Engineering a new religion for atheist children

[cloudyday2]

This question is mostly for atheists and agnostics. We have all heard that religious people enjoy certain psychological benefits over non-religious people. (This claim may not be entirely true, but assume that it is.) Now imagine that sociologists and psychologists through careful study can identify one religion that seems to be almost ideal. This religion gives all the psychological and societal benefits while also being semi-plausible to a modern person. You don't believe this religion is true, and few people starting from a blank slate would believe this religion is true, but childhood indoctrination can do wonders.

Would you be in favor of deceiving your atheist children so that they grow-up believing in this beneficial religion? Imagine your children and society in general would be happier and healthier as a result.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

We have all heard that religious people enjoy certain psychological benefits over non-religious people. (This claim may not be entirely true, but assume that it is.)

No, this is the opposite of truth. (basically)

 

[Tolworth John]

Would you be in favor of deceiving your atheist children so that they grow-up believing in this beneficial religion? Imagine your children and society in general would be happier and healthier as a result.

Far simpler option is to follow Christianity.
It is already set up, is universaly recognised and is the motivating idea behind the western world view.

 

[cloudyday2]

Far simpler option is to follow Christianity.
It is already set up, is universaly recognised and is the motivating idea behind the western world view.

I disagree that Christianity is ideal from the perspective of psychologists and sociologists, but the particular religion is irrelevant.

Basically we have identified some religion that will benefit atheist children and society in general, but of course the atheist parent does not believe in this religion. Is the atheist parent willing to deceive his/her children by pretending to believe in this wonderfully beneficial engineered religion?

 

[AvisG]

This question is mostly for atheists and agnostics. We have all heard that religious people enjoy certain psychological benefits over non-religious people. (This claim may not be entirely true, but assume that it is.) Now imagine that sociologists and psychologists through careful study can identify one religion that seems to be almost ideal. This religion gives all the psychological and societal benefits while also being semi-plausible to a modern person. You don't believe this religion is true, and few people starting from a blank slate would believe this religion is true, but childhood indoctrination can do wonders.

Would you be in favor of deceiving your atheist children so that they grow-up believing in this beneficial religion? Imagine your children and society in general would be happier and healthier as a result.

I think that would be a hideously bad choice. All forms of parental indoctrination, well-meaning or not, are ultimately counterproductive. I happen to be working on a manuscript at this very moment where I make the point that the complete absence of parental indoctrination has proved to be one of the great blessings of my life. If I were a committed atheist parent and felt compelled to instill beliefs and values in my children, I'd honestly instill sincere humanistic beliefs and values.

 

[Tolworth John]

I disagree that Christianity is ideal from the perspective of psychologists and sociologists, but the particular religion is irrelevant.

Basically we have identified some religion that will benefit atheist children and society in general, but of course the atheist parent does not believe in this religion. Is the atheist parent willing to deceive his/her children by pretending to believe in this wonderfully beneficial engineered religion?

They don't have to pretend to believe.
Christianity is about honesty, and caring for others.

Which is why those psychologists etc are wrong in there assesment of Christianity.

 

[cloudyday2]

I think that would be a hideously bad choice. All forms of parental indoctrination, well-meaning or not, are ultimately counterproductive. I happen to be working on a manuscript at this very moment where I make the point that the complete absence of parental indoctrination has proved to be one of the great blessings of my life. If I were a committed atheist parent and felt compelled to instill beliefs and values in my children, I'd honestly instill sincere humanistic beliefs and values.

The premise of this hypothetical is that the atheist parent can improve the life of his/her children and everybody in society by simply pretending to believe in a ideal religion for the sake of subsequent generations. Truth can be sacrificed to improve the world. Will you, the atheist parent in this hypothetical scenario, deceive your children to achieve this wonderful benefit for society?

 

[Albion]

Would you be in favor of deceiving your atheist children so that they grow-up believing in this beneficial religion? Imagine your children and society in general would be happier and healthier as a result.

Isn't there one already? Science is worshipped by many people these days. It posits a transcendent truth which can never be wrong and which controls all the affairs of Earth and Mankind. It has its shrines and worship centers, priests, and etc.

 

[dlamberth]

I was thinking of Science as well.

 

[Halbhh]

but childhood indoctrination can do wonders.

Actually -- even by age 8-10 a typical child already questions adult preaching, and thinks their own thoughts.

