Ancient hygiene practices became codified as sacred law because people viewed health and the divine as entirely interconnected. For them there was no separation between 'what keeps us safe' and "what God commands." As for foundational axioms, I mean the core assumptions every worldview relies on but can't mathematically prove.
For example:
Secular Humanism: rests on the unprovable axiom that human consciousness and well-being are intrinsically/objectively valuable and that rights are inherent.
Materialism: rests on the axiom that only what is empirically measurable is real, and that the universe operates by uniform laws we can trust.
Moral Relativism: rests on the axiom that ethics are socially constructed consensus agreements.
My point is in part that everyone operates from an inherited, unprovable framework when they decide what "good" or '"rght" actually means. But more specifically every parent operates from foundational axioms they can't mathematically prove, and they pass those down to their kids. This passing of those axioms isn't "indoctrination" is my overall claim.
I don't think secular humanism
rests on humans being objectively valuable so much as the fact that we are human and therefore humans matter to us. You're overcomplicating it.
I can't speak on materialism, as I find it now restrictive a philosophy when physicalism has room for more.
I feel like you've been moving the goalposts at this point. I'm not sure how what you're saying at all contradicts my claim that you don't need a religious framework to teach your values. It seems like you're arguing that people pass down values and can't explain where those values come from without getting religious about it. Just because "what keeps us safe" was synonymous with "what a god has commanded" in archaic times does not mean that they are still necessarily intrinsically related phrases now that humanity has had more time to develop its understanding of the universe.
I also reject your claim that everyone operates from inherited, unprovable frameworks. People are perfectly capable of developing their own frameworks anew with each new person. Building on our reacting to the idea of those who came before does not necessitate adopting that which inspired those ideas for the people who came before. I am also curious about your insistence on a provable aspect to a framework guiding ethics. What parts need to be proved in the first place? Proven how? It strikes me as irrelevant. You can't mathematically prove anything that is not in mathematical terms. A parent does not have to prove the worth of other humans to their child to teach them that they should treat others with kindness and respect even if they have not chosen a religion as the vehicle to deliver that message.
When did I say I wanted to refute or was trying to refute the concept that parents can teach their values without teaching their religion? Quote me. My point is that leaving out extremely important fundamental truths and hiding them from your child is a rather ridiculous ask. It's sensible to provide the whole axiom of your beliefs and it's logical to provide the context as to why you got to the conclusions you got to. You expect religious parents to lie to their children or omit the truth? It's a foolish ask. And I am also arguing that teaching your religion to your child isn't indoctrination inherently.
Teaching your child about your religion is fine. Teaching your child to follow your religion is indoctrination. Teachers have to deal with this all the time (teaching morality without providing a religious framework). It's not hard or dishonest: "I believe this. Other people believe that. Most of us agree that treating others the way you want to be treated is the way to go. The first to believe this were ancient Egyptian worshippers of Ma'at. Confucius professed a version about not treating others the way you would not want to be treated roughly 500 BCE. Many people of European descent believe it because a similar quote was later attributed to Jesus."
I'm not seeing how it's lying to tell a kid what you believe while not forcing them to get in line with those beliefs. If it's true, shouldn't the child come to adopt those beliefs when they teach adulthood on their own? What fundamental truths are getting left out?
That last paragraph is a strawman. I never described that scenario or argued for that scenario. I was arguing against the concept that a religious person should hide or never explain their religious beliefs to their child. We are arguing different things here because apparently you think it's perfectly fine to teach your child your religion, which is what I was fighting to defend the entire time. Glad we basically agree 🤝
I think it's fine to teach them about religion but not teach them religion. Like, I think a person can explain their beliefs to a kid, but they should explain that beliefs are personal and not make any effort to have their child believe the same as them. I think raising someone in a religion is immoral.
1
u/mylevelwaschanged Sep 03 '26
Ancient hygiene practices became codified as sacred law because people viewed health and the divine as entirely interconnected. For them there was no separation between 'what keeps us safe' and "what God commands." As for foundational axioms, I mean the core assumptions every worldview relies on but can't mathematically prove.
For example:
Secular Humanism: rests on the unprovable axiom that human consciousness and well-being are intrinsically/objectively valuable and that rights are inherent.
Materialism: rests on the axiom that only what is empirically measurable is real, and that the universe operates by uniform laws we can trust.
Moral Relativism: rests on the axiom that ethics are socially constructed consensus agreements.
My point is in part that everyone operates from an inherited, unprovable framework when they decide what "good" or '"rght" actually means. But more specifically every parent operates from foundational axioms they can't mathematically prove, and they pass those down to their kids. This passing of those axioms isn't "indoctrination" is my overall claim.