Ethics and Morality

[obfuscator]

Once again, I'm not talking about religious indoctrination, I'm talking about religious teaching.

 

Perhaps we just disagree. I think it clearly is the same, and you don't; because you don't like religion.

[Kimberly]

You're comparing the natural to the supernatural.

 

Only a fool thinks religion is solely concerning the supernatural. Beyond Sunday Morning Bible School sessions, the emphasis is a lot less on the 'miracles' and far more on the parables and teachings.

 

You're using the "supernatural" aspect (oy vey) as a convenient at-hand excuse to deny a concept you don't like. Which is ironic, because that's what most of the religion-idiots do.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I don't see why religion should be a taboo subject, so long as there is an acceptance that religion is a form of philosophy, whereas the scientific method is a means of establishing the objective truth. I gained a lot from being taught religious education until sixteen (a mandatory requirement in the UK), but they shouldn't be taught in the same way. A religion is a system of values and beliefs which people think are true, science is an objective means of finding out what is actually true, and therefore should be taught in an objective, matter-of-fact way.

 

I'm not really sure how you can argue against that without undermining the factual basis of either religion or science.

[Assume Nothing]

If religion isn't about the supernatural claims, then what good is the purported 'God' they teach of? It can be just as well achieved by teaching secular morals, without the baggage of needing to accept these supernatural claims and therefore denying academic ones (at least, this is applicable to fundamentalism).

 

EDIT @obfuscator - then there's no discussion with you, because you're talking about something completely different.

[obfuscator]

I don't see why religion should be a taboo subject, so long as there is an acceptance that religion is a form of philosophy, whereas the scientific method is a means of establishing the objective truth. I gained a lot from being taught religious education until sixteen (a mandatory requirement in the UK), but they shouldn't be taught in the same way. A religion is a system of values and beliefs which people think are true, science is an objective means of finding out what is actually true, and therefore should be taught in an objective, matter-of-fact way.

 

I'm not really sure how you can argue against that without undermining the factual basis of either religion or science.

Pretty accurate.

 

Of course, not all science is true - plenty of science involves theories and educated guesses - which religion and philosophy do as well.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Science makes no secret of the way studies only have various degrees of accuracy, indeed, calculating the accuracy is a mandatory requirement of any scientific study. I don't see the same soul-searching when it comes to holy texts. Instead of denying that Jesus really did feed a whole crowd of people with a few fish and some bread, which is of course nutritionally impossible, they say it's a "metaphor". :rolleyes:

 

Again, it's a metaphor I can appreciate the meaning of (that when people share resources, they generally make those resources go further), but it's a factually incorrect metaphor nevertheless, and therefore should not be taught with an assertive tone which implies Jesus really did manage to achieve that. Of course, you could put it down to a miracle, but then there's no factual basis for Jesus performing miracles either, so you're back to square one whichever way you go.

[obfuscator]

Science makes no secret of the way studies only have various degrees of accuracy, indeed, calculating the accuracy is a mandatory requirement of any scientific study. I don't see the same soul-searching when it comes to holy texts. Instead of denying that Jesus really did feed a whole crowd of people with a few fish and some bread, which is of course nutritionally impossible, they say it's a "metaphor". :rolleyes:

 

Again, it's a metaphor I can appreciate the meaning of (that when people share resources, they generally make those resources go further), but it's a factually incorrect metaphor nevertheless, and therefore should not be taught with an assertive tone which implies Jesus really did manage to achieve that. Of course, you could put it down to a miracle, but then there's no factual basis for Jesus performing miracles either, so you're back to square one whichever way you go.

There's no factual basis for much of ancient history if you go by that account. If eyewitness testimony is unreliable, much of ancient history is purely speculation as well.

[Assume Nothing]

That's why I'm skeptical of the poorly documented events of history. Please note that we're digressing here.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I never stated eyewitness testinomy is an unreliable source of evidence. Archeology, and all the various field of study connected to it, confirms a lot of what we know about the ancient world. There were no testimonies for the dinosaurs existing, but we still know that they did, where they were, and when. Using scientific study, we've been able to confirm that a lot of remedies offered by the Church to cure ailments and disease actually worked. For example, from eyewitness testimony, we know they used to leave wine in a brass vessel and use that "blessed" liquid to clean wounds. We know this treatment worked, because the wine and the brass produce a base-acid reaction which produces a salt which acts as an antiseptic. The testimony was right, only they didn't know why they were right.

