Several people leaving comments on this site have suggested that I am just as guilty as religiots when it comes to indoctrinating my children with my beliefs. This is, quite simply, not the case.My wife and I bend over backwards to avoid telling our kids what to believe. We want them to learn to think for themselves and make up their own minds when pondering life's biggest questions.
A case in point is my response to a recent email from a distraught parent who is trying to cope with a situation where a 7 year old child is being "brainwashed" with fundamentalist Christianity by a divorced spouse. My suggestion was not to fight fire with fire by embarking on a campaign to indoctrinate the child with atheism or criticisms of Christianity. Instead, I suggested that they buy the kid a copy of Really, Really Big Questions by English philosopher Stephen Law. The book is geared to the 8-13 age set and poses a number of intriguing philosphical questions for young readers to ponder without suggesting what the answers should be. It does precisely what parents should be doing: getting kids to think without telling them what to think. In a succinct and eye-pleasing manner, Dr. Law raises 57 questions as varied as Could a robot think?, Should I be like a lemming? and Are there such things as flying saucers? One of my favorites is How can I tell right from wrong? which uses the history of racial segregation inthe U.S. to show how: "there may be times in your life when people in charge will tell you to do something you shouldn't."
Postscript - Here is the parent's most recent email:
Hi there,
Just wanted to let you know my son is fascinated with "Really, Really, Big Questions".
He finds it to be mind-boggling. I read it, thinking it may be a little tough for him. I gave it to him as a Valentine's Day present, and within 1 hour of having it he had already read 15 pages on his own. The universe and the Big Bang, is just tripping him out. At bedtime, he wanted to keep going so we had to take the book out of his room so that he wouldn't sneakily read it under his covers with a flashlight.
Thanks a lot. I'm just so glad that he's allowing this book.
I could not find a better example of why I take the time to maintain this site.
19 comments:
Wow that child is smart ,while only being told
how to think and not what to think he came up with the big bang idea all on his own.gimme a break. This book is Stephen laws ideas on what to think along with all his pre-concieved
ideas and bias.
I don't know the book yet and my English is as everyone sees, but sounded to me as Big Bang was just one of issues touched in the book, not that the boy made it out himself or decided that it is neccesary how the universe was created - I was involved in the children astronomic project last year and can asure you that a lot of children seems to be very interested in things beyond our planet.
Martin, the book ponders questions such as Where did everything come from? and What happened before the big bang?. It also says that: "Scientists say that the universe started with an enormous explosion - called the big bang - in which all matter and energy, and even time and space, began". This is not indoctrination - this is what scientists believe happened. Don't take my word for it - ask Christian astrophysicist John Polkinghorne.
The difference between me and those who indoctrinate children with religion is that I am just as comfortable leaving Bible stories around the house as this book. Let kids decide for themselves.
What scientist believe is no more relevant than what anyone else believes because once you use the word believe you move into the realms of faith, and science is not faith its what you can prove , or repeat by experiment.
If i have weighed up the evidence and come to the reasoned conclusion that God exists , or that heaven and hell exist , you will by any reasonable expection pass this information on to your kids.lets by honest we all impart good and bad, true and false teachings on to our kids both by word of mouth and our actions even if we dont realise it.
Even for ourselves the country in which we were born, the era we were born in, the mix of parents we have, the culture or religon to which we we born all influnce us , but its up to us to seek the truth , find it, and hopefully live by it and pass it on to our kids.
martin.finnegan science is unfortunately in a way at least based on beliefs too, it is just that its theses have to meet stronger requirments, be consistent with each other and stand against expiriences.
certain science`s maybe meet stronger reqiuirements, but the origin of the universe
the origin of life these are beyond science as they are one off historical events now we can speculate till the cows come home but we can never know through science how the universe or
how life began.Honestly go look for some honest
and forthright evidence and comment from people in the scientific world who`s profession is not tied up in evolutionary fields
Martin wrote: the origin of the universe, the origin of life these are beyond science . That kind of ignorant, "science stopping" attitude is why I despise religion.
