How religion can harm young minds...

[Ned]

In the "Why god created so many idiots?" thread I made the following statement:

Spreading religion is one of the greatest crimes one can commit against individuals and society.... because religion attacks the fundamental rules of rational thinking in people, especially the young and not quite mature minds, and thus can cause great harm.

Do you agree with this statement and, if you do, how do you see the mechanism of the harm happening?

[Skip]

I agree - guardedly.

There is a variety of religions and a range of harms. And, of course, a huge spectrum of how religion is passed on to the young. I would rather say that there is a danger; a potential to harm.

In early childhood, much depends on how religion is presented. You get to celebrate Baby Jesus on his birthday and get party favours? Sure, okay. Pray the Lord take my soul if I die in my sleep? Pretty scary. Burn in hell for eternity if I swear at my sister? W.T.F ?! Then there are the dunkings and epileptic fits, flagellations and exorcisms and other dark, weird, ugly goings-on. Those can't be good for anybody; for a child, they can be both physically and emotionally crippling. Even with that kind of trauma, the simple, unavoidable contradiction between the evidence of their senses and what they are told to believe, can cause mental illness.

Introducing religion to adolescents caries a different sort of risk. At 14, 15, 16, they have just discovered the psyche. They're intensely interested in dreams, visions, esoteric perception, profound experience, intense emotion. Adolescents self-dramatize and posture and try out various roles in their own personal narrative/movie. The great danger of this phase is falling prey to "spiritual" influences. They're looking for their inner reality, their secret identity - their 'soul'. They also long for a deep connection to the world; a meaning; they search for a destiny and purpose. And so they experiment with the occult, magic, power; with religious zeal and all kinds of ideology - and they're nothing if not passionate. Way too easy for manipulators to harvest. Way easy for cults and armies to recruit. Many never come back.

On the whole, I would rather have no religion taught to anyone before the age of majority, but that's sort of like asking that they be raised in a Bell jar, sequestered from their culture. Can't be done. Religion is already here. The only way we can make it go away is to stop taking it seriously; neglect to death. So the best thing we can do is teach comparative religion, mythology and folklore in school, so that at least they become aware of the entire smorgasbord, rather than have to eat just the meatloaf and broccoli on their plate.

And, for everyone's sake, keep it the hell out of science class!!

[ReliStuPhD]

In the "Why god created so many idiots?" thread I made the following statement:

Spreading religion is one of the greatest crimes one can commit against individuals and society.... because religion attacks the fundamental rules of rational thinking in people, especially the young and not quite mature minds, and thus can cause great harm.

Do you agree with this statement and, if you do, how do you see the mechanism of the harm happening?

Anything, taught in an effort to indoctrinate, can harm young minds. Even science (or vegetarianism!) can. However, much like science or vegetarianism, religion can be taught with an eye toward understanding the reality in which we live rather than simply to indoctrinate. In those cases, it can be quite helpful.

PS The comment that "religion attacks the fundamental rules of rational thinking in people" is, frankly, ignorant of the robust traditions of rational inquiry in some religions and amounts to little more than a straw man. Your confirmation bias when it comes to religion is writ large and undermines your credibility as a rational thinker. Perhaps in this case, you're right: religion does appear to overwhelm the rational faculties of some.

[thedoc]

In the "Why god created so many idiots?" thread I made the following statement:

Spreading religion is one of the greatest crimes one can commit against individuals and society.... because religion attacks the fundamental rules of rational thinking in people, especially the young and not quite mature minds, and thus can cause great harm.

Do you agree with this statement and, if you do, how do you see the mechanism of the harm happening?

Anything, taught in an effort to indoctrinate, can harm young minds. Even science (or vegetarianism!) can. However, much like science or vegetarianism, religion can be taught with an eye toward understanding the reality in which we live rather than simply to indoctrinate. In those cases, it can be quite helpful.

PS The comment that "religion attacks the fundamental rules of rational thinking in people" is, frankly, ignorant of the robust traditions of rational inquiry in some religions and amounts to little more than a straw man. Your confirmation bias when it comes to religion is writ large and undermines your credibility as a rational thinker. Perhaps in this case, you're right: religion does appear to overwhelm the rational faculties of some.

I am currently reading the book "The Book that Made Your World" by Vishal Mangalwadi. In it the author makes the case that Christianity enabled the sciences to develop in the west while Eastern religions had the opposite effect of not promoting science at all. In the authors opinion it was the Christian mind set that allowed science and technology to develop.