 

All I'm doing here is highlighting the implausiblity of the specific testinomy mentioned, as any lawyer would in a court if presented with a similarly unbelievable allegation. It is literally impossible to feed that many people with such little food, therefore that sequence of events cannot be taught as 'fact'.

[obfuscator]

I never stated eyewitness testinomy is an unreliable source of evidence. Archeology, and all the various field of study connected to it, confirms a lot of what we know about the ancient world. There were no testimonies for the dinosaurs existing, but we still know that they did, where they were, and when. Using scientific study, we've been able to confirm that a lot of remedies offered by the Church to cure ailments and disease actually worked. For example, from eyewitness testimony, we know they used to leave wine in a brass vessel and use that "blessed" liquid to clean wounds. We know this treatment worked, because the wine and the brass produce a base-acid reaction which produces a salt which acts as an antiseptic. The testimony was right, only they didn't know why they were right.

 

All I'm doing here is highlighting the implausiblity of the specific testinomy mentioned, as any lawyer would in a court if presented with a similarly unbelievable allegation. It is literally impossible to feed that many people with such little food, therefore that sequence of events cannot be taught as 'fact'.

Of course not, but given the lack of detailed information it's impossible to say it wasn't accomplished in some other way.

 

At any rate, we're kind of getting off-topic. I agreed with your original post in general, as I said.

[Furah]

For the record I'm not against the teaching of religion, as long as you're not picking out any particular one as correct, and talk about them all equally.

Teaching someone to read a language that will help you every day of your life is not on the same level as making them learn about your religion.

 

For a lot of people, religion helps them every day of their life.

 

Should I ever have kids, I don't care what language they can read. As long as they understand some form of spoken language. I'd be irritated that I couldn't text them, or that they would have massive hurdles to overcome in society, but it's not like I would even consider forcing them to read in any particular language. Besides, my dad can't even check his messages on his phone or use a computer by himself.

 

So you'd be completely fine with your child not learning english? Forgive me for being skeptical.

 

And what if your child decided manners didn't apply to them, and refused to say please and thank you? Would you tolerate that because you didn't want to indoctrinate them?

 

And for a lot of people, religion causes them to be killed or tortured in to conversion.

 

I wouldn't care, plain and simple. As for manners, the teaching of it is social etiquette. The point of it is to help us communicate and cooperate as a species. Without it neither you nor I would be alive.

So is teaching a child about evolution indoctrination? How about teaching them about Plato, Adam Smith, Art Laffer, Karl Marx's ideas? What about human development and sexuality? Or the political process... is taking your kid to an OWS rally indoctrination? What about a Tea party event? The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Can we even touch the second amendment?

 

What about global warming? Environmentalism? Is that indoctrination?

 

Hell, it's all education. It'll help them in real life, right? Why is one subject taboo and another not?

It's about the way you go about it. If I told my kid that Judaism was the true religion and so he had to follow it that would be indoctrination. If I told them that I would ignore/disown/torture/kill them then that's blackmail. If I told my kid about Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, and other major religions and let them decide if they wish to follow any of the religions or none of them, then I am merely teaching them about religion.

 

Sometimes I think you guys are slow.

[Furah]

Science makes no secret of the way studies only have various degrees of accuracy, indeed, calculating the accuracy is a mandatory requirement of any scientific study. I don't see the same soul-searching when it comes to holy texts. Instead of denying that Jesus really did feed a whole crowd of people with a few fish and some bread, which is of course nutritionally impossible, they say it's a "metaphor". :rolleyes:

 

Again, it's a metaphor I can appreciate the meaning of (that when people share resources, they generally make those resources go further), but it's a factually incorrect metaphor nevertheless, and therefore should not be taught with an assertive tone which implies Jesus really did manage to achieve that. Of course, you could put it down to a miracle, but then there's no factual basis for Jesus performing miracles either, so you're back to square one whichever way you go.

There's no factual basis for much of ancient history if you go by that account. If eyewitness testimony is unreliable, much of ancient history is purely speculation as well.

 

It is.

[obfuscator]

 

And for a lot of people, religion causes them to be killed or tortured in to conversion.

 

I wouldn't care, plain and simple. As for manners, the teaching of it is social etiquette. The point of it is to help us communicate and cooperate as a species. Without it neither you nor I would be alive.

 

So you would force it on your children; that's my point.

 

And I also think you're full of shit, saying you wouldn't care if they didn't want to learn english. In fact, I'd say you'd be an awful parent to allow that. I'm even sure it's illegal in some countries to refuse to have your child educated in the native language...

