Engineering a new religion for atheist children

[Halbhh]

No, if I know enough to know that it's not true then I'm sure my kids will figure it out sooner or later and think me a hypocrite when they do so. If the religion in question can confer benefits then I'm sure that can also be done in a secular way. E.g. if the religion encourages wellbeing by positioning the believer as beautiful and worthy of love, then the same can be done without the spirituality.

Better I think would be to recommend that my children study that religion, ask why it confers benefits and encourage them to reflect on how they should act.

I think we were supposed to pretend or take a leap of faith to just assume that "childhood indoctrination can do wonders." would guarantee or give the pleasant preferred notion that faith is only an effect of indoctrination, though our common experience of most anyone would tell us that's a false idea, it's the article of faith being used there.

Here you want to use a different article of faith? -- to believe without proof that religion doesn't confer any unique benefits that cannot be gotten elsewhere? Is that right?

Why come here to assert that? It's not like we can't know what we know. Or were you hoping to just elicit information?

Ok.

Turns out, from trying a huge variety of techniques and ways to live and practices, I learned by direct experience over about 25 years that Christianity, amazingly, the kind with actual faith (not just tradition alone as many have), has totally unique benefits, but you'd have to experience them to believe it.

 

[ThievingMagpie]

I think we were supposed to pretend or take a leap of faith to just assume that "childhood indoctrination can do wonders." would guarantee or give the pleasant preferred notion that faith is only an effect of indoctrination, though our common experience of most anyone would tell us that's a false idea, it's the article of faith being used there.

Here you want to use a different article of faith? -- to believe without proof that religion doesn't confer any unique benefits that cannot be gotten elsewhere? Is that right?

Why come here to assert that? It's not like we can't know what we know. Or were you hoping to just elicit information?

Ok.

Turns out, from trying a huge variety of techniques and ways to live and practices, I learned by direct experience over about 25 years that Christianity, amazingly, the kind with actual faith (not just tradition alone as many have), has totally unique benefits, but you'd have to experience them to believe it.

I'm not sure if you meant to reply to my post, but the original question asked whether we'd be prepared to "deceive" our children in pursuit of the societal benefits of the hypothetical religion - which implies that the religion is false. I just answered the question presented, no ulterior motives.

 

[Halbhh]

I'm not sure if you meant to reply to my post, but the original question asked whether we'd be prepared to "deceive" our children in pursuit of the societal benefits of the hypothetical religion - which implies that the religion is false. I just answered the question presented, no ulterior motives.

Yah, I was responding to your....premise, or belief, that there is nothing in Christianity that could not be obtained without it. I hope to help you learn that idea turns out to be false. I know because that was my own premise, which I was really pretty confident and determined would be correct, and part of why it took me like 20-25 years or so of testing to finally admit what I was finding meant what it meant. Of course, you'd not take a path of a length like that in a post or a day, but what I wanted to give you was simply information. I tried that same premise you have here, tested very extensively trying to keep the premise, and it turned out to be a false premise/idea. Christianity has profound things you cannot get elsewhere. I don't expect you to believe that, but I hope you will begin to test it.

 

[FireDragon76]

There's alot of unchallenged philosophical assumptions when one says that a religion is false merely because it contains apparent contrafactuals. Like what is the nature of truth? I tend to hold to a pragmatic notion of truth, as have some other philosophers over the years (Nietzsche, William James, Jordan Peterson, etc.).

 

[ThievingMagpie]

Yah, I was responding to your....premise, or belief, that there is nothing in Christianity that could not be obtained without it. I hope to help you learn that idea turns out to be false. I know because that was my own premise, which I was really pretty confident and determined would be correct, and part of why it took me like 20-25 years or so of testing to finally admit what I was finding meant what it meant. Of course, you'd not take a path of a length like that in a post or a day, but what I wanted to give you was simply information. I tried that same premise you have here, tested very extensively trying to keep the premise, and it turned out to be a false premise/idea. Christianity has profound things you cannot get elsewhere. I don't expect you to believe that, but I hope you will begin to test it.