We notice this if kids tell us what they really think, if we seem like a safe person to tell.

So, that idea indoctrination controls beliefs or thinking is a mistaken idea. It's so short lived. I think for the great majority, of normal intelligence, such an attempt to control thinking fails quickly even before teen years (and then most all of the remainder during teen years).

Something a lot more complex and interesting is actually happening.

But, this is just factual to me from talking with many dozens of individuals at length -- there are not 2 people in the world that think the same as each other after you get past the simplification or the surface ideology.

 

[Halbhh]

This question is mostly for atheists and agnostics. We have all heard that religious people enjoy certain psychological benefits over non-religious people. (This claim may not be entirely true, but assume that it is.) Now imagine that sociologists and psychologists through careful study can identify one religion that seems to be almost ideal. This religion gives all the psychological and societal benefits while also being semi-plausible to a modern person. You don't believe this religion is true, and few people starting from a blank slate would believe this religion is true, but childhood indoctrination can do wonders.

Would you be in favor of deceiving your atheist children so that they grow-up believing in this beneficial religion? Imagine your children and society in general would be happier and healthier as a result.

Getting past that interesting question above, tho....

Why would anyone really want their children to believe something else instead of what Jesus taught --

"Love your neighbor as yourself"
"...forgive your brother or sister from your heart."
"In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you"

and to trust in the Good, even when you can't see it at the moment.... ("faith" or "believe")

and all the rest of His teaching, which is all about aspects and application of the above.

I'm really asking. Would anyone really want to handicap their kids with some ideology less beneficial and life enhancing than the teaching of Jesus? Really asking. It's like: why would anyone want less than the best?

Here's a way to think on it all --
For many, they would (correctly) reject the modern Republican party of the day, or try to change it back. But, they would not reject say Dwight Eisenhower, or Lincoln. Right?

If America is astray, you'd not then reject Thomas Jefferson and Washington, because of the wrongs of modern Americans, right?

 

[AvisG]

The premise of this hypothetical is that the atheist parent can improve the life of his/her children and everybody in society by simply pretending to believe in a ideal religion for the sake of subsequent generations. Truth can be sacrificed to improve the world. Will you, the atheist parent in this hypothetical scenario, deceive your children to achieve this wonderful benefit for society?

You seemed to post essentially the same thing in the other thread, with essentially the same premise. Why would atheist parents think they could benefit their child and future generations in this manner? The central axiom of modern atheism is that religious belief is a dangerous delusion, one that hinders the development of the individual and the advancement of society. Sincere atheist parents would not believe that instilling a dangerous delusion in their child would improve anything - exactly the opposite.

This seems very similar to your other thread, where I said the answer depends on what one means by "better." Here, the atheist parents would have to believe that instilling in their child what they themselves regard as a dangerous delusion would be "better" if this would afford the child an easier time in life and promote societal harmony. If they are committed atheist parents, they would not believe this.

Christian parents could go through the same exercise: "Hey, society is obviously moving in the direction of hardcore atheism. Let's instill that in Junior so he'll be a better fit and society will eventually be more harmonious." Christian parents would never see instilling atheism in their child as a benefit, no matter what the earthly advantages. A premise that there would be earthly advantages would be irrelevant to Christian parents.

They way you are framing your premise suggests there is no principle to the atheist parents' atheism. They simply believe there is no God, so why not pretend there is for the benefit of Junior and society as a whole? But there is principle to sincere atheism - religion is a dangerous delusion that hinders the development of the individual and the advancement of society, a principle diametrically opposed to the premise.

Ditto for Christian parents. They don't simply believe there is a God, but also everything that flows from this. Neither set of parents would ever instill completely contrary beliefs in their child - the atheists because they believe religion is a dangerous delusion, the Christians because they believe atheism is the road to hell.

 

[cloudyday2]

You seemed to post essentially the same thing in the other thread, with essentially the same premise.

What other thread?

Why would atheist parents think they could benefit their child and future generations in this manner? The central axiom of modern atheism is that religious belief is a dangerous delusion, one that hinders the development of the individual and the advancement of society. Sincere atheist parents would not believe that instilling a dangerous delusion in their child would improve anything - exactly the opposite.

Atheism is nothing more than to not believe in any proposed deities. Truth doesn't necessarily lead to the most desirable results. For example, the CIA routinely propagates disinformation to enhance US national security. In theory an atheist might decide that the world is better without atheists and work to spread religion through childhood indoctrination.