 

It's about the way you go about it. If I told my kid that Judaism was the true religion and so he had to follow it that would be indoctrination. If I told them that I would ignore/disown/torture/kill them then that's blackmail. If I told my kid about Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, and other major religions and let them decide if they wish to follow any of the religions or none of them, then I am merely teaching them about religion.

 

Sometimes I think you guys are slow.

 

So do you plan to teach your children both conservative and liberal values, both communist and democratic ones, both racist and non-racist ones? Do you plan to read your children Mein Kampf, and tell them how great a leader Hitler was, so they can decide for themselves whether or not to hate Jews?

 

I doubt it.

 

There's one point here: Parents have the right to teach their children and pass down their opinions to them. This happens in practically everything a parent teaches a child.

 

It is.

 

Yes, I know; which is why I said that the bible stories are no different than ones in other historical texts.

[Zierro]

Just because there are flaws in our public history records, that doesn't place every form of indoctrination onto the same level of validity. Might as well be saying there's nothing wrong with brainwashing so long as it's done in someone's "best interest".

 

But then, this thread alone is evidence that we're all going to be indoctrinating our kids our own way anyways, no matter what we want to say here.

[sees_all1]

Just because there are flaws in our public history records, that doesn't make every form of indoctrination equal. Might as well be saying there's nothing immoral about brainwashing so long as it's done in someone's "best interest".

Brainwashing implies they've already formed an opinion about something, and you're forcibly changing it.

 

Parents generally have their children's best interests at heart. While you or I may disagree with what they're teaching or their methods of teaching, it isn't our place to judge, and just short of abuse or neglect, we shouldn't try and get involved.

[Zierro]

Brainwashing implies they've already formed an opinion about something, and you're forcibly changing it.

 

What does that matter if all teachings are inherently equal?

 

Parents generally have their children's best interests at heart. While you or I may disagree with what they're teaching or their methods of teaching, it isn't our place to judge, and just short of abuse or neglect, we shouldn't try and get involved.

 

Then why are you? Of course it's our place to judge, we're society, it's what we do. If parents wanted to teach their children discipline by burning them with a cigar every time they got a bad grade in school, wouldn't it be neglect on society's part to not get involved?

 

We need some sort of guideline or else crazy people get to do whatever the hell they want, and the best we got so far is our collective judgment, which yes, happens to be flawed.

[Jonanananas]

I personally feel that a lot of the discussion in this thread is just talking at cross purposes, one poster talking about a different thing than the one replying to him. If I may make a few suggestions:

 

First of all, I don't feel like there's going to be much merit in discussing fundamentalist's views. It should be clear to rational thinking people that they are misguided when concerning their religion or anything that comes in contact with it.(Of course, they're free to be misguided, this is just an objective statement). I think( and hope) that we can all agree that parents teaching their son that they're going to hell if they steal from the cookie jar or stuff along these lines do not make prime examples for good parenting.

 

Then you have to be careful with your wording. Much of the last pages were just "religious indoctrination" and "religious teaching" thrown around, with varying meanings with every other post.

 

 

Now for my personal opinion: Parents teaching their kids religion is fine as long as they don't pass it off as an undeniable scientific fact. What I don't like is entering your child into a church where you can't leave without your parent's consent until the age of 18. The child should have the possibility to decide that.

 

 

As for the supernatural aspect of religion: The basics of each religion consist of two things: Moral guidelines and the hope of an afterlife. I wouldn't know of any serious religion without those elements.

 

Morals can obviously be taught without religion as well, although conveying them with religion probably often is easier. ("You shouldn't do this because it's a sin and you will be punished for that" often works better than "you shouldn't do this because it's bad"). Of course, this is a very general statement, as are the examples I've given.

 

Now for the supernatural: It mostly consists of the hope for an afterlife, and maybe god's guidance on the world. Specific miracles such as the bread and fish thingy are irrelavant in a way - it doesn't matter if you believe it really happened or not, the essence of it is the message conveyed, which works with or without actually believing it.

 

The belief that God is watching over us and there is some kind of afterlife is reassuring for many people, it gives them the strength to go on in their life. I don't believe in it personally, but I can well understand the wish for some supernatural being.

[obfuscator]

Do you object to a parent forcing their child to go to school, and they aren't able to leave until the age of 18? Just curious.

[i_love_burritos]

You've completely missed the point. Every child is indoctrinated in something, but once they reach the age where they have developed analytical skills, they can choose freely whether or not to believe in it. Teaching a child to read in English and teaching them the history of America is indoctrination just the same as religion is. The only difference is that you've only deemed public education as morally acceptable.

