Young Minds ...

[Autolite]

I've been pondering recently a matter for which I am unable to resolve to my satisfaction. I am talking about the exposure of young children to the world of the paranormal, including religion. Now I consider myself an uber skeptic but I try to curb my opinions when I am around young children. I have a friend who has a 9 year old girl. The his little girl has a much higher than average intelligence and amazing cognitive ability. Recently, however, she has been experiencing "ghost sightings" in her bedroom throughout the night. This is, of course, all just part of just being a kid however her older brothers managed to convince her that the ghosts are real. I mentioned to her mother that I like to speak with her about it and try to explain to her that ghosts are only products of the human mind ... all imaginary. The mother gave me the green light and I think that I was sucessful with our little chat.

[Garrette]

What is it that you have not resolved to your satisfaction?

You say you got the green light and think you were successful.

[Autolite]

What has me bothered is at what point is it considered child abuse to fill a youngster's mind with nonsense? If an adult were to tell a child about monsters and demons with the intent to frighten and upset the child wouldn't that be considered a form of abuse? Society would frown upon such behavior from an adult but how is that different from telling children about hell and an eternity of torment? What responsibility do adults have to steer children away from the detriment of false beliefs? My initial thought would be that it is the sole responsibility of the parent(s) but society takes a different stance reference other forms of abuse. Where do we draw the line, as a society, at what is considered abuse and how far should an adult intervene when it is not their child? Thoughts???

[eir_de_scania]

In this case it wasn't the parents who convinced the girl the ghosts were real, but her older brother. Older siblings scaring the younger happens might not be nice, but still very common!:D Parents teaching their kids that yes, ghosts are for real, are a different matter, though.

Problem is, those who do, or teach their children about hell or spirit guides or astrology or whatever probably believe in it themselves.

[baron]

Thousands of millions of humans have grown up to be perfectly balanced and sane individuals despite a childhood where ghosts and spirits are accepted, invoked, pandered to, feared or otherwise interacted with.

Worry about something worthy of your concern. Telling a child that the noises they hear are ghosts, no matter how wrong, is so far from child abuse that it's laughable. Let's reserve the term for the use it was originally intended, and don't trivialise it by broadening its usage to anything you personally don't agree with.

[kerikiwi]

Telling a child that the noises they hear are ghosts, no matter how wrong, is so far from child abuse that it's laughable. Let's reserve the term for the use it was originally intended, and don't trivialise it by broadening its usage to anything you personally don't agree with.

Children can suffer mental abuse of varying degrees, just as they can suffer physical abuse of varying degrees.
Mental abuse is far from laughable, and should not be dismissed as trivial.
Children should not be terrorised.

[strathmeyer]

I think it's important to make your "opinion" of the truth clear to here, though quickly. It doesn't do much help if only people who are taking advantage of her are expressing their "opinions".

[baron]

Children can suffer mental abuse of varying degrees, just as they can suffer physical abuse of varying degrees.

Not being a child myself you can safely assume I'm aware of this fact.

Mental abuse is far from laughable, and should not be dismissed as trivial. Children should not be terrorised.

We are not discussing abuse here. I thought I made that clear. Not informing a child that ghosts don't exist, as in the OP, is not abuse in any shape or form, and neither is informing a child that they do. Please, get a sense of perspective. I look around and I see this type of hysterical scaremongering becoming increasingly common and it disturbs me.

[Autolite]

I really didn't mean to imply that the "ghost thing" was in itself abuse but I was thinking more in terms of teaching false beliefs in general. In another example, a friend of a friend of mine was terrified by repetitive sleep paralysis episodes. This young lady was in college at the time and her parents had convinced her that what she was seeing were in fact actual demons intent on doing her harm. When I first heard about this I realised that what she was experiencing were text book "Old Hag Syndrome" hallucinations. I suspect that this person's early childhood exposure to her parents' belief system has likely contributed to her believing that these hallucinations were real. So I ask again ... where do we draw the line on what should be considered appropriate or inappropriate when teaching children what is real and what isn't???

[baron]

I really didn't mean to imply that the "ghost thing" was in itself abuse but I was thinking more in terms of teaching false beliefs in general...

