Is it wrong to tell a child that god doesn't exist?

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by ratcat

I'm not sure that worms will successfully infiltrate the burial vault and continue into the casket to get at my presumably unappetizing embalmed body, but I understand your point; most here feel that death is the end to all consciousness. I do too.

If you wait long enough they will get to you. I think worms will continue to exist at the point when the burial vault is exposed. Perhaps the only question is whether your body will be in a condition that the worms find attractive. Even Mary Roach, in her hilariously informative "Stiff," doesn't cover this scenario.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by ratcat

I would still prefer an "I don't know" to this question from a child when considering the other options of a heaven fairy tale, or a pretty scary lights out answer. Did you have any ideas on the meaning of life question?

When I was wee, I remember realizing I was going to die and was upset going to sleep, and my father walked in, asked what was up, I told him, and he said "don't worry, that's a long time away," which I think was a really, really good response. Not that it made me see rainbows and puppies immediately, but it expressed his sympathy without scaling back what the truth really is, even by saying "I don't know" even though we all have a really good guess. It can take a lifetime to come to terms with death, so the sooner you start, the better (if done properly).

[Joey McGee]

I would never tell a child something as blunt as "When you die, you become worm food." I operate in life as if that's probably true, but I don't know that for sure, no part of my consciousness/whatever continues. It would be a chance to illustrate what scientific skepticism actually is.

[Rasmus]

Originally Posted by ratcat

I'm not sure that worms will successfully infiltrate the burial vault and continue into the casket to get at my presumably unappetizing embalmed body, but I understand your point; most here feel that death is the end to all consciousness. I do too.

But we don't "feel" this, we actually "know" this.

We know that conciousness is an effect of a brain as it normally works. We know what happens when brains get injured or are malfunctioning. We can even sometimes fix it.

And we know what happens with a brain when the person it belonged to died - so we do know that conciousness just dissapears. What we don't know is how those last few moments are experienced - if they are experienced, even, because we cannot ask people about it afterwards - but we know the rest.

Quote:

I would still prefer an "I don't know" to this question from a child when considering the other options of a heaven fairy tale, or a pretty scary lights out answer.

What irks me about this is that we do know. To say that we don't is a flat out lie; to suggest that the fairy tales might be true even more so.

At least tell the child thast it's not old enough yet to talk about it, if that's what you really think.

Quote:

Did you have any ideas on the meaning of life question? Or the simple "why are we here?" Remember you're talking to a child here.

How would you answer the question "why does it rain?" It doesn't rain so that flowers and trees and grass can grow, after all. There's a process that makes it rain - but there is no underlying motive.

Same about us being here. There is causes for our being here - but generally, it wasn't planned. The individual child posing the question might very well have been planned -so here answers will get more individual.

Likmewise, I don't think life has a meaning per se. And I don't see any evidence that would suggest there should be one. Here, i tihnk i'd ask the child what it even means with the question - same as i do when adults bring it up, really.

And, really, if there was any reason or logic to the fairy tale strategy - why won't you at least make up a better fairy tale? Heaven? How utterly boring is that? why not disneyworld, or a jungle with tame elephants and lions, or a space station? After all, we don't know, or do we?

[Rasmus]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

I would never tell a child something as blunt as "When you die, you become worm food."

You can put it less blunt, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Quote:

I operate in life as if that's probably true, but I don't know that for sure, no part of my consciousness/whatever continues. It would be a chance to illustrate what scientific skepticism actually is.

What kind of doubt beyond whishful thinking could a sane person possible have about their concioujsness coming to an end with death?

And - because people somehow seem to never see this quewstion - when your child asks about monsters under the bed - how open minded are you about that answer?

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

"Well, son, there used to be both God and Santa. But there was bad blood between them, and back in 1865 they ran into each other in a saloon in the Old West. Sure enough there was an argument, then a fight, then one of those gun-duels. Both were expert shots, as you'd expect. They stepped off, counted three, turned, and fired. God shot Santa right through the heart, and Santa got God right in the forehead. Both dead in the same instant. The townsfolk buried the bodies and denied the two were ever there.

Tomorrow I'll tell you about the time the Easter Bunny met Jesus, and the world discovered that rabbit meat is kosher and that eating a creature that lays chocolate eggs can trigger a fatal attack of insulin shock."

Thank you so much for making me laugh out loud when I'm pretending to work.......

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by truethat

You seem to have a lack of respect towards your wife. I don't think the future problem for your kid is going to have anything to do with god belief. But more it's going to be how to treat his wife with respect (if he's straight and wants to get married) even if his views differ than hers. It can be done you know. This kind of passive aggressive disgust towards your wife will definitely be picked up.