[Ned]

I agree - guardedly.

There is a variety of religions and a range of harms. And, of course, a huge spectrum of how religion is passed on to the young. I would rather say that there is a danger; a potential to harm.

I have to agree with that - guardedly

In early childhood, much depends on how religion is presented. You get to celebrate Baby Jesus on his birthday and get party favours? Sure, okay. Pray the Lord take my soul if I die in my sleep? Pretty scary. Burn in hell for eternity if I swear at my sister? W.T.F ?! Then there are the dunkings and epileptic fits, flagellations and exorcisms and other dark, weird, ugly goings-on. Those can't be good for anybody; for a child, they can be both physically and emotionally crippling. Even with that kind of trauma, the simple, unavoidable contradiction between the evidence of their senses and what they are told to believe, can cause mental illness.

I wasn't thinking about the more extreme abuse religious parents can inflict on their children -- I believe they are not a high percentage of the cases

Introducing religion to adolescents caries a different sort of risk. At 14, 15, 16, they have just discovered the psyche. They're intensely interested in dreams, visions, esoteric perception, profound experience, intense emotion. Adolescents self-dramatize and posture and try out various roles in their own personal narrative/movie. The great danger of this phase is falling prey to "spiritual" influences. They're looking for their inner reality, their secret identity - their 'soul'. They also long for a deep connection to the world; a meaning; they search for a destiny and purpose. And so they experiment with the occult, magic, power; with religious zeal and all kinds of ideology - and they're nothing if not passionate. Way too easy for manipulators to harvest. Way easy for cults and armies to recruit. Many never come back.

That is exactly what I was talking about. Not necessarily the armies and the cults, but well meaning parents and clergy who brainwash the child into accepting illogical and unsubstantiated stories as reality. In essence they tell the child: shut up, don't ask questions, don't use logic, don't argue, you have to take all this on faith. Why? Because I said so. Or the bible said so. The critical thinking process is attacked at the root question of "how do you know?"

On the whole, I would rather have no religion taught to anyone before the age of majority, but that's sort of like asking that they be raised in a Bell jar, sequestered from their culture. Can't be done. Religion is already here. The only way we can make it go away is to stop taking it seriously; neglect to death. So the best thing we can do is teach comparative religion, mythology and folklore in school, so that at least they become aware of the entire smorgasbord, rather than have to eat just the meatloaf and broccoli on their plate.

And, for everyone's sake, keep it the hell out of science class!!

And that is a brilliant suggestion. They need to know about religion, but not as a gospel of truth, but as a cultural phenomenon that has been woven through human history, in practically hundreds of forms and varieties, the believers of each thinking that their religion was the only true one and all the others were deluded. Once the child sees this spectacle, (s)he can't help seeing that all the believers were right about all the others.

Trying to jam religious nonsense into science classes is the most abominable example of religion trying to corrupt young minds.

[Hobbes' Choice]

In the "Why god created so many idiots?" thread I made the following statement:

Spreading religion is one of the greatest crimes one can commit against individuals and society.... because religion attacks the fundamental rules of rational thinking in people, especially the young and not quite mature minds, and thus can cause great harm.

Do you agree with this statement and, if you do, how do you see the mechanism of the harm happening?

Religion is child abuse.

If a child get's away with their genitals intact after the first year, they are then doomed to be indoctrinated in a set of lies told to fools by either idiots or machiavellian priests hoping to control society and the way it thinks.

[Ned]

Here is one example of young children wanting to find out 2 things:

1./ what is the world like?
2./ how do we know?

Once, many years ago, my son asked: “Daddy, how big is the world?”

When I told him that Earth is a globe of about 12,000 km in diameter or 40,000 km around the middle, he asked

“How do you know?”

When I told him that I had learnt it in school and it is in all the atlases and textbooks he asked again, with the persistence of a seven-year-old:

“But how did the people who wrote the books know?”

There was no point telling him that those authors had also learnt it in school.

I knew he would not let me off the hook.

So I promised to find out.

I didn't tell him that 'god' told me, or it was in the bible, I did a thorough research of the subject and told him the story of how people found out (back in the time of Eratosthenes, chief librarian of the Alexandrian library, in 240BC.)

[Starfall]

Here is one example of young children wanting to find out 2 things:

1./ what is the world like?
2./ how do we know?

Once, many years ago, my son asked: “Daddy, how big is the world?”