But we're not talking about Christianity, we're talking about a religion, which in the example, I know to be false. If I know its false, then I know its central tenets aren't connected to any particular truth. So I know that the benefits of it should be able to be replicated without the spiritual aspects. I havent said anything about Christianity, which in reality, I dont know to be false.

Edit: sorry I think I misread OP. I thought it was basically asking "would you indoctrinate your children into a religion you know is a lie because the benefits are demonstrable". Rereading it, it's more general and you dont know if it's true or not you just believe it isnt. So basically I take my answer back, sorry for the confusion!

 

[Halbhh]

But we're not talking about Christianity, we're talking about a religion, which in the example, I know to be false. If I know its false, then I know its central tenets aren't connected to any particular truth. So I know that the benefits of it should be able to be replicated without the spiritual aspects. I havent said anything about Christianity, which in reality, I dont know to be false.

Ok.

 

[ThievingMagpie]

Yah, I was responding to your....premise, or belief, that there is nothing in Christianity that could not be obtained without it. I hope to help you learn that idea turns out to be false. I know because that was my own premise, which I was really pretty confident and determined would be correct, and part of why it took me like 20-25 years or so of testing to finally admit what I was finding meant what it meant. Of course, you'd not take a path of a length like that in a post or a day, but what I wanted to give you was simply information. I tried that same premise you have here, tested very extensively trying to keep the premise, and it turned out to be a false premise/idea. Christianity has profound things you cannot get elsewhere. I don't expect you to believe that, but I hope you will begin to test it.

See the update to my last post, I clearly got the wrong end of the stick!

More generally though I cant say I've witnessed any particularl benefits to being a Christian that I cant experience anyway. My wife is christian and I've participated in some of the charitable aspects if her church like nightshelter for the homeless. I can definitely see how the communal aspects are helpful and how the martialing towards social goods are great, but I'm not sure that these things are attainable through Christianity alone.

In all good faith I would be interested in hearing about what you think I'm missing out on if you're happy to discuss?

 

[Halbhh]

I cant say I've witnessed any particularl benefits to being a Christian that I cant experience anyway.

I believe that 100%. That's why you are not Christian, at least not at this time. Of course.

fyi, there are definitely a lot of people that are 'Christian', attending a church, simply because they grew up in it, or simply because it's a nice social place, convenient, and they like some things like the music and/or the people, but have no faith. Those are very common, even today, though they used to be a bigger number, there are still some number that attend churches in that way, especially those for whom it's just their life experience/social circle. Including those it would not be easy to just see them from 20 feet away for a few minutes talking with others and make a guess -- they fit in perfectly. Also, there are more than a few that have a 'faith' that is something not exactly that same thing as believing Christ rose from the dead, but some other things they believe in. So, we all learn there are quite a variety of Christians even on just the faith aspect alone, even before all the other kinds of variety. How many people actually (for real) truly love those who have done meaningful wrongs towards them, "love your enemy", with actual love that isn't just politeness or tolerance, but love, like someone you love love? Well, that kind of thing happen only a little at most without faith I think. Though I sweated and struggled hard and managed to do it once before I had faith (it was not easy).

 

[Tolworth John]

Unless the others in question happen to be gay. Then they are fair game.

From what I can see, Christians are like everybody else, and aren't particularly virtuous.

Yes Christians are just like other people with their biases etc.

