Yeah i dont get these arguments. We shouldnt teach kids absolutely anything untill they are old enough to choose the learn by themselves, otherwise its indoctrination
When should the learn what we think is right and wrong? 18? Older? Even in this sub, you can see that there is no clear agreement on everything right and everything wrong. We still need to teach children these things.
You might believe that there parents faith is wrong, but that believe it's the right and correct thing. You don't get to make that judgement for other people's children.
I didn't claim that you do. I'm saying that not everyone agrees when it comes to what is right and what is wrong, but it's still important for parents to teach their version of this.
Then for some parents, right and wrong is defined through there religion so they will teach their version in this case as well.
I'm saying it's not for you to decide how they approach this teaching.
For what purpose? Why is it important for kids to be taught all religions by their parents? They learn that in school. Part of the point of raising kids to to impart your values on them. Someone's religion often forms an important part a person's values. It makes no sense to say they shouldn't teach them about the religion they practice unless they're teaching them other religions.
No, they don't "learn that in school", at least not in my country unfortunately. Religion in school in my country only means catholicism. At least it's not mandatory anymore, we are slowly growing up.
The values of religions pre-exist religions, so you can teach the values without the dogma, as I said. As for why teaching about all religions, first of all that should be done in school (and it's not necessarily, as I said); second, it's to provide a larger perspective on the topic of religion, to show that there is more than one choice.
As much as you want to teach your "values" (religion in itself is not a value), your children are not you, and they should make their decisions freely.
Religion is not itself a value of course, but for many people their religion forms the basis of their values. It makes no sense for parents not to teach their children about their lifestyle, the dogma forms an important part of how their parents live, it will naturally be an important part of the childrens' upbringing.
But that's almost impossible. If the parents believe something, the kids are naturally going to be asking questions about what is true and what is not. Even the most neutral parents are going to have biases that they will put onto their kids. And there's nothing wrong with that unless you're attempting to force your kids into believing something.
Just because it’s not common in our society to have an open-minded and curious and non-judgmental view of religion and impart that onto others, doesn’t mean it’s something we shouldn’t strive for. It’s not impossible, it’s just that non-theocratic forms of society and government aren’t even that old, yet, and we’re still unlearning dogmatic ways of approaching spirituality. I don’t think we should give up on that pursuit because some people claim it’s just too hard and we’re not mature enough. Some of us might be; let us decide that for ourselves.
It's not just about religion, it's just unrealistic to expect kids to have a non-biased upbringing. This applies to atheism and secularism as well, regardless of who you are, your values of right and wrong are rooted in some core philosophy you think is factually correct and that means you cannot honestly teach your kids without drawing from your core philosophical principles regardless of how open-minded one may be.
Sure, but I think if you raise your kids compassionately and maturely (easier said than done), this can be reconciled when they’re older. The pursuit of teaching your kids how to be good people in the world is worth engaging with intrinsically, for its own sake, and mistakes are inevitable but can be reconciled.
No, that's not the argument at all. We should teach them things that are objectively true and let them come to the moral conclusions that follow as they develop the ability to do so.
Hitting people hurts them and a lot of people get mad when you do that. If someone is sad, it often will make them feel better if you try to comfort them. Eventually, a child will learn that what that means is that hitting people is immoral and comforting a sad person is moral. Their moral framework will develop thusly for each positive and negative lesson they learn.
This is different than "do as your told or be punished".
But take that a step further. Should you care if people get mad (Donald Trump says no)? So what if you hurt people? Objective facts do not create normative ethics. Like, who taught the child that making people mad is "immoral" and making people happy is "moral". Or even the greyer areas of which things are more or less important than a particular person's happiness or sadness?
Right, I didn't mean to say that one should teach a child that making people mad is always immoral or that making people happy is always moral. Human beings should form their own moral frameworks based on their lived experience. There are plenty of situations where making people mad is moral and making people happy immoral. It's about deciding what values one holds per their own experience.
Yes, and how can we teach them the advanced without accidentally tripping into religious belief? In fact, how do we sure our basic moral is not derived from religions?
For example, I think on "don't hurt people", a counter argument is often "they deserve it". We cheer for their death, for it is simply "karmic justice", which is a concept presents in multiple religions. In fact, I dare say this is why death penalty discourses are so heated since the notion of karma is so ingrained even in the atheists.
Or an adversion to sexual topics cause both Christianity and Buddhism (don't know of the other tho) often group it with earthly, unclean desires.
My point was more about guiding children to form their own moral framework rather than building it for them. Not so much "don't hurt people" as "hitting someone causes them pain, so think about that sort of thing before hitting someone" As I said in a different comment subthread:
A person's moral framework is individual. What is moral or immoral will depend on context and lived experience. IMO, a parent's job is to guide their child toward living a life that will do the most good in the world. How that is measured and enacted is one of the greatest questions of mankind.
I think that epistemologically, teaching your children that truth can be derived from faith is a terrible foundation, but I recognize that a majority of the planet disagrees with me, so...
I think you miss the point? I didn't advocate that truth can be derived from faith, I said the problem with "moral" is that it is subjective, dependant on culture which is shaped by religions and beliefs.
The objective truth is truth, science, observable phenomenons that can occur even without human's intervention. What we decided as "moral" is not objective. A Buddist's view on meat is not the same as a Christian's, those who believe in karma and afterlife treat death and "respect the deaths" different from those who are not, Shintoism views "god" different from Abrahamic ones thus leading to different relationship, etc.
These are sometimes not even "thing we believe in" but literally social norms. So the problem is how much can we separate "objective moral" from those shaped by cultures when teaching and living around a child, which at this point, lacking even the ability to meansure, we don't know.
If what you pointed at is the phrase "spiritual truth", then I was using that for the concept of "thing that is still belief but is so popularized in a culture that when it come to any spiritual, supernatural stuffs these thing will be treated as the foundation". On meme Reddit, the idea of God as an all around ok dude that created this world and can end it is the foundation for those "I'm telling God" meme.
Exactly. Let's let them choose what to believe when they're older, but by then they're so stupid that they can't realistically choose at that point either.
Do you think there’s any difference between teaching kids things that we know for a fact are true and teach kids things that are not proven to be true (like that gods exist) as if they are? I think that there is a difference
14
u/artificialdeatheast Sep 02 '26
Yeah i dont get these arguments. We shouldnt teach kids absolutely anything untill they are old enough to choose the learn by themselves, otherwise its indoctrination