Your comments remind me of a priceless quote by University of Vermont biologist Nick Gotelli: ... this kind of two-faced dishonesty is what the scientific community has come to expect from the creationists.
Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars. Creationism is in the same category.
Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren't members of your [Discovery]institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish. Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly explored. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the prominent mainstream journals.
"Conspiracy" is the predictable response by .... frustrated creationists. But conspiracy theories are a joke, because science places a high premium on intellectual honesty and on new empirical studies that overturn previously established principles. Creationism doesn't live up to these standards, so its proponents are relegated to the sidelines, publishing in books, blogs, websites, and obscure journals that don't maintain scientific standards.
martin.finnegan it is not the same kind of history as for example some battle in 1410 on old continent and indeed while observing universe because of the huge distances we see it in the past, but we don't know yet enough about laws in it etc, so of course I agree that level of confindence toward this is lower than some other parts of science.
Maybe just explaining to the little people that YOU/WE don't have all the answers, with each generation WE as a whole learn more and more thanks to science and technology. Ideas and questions are what answers and knowledge come from. Don't rely on opinions, rely on facts. Maybe they will discover some new answers. ALL books are written by people, just keep learning.
TAM the scienticic litrature you speak of is
run by people now matter how wll documented the
evidence was would never allow anti evolution into their publications.As i told you before
look at the treatment of Bjorn Lomborg and his book the skeptical enviromentalist and just see how scientists deal with disenters
i will e mail you the info directly along with some quotes from your beloved Gerry Coyne
and just a footnote a chinese scientist
Jun-Yuan Chen professor of geoology and palaeontology not a creationist stated in wall st journal- in china you can critise darwin but not the government but in america you can critise the government but not darwin.
It is hard to get though any theme if you want to break dominating paradigm, but it is definetly possible if you have something really strong. O and by the way I think current evolution theory is quite far away from original Darwin formulation and some trends even go back to Lamarck.
Martin - why is it so difficult for you to understand what the difference is between teaching children basic morals and values and indoctrinating them with the Bible, for example?
"Little Johnny: don't steal candy from other kids because you would not want other kids to do that to you; it is wrong to steal". "Little Johnny: don't commit adultery when you grow up and reject Jesus Christ or else you will rot in Hell with a pitch fork stuck up your ass".
Same to you?
Gimme a break. Get with the program, pal.
To CKDC. I am not sure what your point is exactly, are you saying all stealing is wrong
or is there ever a case were stealing is ok?
or is adultry ok in certain circumstances.
or what should the punishment be for stealing
or adultery and who deceides what is moral and whats not?
To Tam . I hope you had a chance to cast you eye over the e. mail I sent you . I especially like the comments made by Michael
Crichton on consensus and science being generally incompatible and the comment by Gerry
Coyne on how some thing in evolution will always be unknown. I wonder will you send him an e mail calling him unscientific and ignorant
I doubt it.
I like TJ's comment. My grandson is atheist. I think this book you were talking about would interest him.
To Tam - I am just about to head home for the
weekend and I was just wondering would you please put on your website how the scientific
community treated Bjorn Lomborg just to give a bit of balance to the comments by Nick Gotelli
and see the so called unbiased, evidence only,
scientific world opperates.
Martin: if you do not see my point from the two quotations in my message above, then, unfortunately, nothing that I could add will make a dickens of difference.
There is a fundamental distinction between advocating X because it is the noble thing to do, and advocating X because to do otherwise would result in going to Hell. The former involves no ultimatum; no threat; no insult to free will. The latter involves all of those things.
Check with your compatriot, Paul, if you do not believe me. I rather like Paul's posts on this website (although I respectfully disagree with some of them). I understand them, at least. He shall point you in the right direction.
Cant wait to look into this book! Thank you!
To CKDC- you say its wrong to use the threat of hell to make children do the right thing, is that because hell is not real or because its wrong to use any threat of punishment on children. Can you clarify you position as I am not sure which position you are taking a stand on. thanks
Post a Comment