Korean Job Discussion Forums

[greedy_bones]

[quote="itaewonguy"][quote="greedy_bones"]

[itaewonguy]

[laogaiguk]

[Arthur Dent]

On the off-chance that you are actually looking for genuine opinions or views on this subject, I will offer mine.

I believe your question is not really directed at what kids believe but at what parents will teach or allow to be taught to their children. If this is the case, I would reply, as I think you have inferred, that how parents deal with this, says a lot about their consistency regarding belief (whichever belief that may be).

However, since children have little or no capacity for judging such things until they become adolescents (let's say around the age of 12 or 13, others may correct me here, and of course it varies between cultures and individuals), it seems a somewhat moot point. Not to say that you could teach them any old thing - of course you will want your child to be properly socialized according to your particular cultural environment - but at least when it comes to god or santa, these are things a child can not really decide for themselves until they are older.

Personally, I think it is fine to play along with the idea of santa, and at least the "idea" of god, if only to prepare them for what they will encounter amongst their peers.

Although I don't question that Dawkins has - literally, or simply inferred - called some people idiots for their beliefs (I think this is partly because these people present arguments which are often bone-headed and so literally interpreted from the bible - or another religious text - that they simply ask to be called bone-heads) I also know that Dawkins himself has become somewhat of a lightning rod for many wackos.

In addition, people with agendas - and I am not saying he doesn't have one, just that it is certainly a much more reasonable and desirable agenda then many others in that it is based on reason and provable evidence - have had no qualms in misquoting or misrepresenting what he has said and written. Very telling for the quality of their agenda.

To compare, Dawkins is not asking anyone to kill or die for their beliefs, nor promoting hatred (calling someone stupid is hardly hateful, it may simply be accurate) of differences or lifestyles, he is simply asking people to think. And to care. What kind of manipulation is that?

We all know that dictators - some of the worst people to have existed - wanted only the opposite. Search for quotes on this.

Because of this, I find it entirely acceptable for him to respond in this way. Why would you not defend yourself when those attacking you show no ability in critical thinking, nor any inclination to try? Personally, I think he shows considerably more patience than I might.

But, as you have said, this post is not about religion or Dawkins, but rather about where parents choose to draw the line in dealing with belief of any kind.

I think it is entirely healthy, once the kids are old enough, or smart enough, to tell them stories. Of course they will believe them. Belief as a child is quite different from belief as an adult however, at least one would hope so. But once they are old enough, I think it is equally fine to tell them stories and then ask them whether they really believe it. Encouraging skepticism, while also enjoying a good story - possibly an allegory or a morality tale - is not only enjoyable but can also provide good real-world modeling for kids. In other words, it is quite practical. Nothing ambiguous about that, nor hypocritical when examined in this way.

I don't equate belief in god or gods with the idea that it brings happiness, but then I am not a believer. However, purely as conjecture, I would not say that the two are connected. After all, some people draw pleasure from behaviour which most would find unpleasant or even harmful - and indeed some behaviour is harmful. We don't support that simply because people derive happiness from it. Ergo, the fact that something gives us pleasure does not make it right or believable, nor, more to the point, productive or harmless.

As far as whether those who hold beliefs which are superstitious in nature being harmless, well this is entirely disingenuous and smacks of childish political correctness run amok. It is neither harmless nor inconsequential to encourage false or misleading beliefs. Especially, and I would say necessarily, when there is evidence to the contrary.

After all, if I told someone a lie that they then acted upon, such as that they would be indestructible if they drank something I offered them and they were then hit by a bus, would this not be an example (albeit extreme and unlikely to be believed by someone relatively well-educated and sane) of a false belief being harmful?

There is a real world example of this in Africa where child soldiers were drugged and then told they were indestructible. This may be an extreme of what you are referring to - although to be fair to the children involved, they were being manipulated by adults who knew better but didn't care and only stood to benefit from their deaths. Also, I doubt that the adults were their parents.

That people draw consolation from religion or belief has not been proven. That this supposed consolation can actually be a net benefit has also not been proven. That they continue to believe, despite this, is not proof of anything other than a failure to challenge those beliefs.

Progress in understanding our world and in bettering our lot in life is not achieved by those who hold onto beliefs which are no longer either relevant, or rational.

This shows that education is important, something you would think unquestioned on a board ostensibly visited by teachers, and that science is neither easy nor quick to take in. It takes commitment and long thought. Imagination, and a questioning nature. Religion and belief require (mostly) an ability to accept, without question. It also has a tendency towards circular reasoning when questioned or challenged. Or simply mystery without explanation, nor an implied encouragement to seek answers to these mysteries.

In a world increasingly affected by science and technology (as demonstrated by the very media we are using to have this conversation) and by the problems created by this very same science (improperly, unthinkingly, or simply ignorantly and even malevolently used by humans, which is not a comment on science but on humans) would not most of you think that science is important enough to be taught properly and substantively?

Since (and this point has been made by Dawkins, among others) the acceptance of non-radical belief in god(s) validates - like it or not - extreme belief, is it really so harmless? After all, those who accept things unquestioningly, such as the extreme example above, can also be influenced to do things which could give all of us a very bad day....

[greedy_bones]

ah, Arthur Dent, no one quite makes a perfectly normal beast sandwich quite like you.

[laogaiguk]

[Arthur Dent]

Greedy Bones (Zardoz Slayer), you should try my Intergalactic Gargle Blaster.

Laogaiguk - Clever! I never thought of that!

[fiveeagles]

[Underwaterbob]