So I ask again ... where do we draw the line on what should be considered appropriate or inappropriate when teaching children what is real and what isn't???

OK, that's a more reasonable question. A judgement of appropriateness can certainly be applied to the question of what children are taught. We'll forget the issue of abuse, as it's not applicable to the discussion.

However, you need to make a distinction between teaching and telling. If a parent believes in ghosts and shares their belief with their children then that's very different to ghosts being taught as fact in science class. The former I see no problem with, the latter I do.

Children are not frail, incapable creatures whose minds can be permanently damaged by the mere whiff of a non-conventional idea. Part of growing up is learning to self-educate and form individual opinions, and while that's happening, if a child harbours beliefs that aren't strictly in accordance with the facts, so what? In fact, take away that aspect of childhood and you remove some of magic that goes along with it.

[Moochie]

Thousands of millions of humans have grown up to be perfectly balanced and sane individuals despite a childhood where ghosts and spirits are accepted, invoked, pandered to, feared or otherwise interacted with.

Evidence?

Worry about something worthy of your concern. Telling a child that the noises they hear are ghosts, no matter how wrong, is so far from child abuse that it's laughable. Let's reserve the term for the use it was originally intended, and don't trivialise it by broadening its usage to anything you personally don't agree with.

You evidently weren't raised a Catholic.

M.

[baron]

Evidence?

I really don't think it necessary to prove that approximately 85% ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism ) of world's population is not unbalanced. It's silly.


You evidently weren't raised a Catholic.


So you believe Catholics are unbalanced as a result of an abusive up-bringing? I'd be curious to see your evidence, as the only evidence I could find stipulates that religious upbringing had, at worst, no effect and at best, a statistically significant positive effect on an individual's physical and mental health.

http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Dimensions%20of%20Religiosity.pdf

http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Terman%20Religion%20and%20Self-Rated%20Health.pdf

http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/spirituality%20and%20health_george_larson_et%20al. _JSCP.pdf

[Moochie]

I really don't think it necessary to prove that approximately 85% ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism ) of world's population is not unbalanced. It's silly.

I was thinking more along the lines of 100% being absolutely nuts. Evidence? Just my observation.

So you believe Catholics are unbalanced as a result of an abusive up-bringing? I'd be curious to see your evidence, as the only evidence I could find stipulates that religious upbringing had, at worst, no effect and at best, a statistically significant positive effect on an individual's physical and mental health.

http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Dimensions%20of%20Religiosity.pdf

http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Terman%20Religion%20and%20Self-Rated%20Health.pdf

http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/spirituality%20and%20health_george_larson_et%20al. _JSCP.pdf

Generally speaking, that might be so. But I wasn't speaking in generalities. I was raised a Catholic. No one interviewed me.

M.

[Autolite]

I suppose we could try and establish what should be considered "nuts" or unbalanced. Should an adult who acknowledges the existence of imaginary beings or entities be considered sane???

[vincent1555]

I think you should be far more afraid of the consequences of living in a world in which governments can decide what beliefs parents are allowed to pass on to their children. Seems like an expressway to 1984.

[baron]

I suppose we could try and establish what should be considered "nuts" or unbalanced. Should an adult who acknowledges the existence of imaginary beings or entities be considered sane???

Having an opinion on a subject does not make someone insane, even if that opinion is different than your own.

[Autolite]

Having an opinion on a subject does not make someone insane, even if that opinion is different than your own.

This rationale would negate any definition of insanity. Suppose I were to claim that invisible pink flying unicorns, ridden by invisible leprechauns, existed. Would you consider that the opinion of a sane person? Where do we draw the line between rational and irrational belief???

[Soapy Sam]

Insanity is a contextual issue. What you believe is of no consequence until you act on it. Thinking about robbery is not yet a crime. Robbing someone is.

No matter how stupid someone's opinion is, I would be seriously upset to see legislation forbid him from holding it.
Communicating it is something else. Just as we consider some movies inappropriate for youngsters, it does not seem wrong in principle to forbid the deliberate spread of certain ideas to children. It would probably backfire though. Youngsters are apt to seek out "forbidden" ideas.

Maybe best we spread the sceptic meme in the time honoured way.