YEah because when it comes to religious beliefs and 'respect' the respect only has to go one way right?

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Autolite

He could find himself in a fix if he manages to (unintentionally) convince his young son that mommy is nutters.

Likewise if Mommy (unintentionally) convinces his young son that Daddy is an evil sinner and/or is going to burn eternal torment in the lake of fire.

[Rasmus]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

Likewise if Mommy (unintentionally) convinces his young son that Daddy is an evil sinner and/or is going to burn eternal torment in the lake of fire.

Hey, you are being very disrespectful of her beliefs here. Kindly stop this outragoeus behavior!

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Jon.

This does make a difference, in my opinion. You have changed and are not (sorry to trot out an old cliche) the man she married.

Everyone changes and that has to be accepted, a marriage is between two people as they are today, not a couple of polariods in a drawer.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Paulhoff

The eyes of a child are given way to much credit by some.

Paul

In the kingdom of the blind.....

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Rasmus

Hey, you are being very disrespectful of her beliefs here. Kindly stop this outragoeus behavior!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSHaCzb3yYk

[ratcat]

Originally Posted by Paul2

When I was wee, I remember realizing I was going to die and was upset going to sleep, and my father walked in, asked what was up, I told him, and he said "don't worry, that's a long time away," which I think was a really, really good response. Not that it made me see rainbows and puppies immediately, but it expressed his sympathy without scaling back what the truth really is, even by saying "I don't know" even though we all have a really good guess. It can take a lifetime to come to terms with death, so the sooner you start, the better (if done properly).

\

Actually that's something else that I have said to them, that it won't be for a long long time. Granted this could turn out to be a flat out lie, but I would think probability is on my side. I see your point about saying "I don't know" and I certainly agree that all evidence points to the death of the brain to equal the end to everything. I still hesitate to present this as an absolute. Perhaps this is a leftover from a religious upbringing.

I try more to teach my kids how to think rather than what to think. I mostly do this by asking them questions, and also by pointing out logical fallacies.

As far as coming to terms with death, I will speculate that many never do.

Thanks for the reply.

[ratcat]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

I would never tell a child something as blunt as "When you die, you become worm food." I operate in life as if that's probably true, but I don't know that for sure, no part of my consciousness/whatever continues. It would be a chance to illustrate what scientific skepticism actually is.

Couldn't bring myself to do it either. Just seems cruel. I try to be as honest with them as I can. I may open myself for another argument here but I do trust my instincts when it comes to my children. I don't attribute them to any outside entity or mysticism but instincts seem to me to be real and helpful.

[ratcat]

Originally Posted by Rasmus

But we don't "feel" this, we actually "know" this.

Thanks for your detailed reply but I wasn't really interested in an exchange at this level. Was more just curious as to what others with children told them when asked what I consider the "hard" questions.

One quick thing though. I never intended under any circumstances to tell them a fairytale. The other "options" were just the commonly used explanations used by most parents.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Originally Posted by Autolite

I can assure you that my memory is quite clear reference those two instances I had mentioned. I suspect the reason that they stuck in my head is because for a young child, at least for me, they were both profoundly confusing and unsettling.

I should also mention a third memory that comes to mind was the first time I heard my grandmother, or anyone, speaking in tongues. I was twelve years old at the time (shortly before my grandmother's death).

It happened during a church service I was attending with my grandparents and the spectacle was so absurd that I have never forgotten about it. I just couldn't understand how adults I was taught to respect could behave so foolishly.

There must be others here with similar experiences, feelings and memories...

Very similar and at a similar age if not younger. And, whilst I understand Slingblade's point, my memories have been confirmed by my mother - of course I'm sure both of us have distorted them slightly with hindsight but there was a pretty clear correlation between them eg my wife was chatting to my mum about my atheism and my Mum replied that she'd sort of brought me up as a christian but didn't want to force it (as I've posted before my parents were pretty good about this, and politics, refusing to tell me what they believed but exposing me to church as that was the done thing in those days but also telling me some people didn't believe*) and that whilst I'd gone to Sunday School (I'd asked as my friends from school went) I'd soon given it up (she thought at 6 - 7 years old) as I'd told her: it was boring; the stories were ok but not as exciting as eg Arabian Nights etc; and thirdly, that they tried to tell me the stories were true! When I joined the conversation and asked her what stories I'd kicked back on she said the main one she could remember was Noah's ark and that I'd simply dismissed that as obviously not true so why is this guy telling me it is and getting annoyed when I say it obviously isn't. She thought Jonah and the whale was another one that I'd compared to Pinocchio which I knew was only a story!