 

what the [bleep]

 

wouldn't think you being a uni student and a historian would say this

 

the biggest difference being american history (and the english language) has been exhaustively documented, discussed and covered -- and is pretty much asserted and based in fact whilst the other party is spinning fictions

And the bible hasn't been exhaustively documented, discussed and covered? Also, as a history student you should know that much of what is taught as historical fact is certainly up in the air - and it's generally accepted that there are large gaps in our knowledge of history and much of what is being taught could be misleading and incorrect.

 

yes the main difference being the three rs are essential to everyday life and knowing the life and teachings of the man known as jesus of Nazareth are not

 

and secondly, no.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States

 

I doubt there is that much of a wiggle when it comes down to the facts. dont say that

[obfuscator]

 

yes the main difference being the three rs are essential to everyday life and knowing the life and teachings of the man known as jesus of Nazareth are not

 

and secondly, no.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States

 

I doubt there is that much of a wiggle when it comes down to the facts. dont say that

 

Once again - you assume that knowing religious teachings is not an essential part of life. Many people would disagree with you.

 

And yes, when you look at more recent history, it is generally assumed to be much more about confirmed fact and less about speculation. I was referring more to older history.

[Assume Nothing]

Argumentum ad Populum/verecundiam? Try illustrating how it's an essential part of life, instead of appealing to popularity or authority.

[obfuscator]

It's a matter of opinion, like I said. I'm not claiming religion is right because people like it, I'm saying people like it so they should be allowed to practice it. It's not an argument from authority if I'm not trying to use that to claim it's valid.

[Assume Nothing]

I'm digressing, but that argumentation seems flawed. Are you suggesting that deriving happiness/love/pleasure alone is the primary factor of whether something should be deemed morally acceptable?

[Randox]

I'm digressing, but that argumentation seems flawed. Are you suggesting that deriving happiness/love/pleasure alone is the primary factor of whether something should be deemed morally acceptable?

 

If it doesn't harm others or infringe on other peoples rights, and its not harming you in a way that is going to cost other people money, I generally don't see the harm.

 

 

On a totally different track, this thread has gotten me thinking about something. Discussion is all well and good from a theoretical, and philosophical perspective, in a pursuit to try and define morality, but it has very little relevance to most of the descisions we make, because most of the time, you either don't have the time, or don't take the time, to actually think about it.

 

Most of the time, your decisions are going to be made the same we you pick a product in the grocery store. You subconscious mind will use markers in your memory to quickly go through your entire life experience for everything relevant, tally up the pros and cons using whatever criteria your specific brain uses, and provide the decision to your conscious mind before your even aware your making a choice. This is what happens every time your say, looking at the various penut butters on the shelf, and you just pick one without being aware of thinking about it. This is how most decisions are made. As a point of interest, if you can simplify it down to yes/no conditions, an MRI can tell you what your choice is before you know it yourself. The subconscious does a lot of leading.

 

My actual immediate point, is that for example, I can try to figure out what I base my moral choices on, but it doesn't really work. There is going to be a lot of inconsistencies, because the mechanism being used to analyse myself is not connected to the one that actually makes most of the choices. Someplace in my brain there is hardwired into it, if not the actual rules that my mind uses, the source material that my brain uses every time it makes a choice. I would also suspect that it has made a lot of shortcuts so that it doesn't have to go through the whole process every time, which would mean you can set your own precedents. If you make an exception once, your brain is probably going to use that as the basis for any similar situation in the future, because it requires a lot less work.

[Range_This11]

Teaching a child to read in English ... is indoctrination just the same as religion is.

 

What are you, high?

Did you even read his post? His point was that we force certain beliefs and practices on our children, because we believe they're for the best. Religion is no different.

 

What would you do if your child decided he didn't want to learn English? Would you tell him it was okay, and that he didn't have to? I doubt it.

 

Teaching someone to read a language that will help you every day of your life is not on the same level as making them learn about your religion.

God damnit you guys.

 

How often did you hear this at the elementary level: "Now students, when you go home to do your multiplication tables tonight, make sure you question the fundamental elements of mathematics and why 3x5=15. The same applies for your analysis of Gertrude Chandler Warner's The Boxcar Children."

 

Never. Ever. That is because children have not developed the cognitive abilities to do so and you must know the rules before you can appropriately break them as you see fit. As a child you may be taught to question the teaching abilities or methods of your teacher as I was, but you do not question the basics of English or Math skills. That is my point. I'm not commenting whatsoever on the repercussions of being convinced that God is real for your entire childhood.