When I told him that Earth is a globe of about 12,000 km in diameter or 40,000 km around the middle, he asked

“How do you know?”

When I told him that I had learnt it in school and it is in all the atlases and textbooks he asked again, with the persistence of a seven-year-old:

“But how did the people who wrote the books know?”

There was no point telling him that those authors had also learnt it in school.

I knew he would not let me off the hook.

So I promised to find out.

I didn't tell him that 'god' told me, or it was in the bible, I did a thorough research of the subject and told him the story of how people found out (back in the time of Eratosthenes, chief librarian of the Alexandrian library, in 240BC.)

A very nice example, I would say. As is widely known, most of our fundamental conceptions of the world are formed when we are young. For that reason, children are always very curious about everything and can ask questions an adult wouldn't even think of. If the questions of a child are dismissed or answered incorrectly, this has permanent effects on their thinking process. People who are raised in religious families end up being religious, because that is what they saw around them when their cognitions about the world were being formed. These cognitions ingrain themselves deep into the mind, and are very difficult to remove once they have done so. This is the cause for much of the irrational thinking that exists in the world today. Religion plays a part in this, because questioning it is discouraged in religious communities. You are presented with a set of "facts" that you are strongly advised not to question. These facts then begin influencing your thought process, throwing it off balance without you even realizing it. The solution to this problem is not to ban education on religious topics (which might result in a "forbidden fruit" situation), but to encourage the questioning of religion instead of discouraging it, as should be with any other topic.

[thedoc]

A very nice example, I would say. As is widely known, most of our fundamental conceptions of the world are formed when we are young. For that reason, children are always very curious about everything and can ask questions an adult wouldn't even think of. If the questions of a child are dismissed or answered incorrectly, this has permanent effects on their thinking process. People who are raised in religious families end up being religious, because that is what they saw around them when their cognitions about the world were being formed. These cognitions ingrain themselves deep into the mind, and are very difficult to remove once they have done so. This is the cause for much of the irrational thinking that exists in the world today. Religion plays an important part in this, because questioning it is discouraged in religious communities. You are presented with a set of "facts" that you are strongly advised not to question. These facts then begin influencing your thought process, throwing it off balance without you even realizing it. The solution to this problem is not to ban education on religious topics (which might result in a "forbidden fruit" situation), but to encourage the questioning of religion instead of discouraging it, as should be with any other topic.

I think this is why I like the congregation I am part of, it has been described as a bit of an anomaly compared with other congregations. The actual discussion was on a different topic but it applies here as well. Members are encouraged to question, and the answers are not always the standard dogma, though I still object to other members claiming to know something they believe.

[Skip]

Not all those people who identify as belonging to a religion, or even who go to church regularly, are irrational about everything, all the time. Most Presbyterians or Anglicans and even a lot of Catholics are quite normal six days of the week. They drive kids to daycare, bandage scraped knees, and don't answer all their child's questions with: "Goddidit. Shuddup." They'll actually tell the kid why the tide comes in and how far the stars are and all kinds of normal, useful stuff. They let him go to school and help him with homework. Mostly, the religion is confined to grace before meals and no rap music on Sunday. Mostly, the kids mix with kids of other religions and no religion, and have library cards. They're allowed - often greatly assisted in - post-secondary education and can become competent engineers, pilots, nurses and chemists; can be normal, functional, rational adults.

People who grew up in caring, moderate Christian homes usually have residual loyalty, but no deep conviction. A knee-jerk yes, if somebody asks whether they believe in God, but very little thought on who or what that entity is: they vaguely imagine someone like their grandfather, and leave it that. They'll repeat the words they heard in church: merciful and mighty, omnipotent, ever-present - but they don't reflect on the meaning of those words. What they mostly take away is the standard of behaviour that was expected in their childhood home: be honest, modest, generous and forgiving. They think these values come from their particular religion, rather than any decent human community, anywhere on the planet, at any time in history. If the [fill in religion]'s have a conviction that their morality is just that little bit superior to all the others' - well, so long as they keep it to themselves, no real harm done.

If you have a cold, don't go coughing on everybody. All the trouble is made by a loud, pushy minority who want to spread their own special, special brand of righteousness.

[Ned]

Not all those people who identify as belonging to a religion, or even who go to church regularly, are irrational about everything, all the time.

Only about their religion -- ALL THE TIME!

When a young boy/girl starts asking questions, perfectly logical, sensible questions such as how can god be both omnipotent and omniscient at the same time (which is a total contradiction) he/she is told not to ask stupid questions, or told a gobbledygook answer that doesn't mean anything to a rational mind.