 

[Halbhh]

Isn't there one already? Science is worshipped by many people these days. It posits a transcendent truth which can never be wrong and which controls all the affairs of Earth and Mankind. It has its shrines and worship centers, priests, and etc.

Made me curious tho here: "It posits a transcendent truth which can never be wrong" -- what do you have in mind?

------------
It's odd to me when I run in to honest to goodness scientism ('excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.'), around, here and there, but it doesn't seem dominate in the populace. (to me)

On the other hand, we know the more track-record type reasonable respect for the sciences created by their successes in various fields also.

So you got both -- the superstitious attitude, and the very different merely respect-the-track-record attitude, right?

 

[Halbhh]

I disagree that Christianity is ideal from the perspective of psychologists and sociologists,

ah, maybe you are referring to what I myself call 'christendom' -- largely people that have simply a tradition, or identity, which can often be doing the opposite of what Christ taught His disciples to do (in the gospel accounts).

Probably many of us have read popular articles by psychologists or science writers reporting on psychological findings, writing about the benefits of positive relationships with the people around you -- e.g. "Love your neighbor as yourself" put into practice.

So, I suppose you are talking of the "Christians" that don't do what Christ said then.

-------
Analogy:

When you read...Lincoln...do you think of the modern Republican party?

I don't. Not anymore.

That has ended.

But...Lincoln himself though, I still can respect for what he said. Right?

 

[cloudyday2]

Actually -- even by age 8-10 a typical child already questions adult preaching, and thinks their own thoughts.

Yes, but notice that there is no discussion of other religions in most cases. By practicing childhood indoctrination the parents determine the religion that the child will later question. That is a huge advantage. Also the childhood indoctrination places the religion deep within the child's psyche. For example, ex-Christians often report difficulty overcoming their fears of hell even though they might no longer consciously believe in Christianity.

 

[Albion]

ah, maybe you are referring to what I myself call 'christendom' -- largely people that have simply a tradition, or identity, which can often be doing the opposite of what Christ taught His disciples to do (in the gospel accounts).

Probably many of us have read popular articles by psychologists or science writers reporting on psychological findings, writing about the benefits of positive relationships with the people around you -- e.g. "Love your neighbor as yourself" put into practice.

So, I suppose you are talking of the "Christians" that don't do what Christ said then.

Maybe the problem is that people are inventing new words and new meanings for existing words... and then complaining that someone else isn't on the right side of these arbitrary definitions.

 

[cloudyday2]

Isn't there one already? Science is worshipped by many people these days. It posits a transcendent truth which can never be wrong and which controls all the affairs of Earth and Mankind. It has its shrines and worship centers, priests, and etc.

I was thinking of Science as well.

The problem with science is that the atheist actually believes in science in most cases. In this hypothetical the atheist needs to pretend to believe in a religion for the benefit of others. Does truth have some intrinsic value beyond the good results it can yield? If a lie can yield better results will the atheist opt for the lie? Do the atheists worship truth?

 

[Halbhh]

Yes, but notice that there is no discussion of other religions in most cases. By practicing childhood indoctrination the parents determine the religion that the child will later question. That is a huge advantage. Also the childhood indoctrination places the religion deep within the child's psyche. For example, ex-Christians often report difficulty overcoming their fears of hell even though they might no longer consciously believe in Christianity.

That's because in actuality there is a substantive, real...consequence to abandoning such basic truths of life as "forgive...seventy times seven" and other such truths of life, and trust in the Good. -- Leaving what is Good induces a totally practical and correct guilt. For anyone with a conscience.
Ok, I know you meant something else: you meant I think feeling guilty for stuff that isn't actually bad. Got it.

 

[Albion]

Yes, but notice that there is no discussion of other religions in most cases. By practicing childhood indoctrination the parents determine the religion that the child will later question. That is a huge advantage. Also the childhood indoctrination places the religion deep within the child's psyche. For example, ex-Christians often report difficulty overcoming their fears of hell even though they might no longer consciously believe in Christianity.

This isn't really a problem of religion, though. Not of religious indoctrination any more than the hundreds of other values, etc. that the typical parent imposes upon the children. It's no secret that atheist parents indoctrinate their kids with all sorts of prejudices, save only that they do not push theism on them.