Galen's Soul (SYTO's thread [Fine, "Philosophy Thread"])

Oh, scientology of course is an even more ill concept. Now that it does seem logical to me that everything can be explained with enough data, a fast enough computer and a good physicist.

The thing is, scientology is, again, very emotionless. It's not very human. Don't expect more from me now, I'm sick and tired.

 

I actually just wanted to make my joke about tom cruise being a bad actor so sorry

 

Yes, im not defending scientology im just saying some religions abuse its followers like Catholicism that controlled king's by threatening to excommunicate them and their country which is basically "Do as I say or go to hell" or when Catholic priests accepted bribes to get rid of sins for the wealthy which is kinda like scientology's pay to learn system anyway I stand by what I said most religious parents teach their kids at a young age that god's word is right ect before they can make up their own mind about it. Also I don't see how religion leads to success if it doesn't exist(atheist perspective please don't attack this part <3 )

 

You can teach children morals without religion(which I have nothing against and I have not called "phoney")and I didnt mean(and I don't believe I said)that children should make up their own minds about religion early I just said parents shouldn't "shove" one onto them at a young age(like I believe many do)
anyway I didnt mean(nor do I think I said) that religion was bad I just personally don't want or need it myself. Also I was using past examples because im sticking to my main statement that most parents affect their children's future religion at a young and giving past examples of how other forms of faith have done what scientology is doing now(and what they've done from the start)

 

Well im sorry I upset you with what I said(im not trolling you.......)and I admit my first post was just rude. that said you cannot accuse me of trying to annoy you in anyway when you're the one speaking down to me the entire time. I'm not trying to say parents are terrible people because they want their children to believe what they believe im just saying I think it is wrong they impart their religious views on them at a young age because that affects them growing up(I don't think there is any denying that)anyway like I said before I have nothing against religion and im honestly glad to stop this argument about religion (ill go back to spaming the rest of the forum :D )

 

i want to stop posting here so bad but i cant stop myself from saying that even though i have nothing against religion i do have a problem with parents sculpting a child's (religious) belief at a young age because that is something they should decide on their own ;-;

 

1. Churches, not religions. Religion is just a concept, church is an organisation which too often exploits faith of their followers, which is right. Religion itself can't abuse anyone.

2. Is this wrong in any way?

3. From a sociological-moral point of view, religion is a set of rules which are a standard to a follower's morality. Also, from that point of view, an atheist is just a man who said "I do not need to fear hell in order to act nicely towards other people." And if someone is not on that stage of moral and intellectual development (which was a thing mainly in the past), a religion gives you strict bounds to follow, unleashes you from the burden of decisions, and binds you to a leash of strict letter of the law.

 

I'm just going to jump into the middle of this and give my two cents on the matter.

1) Agree on this one, makes perfect sense.

2 and 3) While parents are in a way expected to pass a number of their beliefs and values on to their children, and are most definitely expected to show them how to behave in order to get along with people and succeed in life, faith remains a gray area. Generally I think it's not a bad thing (in the case of most religions) because it (typically) gives followers a reason to behave well in this life, meaning not committing crimes and other atrocities. In that respect, religion's great. But let's say, for the sake of example, that I think up a religion on my own, creating a deity that clearly does not exist, and somehow manage to spread this religion all across the globe, amassing a large number of followers. Even if my religion leads people to behave in a way that benefits the world, is it okay that I'm tricking them into it? That I'm making them believe a lie? In essence, is it okay to do the wrong thing for the right reasons?
Again, I'm not saying all religions are wrong. The argument for the existence of God or gods has gone on far too long and I don't intend to revive it. Strictly speaking, we can't prove that they are correct or incorrect - that's just the nature of faith. But is it okay for us to enforce a code of beliefs and a code of law on a child based on something that may or may not be true, for the sake of keeping them in line?

I can't come up with an answer to that question myself. Honestly, I think that the answer will be based on one's opinion. But if we're basing the answer to this question on opinion, don't you think we should give everyone the chance to form their own?

 

Spoiler: Stuff about legality/morality (basically comes down to opinion)

If by "keeping them in line" you mean stopping them from committing murder/theft etc, that works for all moral systems not just religion. When people teach their children to do what ever they believe to be "good" they don't think about whether it is for the good of the human race as a whole. Well, some people might, but most people just teach their kids what they believe to be right. As in truly right.

In the sense that if they saw someone (Jeff) murder his innocent brother (Colin) for material gain, they wouldn't try to understand that Jeff may just think that striving for pleasure is right, they would think that it was wrong no matter his actions. They believe killing people is bad. The end.

What if Jeff was doing it for the good of the human race? Some people might agree, but others may always object.

The problem is that you can't prove that your sense of "right" is better than someone else's.