Both these matched my memories - though again even the memory of that conversation will obviously be slightly distorted. I think the main point stands though - 8 year olds and even younger can see through some nonsense (depending on their upbringing).

Oh and my Mum is still a believer...well, Church of England which doesn't really count I suppose.

*Only thing they were crap on was Santa - kept lieing through their teeth on that one!

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Rasmus

You can put it less blunt, but that doesn't make it any less true.

You have conclusive evidence that there is absolutely no survival of consciousness or life-force or information etc? Do share.

Quote:

What kind of doubt beyond whishful thinking could a sane person possible have about their concioujsness coming to an end with death?

Uh, you can't rule it out. You can labor all day explaining what we know of the natural world makes it unlikely to be true. But ruling it out is another thing entirely. I mean, FFS Hitchens wouldn't even rule out God, "no compelling reasons or evidence", not "I know there is no God."

Quote:

And - because people somehow seem to never see this quewstion - when your child asks about monsters under the bed - how open minded are you about that answer?

Unless these monsters have the power to become invisible and untouchable, it is a directly testable hypothesis.

[JoeBentley]

Which is the definition of special pleading. You can't use the fact that you define God as "unknowable" as an excuse as to why discussion about the concept have to operate differently.

Bob: "Discussions about God are different then discussions about monsters under the bed!"
Ted: "Why?"
Bob: "Because God is different!"
Ted: "Why?"
Bob: "Because I said so!"

You define God as something outside the understanding of science, a totally meaningless semantic trap with no real intellectual value, and then use that definition as a copout when asked to defend the concept. It's both circular reasoning and special pleading.

[Joey McGee]

I never said that I defined God as unknowable, or that it needs special treatment. Certain theories about God are directly testable, and people like Stenger have gone to great lengths to disprove them. Even he says that he can't disprove certain theories of God, just certain aspects of the biblical God.

Your mock conversation is just so far off base and ridiculous.

A monster under the bed is directly testable with a flash light and some courage.

Can we conclusively rule out life after death? Even the most hardened skeptics I know don't do it. Say, Shermer.

[JoeBentley]

"Untestable" is still the same copout. It's making excuses why you don't have to support your position. And God is only "untestable" because you define him as such. It's still circular and it's still special pleading. No matter how you slice you're using criteria that you assign to God as arguments.

And honestly let's stop pretending here. People don't believe in God because they think he's "untestable." That only gets trotted out when they are asked to defend him.

[Joey McGee]

I'm not saying that they are "untestable" more like we don't have the ability to test them, or there are too many alternative possibilities, for certain theories about God. To steal a page from Dawkins, it's fair enough to say that you place the likelihood of them being true on the same level as garden fairies might be real, but you can't rule them out, making you a 6.9 out of 7 on the believer to strong atheist scale.

If something doesn't have any evidence for it, the default position isn't that it's false.

So, whatever you say chum

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

You have conclusive evidence that there is absolutely no survival of consciousness or life-force or information etc? Do share.

Uh, you can't rule it out. You can labor all day explaining what we know of the natural world makes it unlikely to be true. But ruling it out is another thing entirely. I mean, FFS Hitchens wouldn't even rule out God, "no compelling reasons or evidence", not "I know there is no God."

Unless these monsters have the power to become invisible and untouchable, it is a directly testable hypothesis.

Like god does?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

I never said that I defined God as unknowable, or that it needs special treatment. Certain theories about God are directly testable, and people like Stenger have gone to great lengths to disprove them. Even he says that he can't disprove certain theories of God, just certain aspects of the biblical God.

Your mock conversation is just so far off base and ridiculous.

A monster under the bed is directly testable with a flash light and some courage.

Can we conclusively rule out life after death? Even the most hardened skeptics I know don't do it. Say, Shermer.

Why do you characterize skeptics as hardened?

I rule out life after death because there's no proof for it. When your brain quits you quit. If you think differently then you'll have to explain how you can exist without a brain.

ETA actually you'd have to have proof it did happen before we even get to the explanation phase.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

I'm not saying that they are "untestable" more like we don't have the ability to test them, or there are too many alternative possibilities, for certain theories about God.

So again because people intentionally don't define God clearly in order to skirt intellectual standards, we let them get away with it and believe woo.

Quote:

To steal a page from Dawkins, it's fair enough to say that you place the likelihood of them being true on the same level as garden fairies might be real, but you can't rule them out, making you a 6.9 out of 7 on the believer to strong atheist scale.

So why do billions of people believe in God but in the garden fairies?

