For moral consideration, something must be a voluntary behavior that influences property. Where consent is not present, the behavior is immoral.

 

I have argued, and controversially so, that deceit itself is not immoral. However, violating a contract irrefutably is. When parents choose to have a child, they are creating a positive obligation to care for that child until such a time as they are able to do so for themselves. I think that deceit from a parent to a child would be a violation of that obligation, and therefore immoral. To "teach" religion to a child would be to inflict them with an unproven conclusion as if it is proven. This both displaces the truth and damages the child's ability to determine what is true, which ultimately impacts how they are able to care for themselves.

 

Therefore, I would argue that if a parent teaches a child religion as if it is factual, this behavior would be immoral. Similarly, if a parent exposes their child to somebody else that teaches a child religion as if it is factual, the parents behavior again would be immoral.

[shirgall]

If you don't like the UPB ways of arranging the argument, try the Categorical Imperative (First Formulation): 

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.

 

 

(This is from Immanuel Kant claiming everyone has a duty not to follow contradictory maxims, among other things. I can't summarize Kant in a short sentence, pun intended.)

 

I can understand that it is important to teach children about religion so they can understand it when they encounter it. However, the only way I can summarize teaching children to follow a religion is, "teach children to pretend to know something they do not know." Universalized there is no contradiction that is obvious.

 

I can also universalize, "teach children to NOT pretend to know something they do not know." While I prefer this, it is subjective. It's clearly not universally preferable.

 

If people choose to waste their time on religion, it's not evil it's just obnoxious. If they push it on children peacefully it's still only just obnoxious. If they force their children to follow a religion with force and threats of force, that's abuse.

[dsayers]

If they push it on children peacefully it's still only just obnoxious.

 

This would be true between you and me. I have made the case above that for a parent to do it to a child is a violation of contract, and therefore immoral.

[Pepin]

At least on a high conceptual level, it can't be UPB because religion is temporal, which defies the universality test. The statement "one ought to teach their children Mormonism" could not apply to times before Mormonism existed.

 

There is the worse issue of religious texts containing numerous contradictions, which highly complicates any compromised theory which a religious text contains.

 

To go further. If we are to break down the action of teaching religion to children into lower level terms, it becomes "telling a child to accept claims about reality which have no relation to reality". I assume that we are all on the same page as far as the validity of religion. If not, then some focus can be directed here.

 

The term "teach" was changed to "tell" as comprehension is greatly diminished in children and the child has little to no cognitive ability to reject what they are being told. To teach, one must want to be taught, and a child has little ability to choose to be taught.

 

The term "tell" does not necessarily imply a negative connotation as we tell kids large amounts of information and expect them to accept it on our authority, and at a particular intellectual level this is needed.

 

Where the ethical nature of the claim comes in is in regard to preference. It is the caretakers preference for the child to accept the religious teaching. The child has no preference in the matter. The claim cannot be UPB compatible because the preference of the child is non-existent. It cannot be said that the child wants to learn about a religion, that they accept religious claims, nor that they are able to reject any of teachings.

 

A question that is likely to arise is that if the above is true, then how can caretaker tell their children anything? Well, at this point, my brain is tired and I can't quite think. It has something to do with the difference between "telling a child to accept claims about reality which have no relation to reality" and "telling a child to accept claims about reality which have a relation to reality". I really need to reread UPB: The Book again, as I kind of forget how to formulate UPB statements.

[shirgall]

At least on a high conceptual level, it can't be UPB because religion is temporal, which defies the universality test. The statement "one ought to teach their children Mormonism" could not apply to times before Mormonism existed.

 

I have a problem with this restriction because all knowledge is temporal and it can be argued that life-saving information must be relayed to others. "Don't pet the cobra because it is poisonous."

[Thomas-Jefferson]

You talk about a big reward and a big punishment for behaving or not behaving according to a certain set of rules, and tell them that it's not you but God who's inflicting it upon them, and you present it to the child as an objective truth. You cannot reasonably expect the child to have a capability of skepticism that an adult mind has. This makes it a threat of violence, and thus immoral. A rather subtle one, because the responsibility for the threat is delegated to a god, and the coercion is well-hidden since the child "chooses" to obey or disobey him.

 

Thanks everyone for the replies and thanks to ParaSait, this cleares it up for me, the message (threat) of "obey or be tortured in the afterlife" is a form of coercion disguised as god's orders. I'm sure I could go a lot more in depth and I will when I do some more research on UPB and philosophy specifically how one can determine the universality of an action but right now this is fine.

[OGMizen]

Google 'RTS' or 'Religious Trauma Syndrome' No - teaching religion to kids is not 'UPB'

[MysterionMuffles]

It cannot be UPB for people to believe in falsehood, most especially for children.

[AynRand]

Teaching people that a contradictory all mighty Omnipotent being created everything with no evidence to back it up is wrong, but to teach that to children who are far more likely to believe the fallacies of religion is definitively not preferable to say the least and borderlines child abuse.

[SamuelS]

no, no positive action can be UPB, it fails the coma test.