Personally, I believe sharing your faith with your child is not wrong in the slightest. Why should a religious person follow some other equally unprovable moral system just for one aspect of their lives? You can say that belief and morals are subjective, but you are assuming a base moral truth that everyone believes in. This may work for laws with almost unanimous majority support such as murder, but here many, many of the religious (and non-religious) people will disagree with you.

I don't think there is a total majority one way or the other, so it is okay legally for people to do this. Sharing your faith that is. You might think tricking people is okay, you might think Robin Hood justice is okay, even though it is illegal.

In terms of whether we should give people a chance to form their own opinion, I don't know why people only focus on religion with this. First, I think that telling your child something is true, does not mean that they cannot form their own opinion later.

Secondly, you seem to think that telling a kid that something is true is forcing them to believe it and that that is wrong. You also seem to think that it is okay if you are passing on beliefs that are right. I'll ignore the "big crimes", but are you going to tell your child not to instruct their child in unprovable beliefs? Can you prove that telling a child that in itself is right?

 

This is quite correct, however it is proven that children are far more impressionable than adults are, which means it's difficult to give them a proper chance to form their own beliefs once they've been raised a certain way.

This confuses me, because you just previously stated the "right" is different for each person - that it is an idea, not an actual thing...

Spoiler: A lot of text follows. Brace yourselves, gentlemen.

My conclusion itself was mostly inconclusive, suggesting only that I believe children deserve the right to grow up without having religious beliefs pressed upon them while they are impressionable. Does anything about what I said suggest that I would ever do what you imply I would do?
And if you want an answer to your question, it's no. I have no intent of fathering a child any time soon, but I still think that telling a child anything of your own beliefs in terms of religion, including lack of religion or disbelief in religion, is already influencing them.

Clearly we cannot avoid influencing our children, unless we all agree to put them in white rooms since their time of birth and wait until they come of age before exposing them to the world (which I do not think is a wise course of action, nor do I think people would be willing to do it, even for the sake of experimentation). Some explanation, some experience is necessary, but considering how very impressionable children are, I equate the teaching of religious beliefs to a child to... hm... conditioning a dog to perform a trick. Not cruel, necessarily, but certainly a form of manipulation, because neither the dog nor the child know any better. I've seen children manipulated in other ways, too - again, not necessarily cruel ways, but it happens: for example, a parent who never got to live out their dream of being a sports star begins teaching their son or daughter athletics at an early age with the subconscious intent of living vicariously through them - of making their child's success their own success.

Is this a bad thing in the long term? I can't say for certain, but I do think it is manipulation, and I am inclined to dislike manipulation.

Then again, if you will allow me to weaken my own argument... exposing a child to anything at all might be considered manipulation.

Hm. The root conundrum, as you already seemed to hint at, NinjaCell (if not stated outright) is that we cannot really prove what is right or wrong - at least, not enough to convince anyone of our position. The bottom line is, not one of us can ever prove something to be just. But we do agree (for the most part) on a number of things that are most definitely wrong, generally through the golden rule, as I see it - treat others as you would want to be treated. Most people want to be treated kindly and not hurt in any way, so a great majority of us adhere to this ideal, and a great many laws sprang up with this rule as a basis.

Faith, I suppose, is one way of ensuring that a child does not go against these expectations. Well, that's what it is from a very non-religious point of view, anyway.
Barring faith, laws assure punishment for those who break societal laws to the detriment of others.

So, if I look at it objectively, having faith is probably more helpful than not having it, since one will have two lines of defense to prevent one's own misbehavior. And from that basis I cannot really criticize the passing of religion to one's children. Truly, my complaint lies with two things only:
- Teaching a child something that may in the end be incorrect seems cruel in my eyes. I always think of Santa Claus, the ever-popular childhood myth, and how many children believe in him for years before they are informed as to the truth.
- I want to believe that people do not need to think they will be punished to do the right thing. Because the behavioral influence of religion ultimately comes down to that, correct? "Behave well in this life, and you will be rewarded in the next, but behave badly, and you will be punished," seems to be the general consensus. As a sort of... hopeful cynic, for lack of a better term, I want to see people treat others well without thinking about whether they will gain or lose something for it. I want to see "good" behavior come from within someone, not from without.

... *Exhales*
It is incredibly hypocritical of me to say this, but if you gents have something more to add, please try to aim for brevity. My knowledge of philosphy is small, and I've gone and worn myself out already.
... I also apologize for my crude attempts to imitate the language of an sophisticated gentleman, when I am in fact, a very unsophisticated college student. At this point it is but a... *ahem.* It's kind of become a silly habit. If it annoys you I can stop.

 

jesus did not live I sinless life once upon a time when I went to church(years ago)the pastor talked him attacking a merchant selling birds(or some crap)anyway even if that is wrong id prefer it if you let me die in eternal damnation plz and thankyou rather than believe in something that (I believe) contradicts itself and cannot be proven

*waits for fuzzy to insinuate that I don't know what im talking about