Here is the quote from the thread: "Where was 'god' before..." that I posted:

There is another thing that has bothered me about the christian god:

According to gospel, he is supposed to be both omnipotent and omniscient.

But how could he be both?

If omnipotent, then he could do anything he wanted, including changing his mind about the future. But that means that he wasn’t omniscient before, because his knowledge of all past and future events were incorrect: unless he knew exactly how he would change his mind, in which case he couldn’t be omnipotent because he would have to change his mind according to his omniscient knowledge, which would provide him with no freedom at all.

You see my problem?

I hope someone will explain to me how to resolve this dilemma (hopefully not by telling me that god’s ways are mysterious!).

I have never received an answer that made any sense.

Not now and not when I asked our priest when I was 14. He told me not to ask stupid questions.

Q.E.D.

[attofishpi]

According to gospel, he is supposed to be both omnipotent and omniscient.

But how could he be both?

If omnipotent, then he could do anything he wanted, including changing his mind about the future. But that means that he wasn’t omniscient before, because his knowledge of all past and future events were incorrect: unless he knew exactly how he would change his mind, in which case he couldn’t be omnipotent because he would have to change his mind according to his omniscient knowledge, which would provide him with no freedom at all.

You see my problem?

I hope someone will explain to me how to resolve this dilemma (hopefully not by telling me that god’s ways are mysterious!).

The answer is simple. God doesn't know all of the future. Why would 'it' bother with 10 commandments?

[ReliStuPhD]

I am currently reading the book "The Book that Made Your World" by Vishal Mangalwadi. In it the author makes the case that Christianity enabled the sciences to develop in the west while Eastern religions had the opposite effect of not promoting science at all. In the authors opinion it was the Christian mind set that allowed science and technology to develop.

Pretty much. The Christian mindset brought with it the notion that Creation was ordered logically and could be understood as such. There's a pretty strong thread of rational inquiry that runs throughout Christian thought. That modern-day atheists don't know this speaks strongly to the fact that (1) the poor job the Church has done of communicating this and (2) atheists are resolute in their determination not to read the primary sources.

[Skip]

There is no such thing as a Christian Mind!

There were minds in Europe - some very sharp minds - at a time of economic and political ascendency; of confidence, prosperity and optimism. At that same time, the prevalent official religion of Europe was Roman Catholicism. During this period, the RC church was challenged [by the reformation] on grounds of egregious corruption, and all the charges were valid. Which really means that the powerful churchmen didn't actually practice what they preached, which means that they didn't actually believe in their own doctrine. There was a powerful and wealthy religious organization that supported the monarchies, that the monarchies (by and large) supported in return; together, they were in the process of conquering entire new continents. It was an extremely successful and lucrative conspiracy of kings and priests, most of whom had no true faith.

In that volatile climate, anything could happen. Quite a lot did.

[Starfall]

I am currently reading the book "The Book that Made Your World" by Vishal Mangalwadi. In it the author makes the case that Christianity enabled the sciences to develop in the west while Eastern religions had the opposite effect of not promoting science at all. In the authors opinion it was the Christian mind set that allowed science and technology to develop.

I usually do not oppose any view directly, but this is so wrong that I can't help myself but to do so. European science began to advance as trust in the Catholic Church faltered. Before the Crusades, the word of the Church was law and nobody dared to question it. They used Aristotle's ancient writings as "proofs" of their claims and dismissed positive sciences. This resulted in almost zero technological advancement in Europe during the Dark Ages. In contrast, the Muslim world experienced rapid technological growth in every area conceivable. The discovery of algebra, the identification of many diseases in medicine, the discovery of substances such as sulfuric and nitric acid in chemistry are some examples. The difference between these two communities was that in the Muslim world questioning religious matters was encouraged, while the converse was true in the Christian world. However, in time Islam began to become a dogma and people stopped questioning it. When that happened, the Golden Age of the Muslim world ended. In contrast, new discoveries in Europe shattered the trust in the Church and the power of religion weakened. With that weakening, it was Europe that now experienced technological advancement.

No matter what the content of a dogma is, as long as it isn't questioned it will hinder intellectual growth. Both Christianity and Islam are the same in this regard. The reasons for the stagnation in the Far East, for instance China, are entirely separate from religion and mostly have to do with the prideful isolationism they decided to pursue - sometimes called the view of "Inward Perfection".