I disagree. Everything you say, do and think is coloured by your biases. Everything you read has been shaped by other people's biases.
If you focus on teaching what people believe, rather than commenting on what you think about those beliefs, you can easily remove bias from the picture.
Yes you are! You are teaching your kid about religion as if its an academic lecture, not a spiritual experience.
If you really want to "teach" your kid about different religion, rather than just having conversations with them about it on an academic level regarding the history of the religion and the basic tenets, you need to fully immerse yourself in the culture associated with that religion and have them fully experience it by taking them to the Sikh temple and the Jewish synagogue and the Christian church and the Buddhist monastery; Enroll them in a TM Meditation class and spiritual yoga. I actually think that would be pretty cool for the child to experience except they would probably be bored and would rather play with their friends or something
I can just hear the kid complaining to his friends, "Ugh, my dad is dragging me out to this stupid church/temple/synagogue again. He's so lame, why can't I have a cool dad?"
If my kid had an interest in learning about this stuff, I'd be happy to take them to see various types of religion in action. Of course, I also have no interest in forcing any of this down their throat either!
My basic philosophy when it comes time to start raising kids is not to teach them what to think, instead it's best to teach them how to think. Give them the tools they need to work through problems logically, and to examine info and make decisions based on it.
Inevitably, they will see some things differently than I do, and that's how it should be. As long as they have the tools to make good decisions and not be taken advantage of in their life, they already have a big advantage over others.
I think if a kid was only ever shown religion and spirituality on an academic level, they would be far less inclined to become religious or spiritual because of the bias they inherited from their parents. Perhaps we can agree to disagree here.
If you took your kid to a Buddhist temple, or a synagogue, you probably wouldn't consider it a "spiritual experience" either, at least not in the same strain as going to a Christian Church. It'd be a time to gain an understanding of different views, and perhaps hear why you should accept the views of the people there as true.
In fact, I'd argue the "spiritual experience" in itself is the bias an objective person would strive to avoid. If you remove childhood indoctrination from the picture, it is far, far more unlikely that an adult neutral observer would walk into a church for the first time and find anything spiritual about it. To be honest, a lot of the spiritual experience I've seen in churches is just plain weird.
If the religion is true, then it should be true on it's own merits without having to appeal to emotion, which is all the spiritual experience is. If the facts back up what the religion is preaching, then the spiritual side is bound to follow eventually.
"Evidence" relies on human interpretation...which is influenced by bias. People will naturally reject or be more skeptical towards "evidence" that is contrary to their preconceived biases versus "evidence" that confirms their preconceived biases.
Completely wrong, evidence by definition is objective.
You are correct that people sometimes misread or examine the evidence poorly, but that doesn't affect the evidence itself. The evidence is what it is, regardless of what we think about it. That's why it's wise to gather as much evidence as possible and follow wherever it leads. This will help paint a clearer picture and limit the opportunities for mistakes.
I'm not sure I agree with Ralph's quote. Our interpretation of the myth can change, but the myth can still hold important lessons. I think literalism and inerrancy is a passing fad of modern evangelism and has not been the norm amongst academics or scholars. Allegorical interpretations of the Bible have been around since before the Bible existed. Philo of Alexandria interpreted much of the Jewish scriptures as allegory years before Jesus was born.
Ralph was not referring to Christianity specifically, he was referring to all religion. Once upon a time the Babylonian Gods, or Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian Gods, etc were worshipped as the Gods of modern religions are worshipped today. They all spent centuries, or millennia being taken seriously as religious figures
Nowadays, they have been relegated to the status of myths and stories. His point is, perhaps a few centuries in the future, Yahweh might be taken about as seriously as Wotan, Zeus or Jupiter are today.
Hinduism is a great example of a religion where almost all adherents recognize the non-literalism and mythic nature of their spiritual texts but still garners important spiritual lessons from the words. And this is the oldest semi-organized religion in the world where the holy texts of that culture have never reverted to "literary entertainment". Its also a reason why "Hindu fundamentalism" turns up almost nothing in Google except for the teachings of Wendy Doniger who was ironically raised as a Jew in New York City and now pushes for literalism in Hindu teachings...
On the contrary, if I were to read Hindu Scripture today, it would be for literary entertainment. Eventually if Hinduism fades out as a widely practised religion, it will suffer the same fate the religion of Ancient Greece did.
As much as atheists try to deny it, atheism does come with its set of general and over-arching views about the universe and how it operates and I'm not sure why atheists so strongly oppose this claim. Some of them ironically oppose it with such strong religious fervour. Most atheists are materialists and naturalists. Those are philosophies and worldviews and lead to biases that you pass on to your children knowingly or unknowingly.
I'm not saying all atheists are the same, nor am I saying they are bound by some doctrine. I'm saying that there is a "norm" worldview which most atheists fall into. Its not a bad thing but I think its important to know that you are going to naturally give biases to your children.
All Atheism denotes is a lack of belief in the existence of a God, nothing more. In fact, you can't really reach any other belief based solely on that. It may factor in on some beliefs, but nothing that is a direct result of that sole belief.
For example, many Buddhists are Atheists. They have an amazingly different view of the workings of the universe than I do. Scientologists are technically Atheists because there is no God in their religion either. As are Raelians, and any number of people with completely whacked out views about the universe in which we live, that don't happen to believe in a God.
The type of Atheist, which you seem to be referring to (i.e. me), is not biased due to their atheism, they are biased due to their skepticism. Most atheists that you'll see arguing on forums like this are of the skeptical type, and normally identify as secular humanists.
And that's a bias, then sign me up. I am strongly biased against believing things to be true that can't be demonstrated to be true.
Keep in mind, that's not an assertion those things are false, it's just an awareness they have not met their burden of proof and that accepting them at this point is not yet justified.
I don't think I am privy to any evidence that both of us can't have. We just interpret the evidence differently.
If Jesus himself appeared in your living room one night and proved himself to you, that would be evidence you have that I am not privy to. Now of course, that's an extreme example, but the point is personal experience in general is only evidence for the person experiencing it. So, there may be some bona-fide evidence you have that am not privy to. Therefore it may leave you with a justifiable belief, but I would not be justified in believing it unless I was there too.
Now of course, you'd also want to somehow verify you weren't dreaming or hallucinating, or otherwise making up this personal experience in your own head, which can be tough. But one would assume if God wanted to prove himself, he could do so in a way in which it was absolutely undeniable it was him.
You look up at the night sky and think, "Wow, this universe is so amazing, I can't believe it all came about by chance and how lucky I am to be here staring up at this sky! I am in such awe of this existence!"
I look up at the night sky and think, "Wow, this universe is so amazing, God is so insane to have created such a marvellous place. How lucky I am to be here staring up at this sky! I am in such awe of God!"
We're both looking at the same sky. And you can think I'm crazy and deluded if you want
I don't think you're crazy, I just think you're wrong. There's a big difference to that.