[J. D. Stembal]

I had a disagreement with my ex about teaching our children about religion just before we split. (We have no actual children. The discussion was pre-emptive.)

 

She had the objection that my atheistic outlook was "too dogmatic and close minded" to present to our children. Apparently, it was even more dogmatic than her parents raising her Catholic, which she claims harmed her self-esteem and sexuality. I retorted that teaching logic and truth cannot be close minded or dogmatic. Just because god isn't real and religion is a sham doesn't mean you can't discuss it with your kids. Your child will eventually run into the concept of god and be curious and ask you questions. There is nothing close minded about being open and honest, nor does it violate the NAP.

[dsayers]

She had the objection that my atheistic outlook was "too dogmatic and close minded"

 

HAHAHA! Sorry, that sucks. But I do so delight in hearing the religious malign others in ways that applies to themselves.

[J. D. Stembal]

HAHAHA! Sorry, that sucks. But I do so delight in hearing the religious malign others in ways that applies to themselves.

 

She was one of those pesky agnostics, 95% certain that there is no deity, but only 5% certain she could live her life as an atheist without her friends and family alienating her. I explained to her that she was being a hypocrite by wanting to expose her children to the insanity of religion as a way to make them more well rounded people and that I would never have children with a women who doesn't embrace atheism.

 

She then showed her true colors to me, insulting me, and calling me a crazy cultist. She even called into the show later in the month to tell Stefan that she was not "gung ho" about his philosophy, cloaking the implied accusation in a question about finding a good man. It would have been more honest for her to call in and tell him he's a cult leader because that was what she had been telling me, all of her friends, and my friends behind by back for a while.

[dsayers]

Not long ago, my religious father surprised me by revealing that he also believes in things like hauntings, ghosts, and possessions. He actually uttered this sentence: "I've never much cared for Catholics since most of their stuff seems made up, but they sure do seem to be experts at unpossessing." Damn near bit my tongue off I had to hold onto it so hard.

 

Anyways, I'm glad you found out about that girl before it got to the kids stage. And I wish to thank you on behalf of your unborn children for not subjecting them to such a mother.

[Jamiroquai]

 

She was one of those pesky agnostics, 95% certain that there is no deity, but only 5% certain she could live her life as an atheist without her friends and family alienating her. I explained to her that she was being a hypocrite by wanting to expose her children to the insanity of religion as a way to make them more well rounded people and that I would never have children with a women who doesn't embrace atheism.

 

She then showed her true colors to me, insulting me, and calling me a crazy cultist. She even called into the show later in the month to tell Stefan that she was not "gung ho" about his philosophy, cloaking the implied accusation in a question about finding a good man. It would have been more honest for her to call in and tell him he's a cult leader because that was what she had been telling me, all of her friends, and my friends behind by back for a while.

 

Wasn't she the one that was a physicist? If so, and if I remember correctly, she didn't want you teaching the children that the state is evil, she wanted them to come to their own conclusions about it. If that's the podcast you're talking about, I didn't see a problem with her stance, and it isn't too surprising that she'd want the children to come to their own conclusions about the state/religion/whatever else, seeing as how she has a science background and supports the use of logic and proof versus public school-style indoctrination (indoctrination is too harsh a word, but I can't think of another at the moment). 

 

I don't see the problem in allowing children to come to their own conclusions. It gives them a real-world situation in which they could practice using reason and evidence rather than believing what they are spoon-fed by parents/other adults. 

Understand I'm not saying that's what you wanted, I'm just basing everything on the parts of the call I've heard.

I hope I'm not talking about another couple entirely.

 

 

[IndianaLee]

Hi Dsayers. 

I just wanted to tell you that I totally agree with your below statements. As someone that just in the last couple years started really to questioning their upbringing about religion, and not I don't believe in any deity or god, I'm upset that one of my parents bought into it. I don't think it's their fault totally as they were taught non sense, and were told if you think, you're being bad and will burn! This is to prevent exactly the questions that should come up of course. I will say my parents were not both religious thankfully and even the one that was, told me about other religions and how some don't believe in any God, etc,.  This at least gave me the ability mentally to question things and later in life as in now to know the truth! :-) 

 

Anyway, great response. Thank you! 

Tim

 

Yes, though I find this wording to be tedious. I find the qualifier of "forceful" as superfluous. For moral consideration, something must be a voluntary behavior that influences property. Where consent is not present, the behavior is immoral.

 

I have argued, and controversially so, that deceit itself is not immoral. However, violating a contract irrefutably is. When parents choose to have a child, they are creating a positive obligation to care for that child until such a time as they are able to do so for themselves. I think that deceit from a parent to a child would be a violation of that obligation, and therefore immoral. To "teach" religion to a child would be to inflict them with an unproven conclusion as if it is proven. This both displaces the truth and damages the child's ability to determine what is true, which ultimately impacts how they are able to care for themselves.

 

Therefore, I would argue that if a parent teaches a child religion as if it is factual, this behavior would be immoral. Similarly, if a parent exposes their child to somebody else that teaches a child religion as if it is factual, the parents behavior again would be immoral.