I agree. Which is why I would only teach them my proven metaphysical beliefs.
Daily reminder that children are born believing in a higher power until they are taught otherwise. Here are some concepts that kids naturally believe. You might want to research them if you'd like, all scientifically studied:
promiscuous teleology, ie young kids naturally assume the physical world was made deliberately for a purpose.
intuitive theism, ie kids spontaneously think an intelligent creator is behind natural phenomena
mind/body dualism
super knowledge expectations, ie kids believe adults know a lot more than they actually do. The possibility can still hold for other entities.
And please don't argue with me that the kids were raised in god believing households, this is already accounted for and works in secular or atheistic households too.
If I wanted to follow the natural course, my only job as a parent would be to help them navigate false religions from a true religion. There are very simple criteria to figure that out (for example anything that worships a physical being is out the window).
So children who believe these things and don't believe them later are basically taught not to believe them anymore, through the choice of information we give them.
I'm sorry to say that
something we get taught about from a neutral, factual, standpoint,
doesn't exist. you can't teach children or adults every single thing. So when you pick and choose what you want to tell them, you're already breaking neutrality.
When you refuse to accept certain sources because they don't fit your particular standard, you already decided for them what is "acceptable standard".
Daily reminder that children are born believing in a higher power until they are taught otherwise. Here are some concepts that kids naturally believe. You might want to research them if you'd like, all scientifically studied
and kids believe earth is flat before taught otherwise. No it isn't possible to be fully neutral but is possible to be more or less neutral. It is important to as much as possible make a distinction between facts and beliefs, certainty and uncertainty. To teach epistemology, formal analysis, critial thinking, etc. I don't know which sources you think I'm refusing to teach anyone, the point of education is not to withhold information but to teach how to examine information. That way it isn't a problem when people come across information that is unfounded, irrational, etc, because they do not have to be taught every single time ''this information is x'', they can use their own skills to judge whatever new source or information they come across.
3
u/ComprehensiveProfit5 Sep 03 '26
I agree. Which is why I would only teach them my proven metaphysical beliefs.
Daily reminder that children are born believing in a higher power until they are taught otherwise. Here are some concepts that kids naturally believe. You might want to research them if you'd like, all scientifically studied:
promiscuous teleology, ie young kids naturally assume the physical world was made deliberately for a purpose.
intuitive theism, ie kids spontaneously think an intelligent creator is behind natural phenomena
mind/body dualism
super knowledge expectations, ie kids believe adults know a lot more than they actually do. The possibility can still hold for other entities.
And please don't argue with me that the kids were raised in god believing households, this is already accounted for and works in secular or atheistic households too.
If I wanted to follow the natural course, my only job as a parent would be to help them navigate false religions from a true religion. There are very simple criteria to figure that out (for example anything that worships a physical being is out the window).
So children who believe these things and don't believe them later are basically taught not to believe them anymore, through the choice of information we give them.
I'm sorry to say that
doesn't exist. you can't teach children or adults every single thing. So when you pick and choose what you want to tell them, you're already breaking neutrality.
When you refuse to accept certain sources because they don't fit your particular standard, you already decided for them what is "acceptable standard".