 

[ThievingMagpie]

I believe that 100%. That's why you are not Christian, at least not at this time. Of course.

fyi, there are definitely a lot of people that are 'Christian', attending a church, simply because they grew up in it, or simply because it's a nice social place, convenient, and they like some things like the music and/or the people, but have no faith. Those are very common, even today, though they used to be a bigger number, there are still some number that attend churches in that way, especially those for whom it's just their life experience/social circle. Including those it would not be easy to just see them from 20 feet away for a few minutes talking with others and make a guess -- they fit in perfectly. Also, there are more than a few that have a 'faith' that is something not exactly that same thing as believing Christ rose from the dead, but some other things they believe in. So, we all learn there are quite a variety of Christians even on just the faith aspect alone, even before all the other kinds of variety. How many people actually (for real) truly love those who have done meaningful wrongs towards them, "love your enemy", with actual love that isn't just politeness or tolerance, but love, like someone you love love? Well, that kind of thing happen only a little at most without faith I think. Though I sweated and struggled hard and managed to do it once before I had faith (it was not easy).

In all good faith, it's less benefits and more that I'm not a Christian because I don't think the claims of Christianity stand up to my experience of reality. For example I don't necessarily see the need for a concept of God in the universe as we understand it and I don't have any experience or sensation that I can say corresponds to a God. Arguably I could have one one day.. but from my 30 years of living I can only go from what I've seen or experienced so far.

But to be honest that would only get me as far as theism or deism because I'm not sure that some of the core concepts of Christianity correspond to reality either - for example I don't see 'sin' as a satisfactory explanation for why the world is the way it is or people behave the way they do, that seems much better explained by evolution, culture and psychology. In terms of my own struggles - with anxiety for instance - I've found that I'm much more aided by more tangible things like mindfulness, CBT and perspective, than I am by faith. To take your example of truly loving my enemy, is that the most ideal outcome? If we're talking benefits, surely being able to detach yourselves from the trauma of what your enemy does (but remaining vigilant to their actions in the future) would be a more beneficial way of being?

Also sorry feel like for OP's sake this is horribly off topic - can take this elsewhere?

 

[Halbhh]

some of the core concepts of Christianity correspond to reality either - for example I don't see 'sin' as a satisfactory explanation for why the world is the way it is or people behave the way they do, that seems much better explained by evolution, culture and psychology.

Human actions are fairly well explained by the general outcomes of natural selection pressures in competition for food, territory, mates and such, just the basics, so far as I see it. But you used a phrase there : "core concepts of Christianity", which was interesting, and if you are willing, what do you think are the "core concepts of Christianity"? I ask since I know pretty well only from total full reading in the New Testament, and not at all from the churches of my childhood. But, I'd like to hear what you think they are, not to debate (I don't debate special relativity or something in calculus, as an example, but rather only try to communicate how the theories work), but to better understand what it is you are thinking is incorrect, what wrong impression you may have I could help on. I was an atheist for about 25 years. What happened to end that? Well, my sophisticated views about religion, psychology and such were not the final judge of reality (of course), and my reasonable guesses about Christ's correctness on things He said (that some things He said would work well, and others would not) actually did not "stand up to my experience of reality" when I was testing more things Christ said to do, specific instructions to do as actions. Interesting reality: doing things Christ said the way He said is definitely including quite a lot of mindfulness and perspective, just as what happens. If you want to hear the incredible and just...hard to imagine reality of what happened when I did "love your enemy", well, that was one of the early years outcomes of my testing that was pretty shocking to me. It was rather sharply better than only avoiding trauma.

Actually, when I was reading what Christ said as an atheist, it was in order to help gain pieces of making a better way to live, to combine with Lao Tzu, Emerson, May, and many other great thinkers.

I was in effect trying to engineer a better way to live, or a 'religion', for myself, in those efforts.

It's pretty much right on topic in that way, funny enough.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

But we're not talking about Christianity, we're talking about a religion, which in the example, I know to be false. If I know its false, then I know its central tenets aren't connected to any particular truth. So I know that the benefits of it should be able to be replicated without the spiritual aspects. I havent said anything about Christianity, which in reality, I dont know to be false.

Edit: sorry I think I misread OP. I thought it was basically asking "would you indoctrinate your children into a religion you know is a lie because the benefits are demonstrable". Rereading it, it's more general and you dont know if it's true or not you just believe it isnt. So basically I take my answer back, sorry for the confusion!

? Do you think it is good to raise children to obey the laws of the country you live in (I don't know what country you live in, btw) ... ? , even if the country is steeped in deception, in lies, in confusion, in conflicts, and executes many people either openly, in war, in peace, or subtly, by drugs , by causing malnutrition, with false information published every day ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Actually, when I was reading what Christ said as an atheist, it was in order to help gain pieces of making a better way to live, to combine with Lao Tzu, Emerson, May, and many other great thinkers.
I was in effect trying to engineer a better way to live, or a 'religion', for myself, in those efforts.

In all this, through your life and choices,

you were seeking the truth, and kept searching for truth ?

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

Absolutely not. I would view such an action as profoundly immoral. If I thought there was such a thing as evil, I would be inclined to consider it evil. The ends can justify the means, but this depends upon the specific ends and the specific means. Your example contains a worthy (potential, but unsubstantiated) benefit, whereas the means are blatant and sustained dishonesty. I find the notion repugnant.

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.

These are the prejudices I actively pushed on my children:

• Respect for others
• The importance of honesty in regard to others and to oneself
• Concern for the environment
• To accept nothing at face value, but to question everything
• The importance of goal setting and commitment to goals
• Active sympathy towards those less fortunate

On reflection, although I am proud of how they have turned out, I could have done a much better job with each one of those items. I think I held back because my aim was to offer what I saw as positive worldviews, not to indoctrinate them with my beliefs.

 

[Albion]

These are the prejudices I actively pushed on my children:

• Respect for others
• The importance of honesty in regard to others and to oneself
• Concern for the environment
• To accept nothing at face value, but to question everything
• The importance of goal setting and commitment to goals
• Active sympathy towards those less fortunate

On reflection, although I am proud of how they have turned out, I could have done a much better job with each one of those items. I think I held back because my aim was to offer what I saw as positive worldviews, not to indoctrinate them with my beliefs.

You state that you actively pushed a list of your values on your children, but that you didn't intend to indoctrinate them with your beliefs?

 

[Ophiolite]

You state that you actively pushed a list of your values on your children, but that you didn't intend to indoctrinate them with your beliefs?

I found your remarks about atheists indoctrinating their children inaccurate and offensive. I chose to use your same terminology to highlight that some values are worth transmitting to children. I sought to clarify my actual position by noting that my intent was "not to indoctrinate them in my beliefs".

Which of the values I offered them for consideration do you think wrong, or negative, and why?

 

[Albion]

I found your remarks about atheists indoctrinating their children inaccurate and offensive. I chose to use your same terminology to highlight that some values are worth transmitting to children. I sought to clarify my actual position by noting that my intent was "not to indoctrinate them in my beliefs".

I didn't think you made your case by what you posted there. Does this offend you also?

Anyway, maybe I should be offended that you think I criticized atheists alone when I noted that all parents indoctrinate their children, just as your list of values indicated. The only significant difference is that atheists quite obviously do not indoctrinate them with religious, i.e. theistic, doctrines.

 

[Ophiolite]

I didn't think you made your case by what you posted there. Does this offend you also?

I don't get offended when I fail to make my case. I get disappointed when I fail to do so. I reflect on how I might do it better next time. (Feel free to offer suggestions. )
Will you now have the courtesy to answer my question, please. For your convenience, here it is again: "Which of the values I offered them for consideration do you think wrong, or negative, and why?"

 

[Albion]

I don't get offended when I fail to make my case.

Good. I thought you had written that you were offended.

 

[Ophiolite]

Good. I thought you had written that you were offended.

I was offended by your inaccurate statement regarding the practice of atheists. Namely, "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."
I am not offended by your remark that you think I didn't make my case.

Now would you be kind enough to answer my question, repeated here for the third time: ""Which of the values I offered them (my children) for consideration do you think wrong, or negative, and why?"