You're still doing. You're shifting back and forth depending on how it helps your position. If I ask you if God exists he's all untestable and mysterious and outside our understanding.

So if God is so flippin' neutered that he literally might as well not exist, why do so many people believe in them.

There's an X factor you're dancing around here.

Quote:

If something doesn't have any evidence for it, the default position isn't that it's false.

Yes... it... is. You get to think things and work backward from there.

[ratcat]

Originally Posted by tsig

If you think differently then you'll have to explain how you can exist without a brain.

To persuade one would need to explain. To think differently one must only think. I think that death is the end. I just don't see how I can ever be certain. I admit I may simply be unwilling to fully accept my mortality and that this may be a remnant of a religious upbringing, but I can say that I am simply not able to accept this as an absolute without offering any evidence as to why. I am not trying to influence anyone else.

[The Greater Fool]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

I never said that I defined God as unknowable, or that it needs special treatment. Certain theories about God are directly testable, and people like Stenger have gone to great lengths to disprove them. Even he says that he can't disprove certain theories of God, just certain aspects of the biblical God.

Your mock conversation is just so far off base and ridiculous.

A monster under the bed is directly testable with a flash light and some courage.

Sorry, but this [bolded] is not true in my experience as both a child and as a parent. The monsters under the bed do not manifest until all is quiet and all the lights are out. All a parent can say "for sure" is that there does not appear to be a monster under the bed at this moment.

We don't KNOW that there are not underbed monsters with the ability to manifest at will, not unlike gods are said to be able to do, not unlike ghosts are said to be able to.


You seem to be intellectually inconsistent.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Can we conclusively rule out life after death? Even the most hardened skeptics I know don't do it. Say, Shermer.

We can't rule anything out. Not the FSM, not the teapot, not god. That's not how science works.

What we can conclusively state is that, as of now, there is no evidence in support of life after death, spirits, ghosts, gods, teapots (in space), underbed monsters.

It's sometimes fun to entertain fantasies about how life after death might work. But, simply because such fantasies cannot be disproved doesn't make them true or even possible. Hey, maybe there's a cosmic mechanism that makes anything we can imagine true. It could happen.

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Can we conclusively rule out life after death?

Yes.

We know that human awareness requires a functioning human brain.

There isn't one after death.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool

[/b]That's not how science works.

And herein I think you might have hit the nail the head.

Some people think when we say "You don't get to make stuff and then make up an excuse after the fact for why you can because that's not how science works" that means they can then make up a different set of rules where it does work. When we say "Science" we mean everything because that's what science is. There is nothing outside science. To Woo Slingers this just means "Okay then what we're doing isn't science" as if that even remotely logical or meaningful in any way.

It really is like a child going "Infinity +1." That's what supernatural, metaphysics, "beyond reality", and 90% of what passes for philosphy on this board is trying to do. Infinity+1, therefore Woo.

So let me make it a little clearer. You don't get to make stuff and then make up an excuse after the fact for why you can because that's not how anything works.

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

If something doesn't have any evidence for it, the default position isn't that it's false.

Yes, actually, it is.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

Everyone changes and that has to be accepted, a marriage is between two people as they are today, not a couple of polariods in a drawer.

That's what I was essentially getting at, but I admire your way of saying it; much better than mine!

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by ratcat

I think that death is the end. I just don't see how I can ever be certain. I admit I may simply be unwilling to fully accept my mortality and that this may be a remnant of a religious upbringing, but I can say that I am simply not able to accept this as an absolute without offering any evidence as to why.

But there's plenty of evidence why death would be the end.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

I'm not saying that they are "untestable" more like we don't have the ability to test them, or there are too many alternative possibilities, for certain theories about God. To steal a page from Dawkins, it's fair enough to say that you place the likelihood of them being true on the same level as garden fairies might be real, but you can't rule them out, making you a 6.9 out of 7 on the believer to strong atheist scale.

If something doesn't have any evidence for it, the default position isn't that it's false.

So, whatever you say chum

Yes, it is. It's called the null hypothesis. A person can imagine whatever gods they wish; they are, in essence, making a positive claim that their god exists and often has certain defining characteristics of that god (even though they really are amazingly superficial once examined, but nonetheless...). It's not really my job (or Dawkins or Shermer) or anyone else's job to disprove it. They 'disprovers' can if they wish and it's really all just icing on the cake because the believers nearly always have absolutely no evidence to show that what they are saying is true or correct and there's lots of evidence to show they are not.

[ratcat]

Originally Posted by godless dave

But there's plenty of evidence why death would be the end.

Ok how about this. I fully accept all the evidence. I fully agree that death is the end of all conscious life.

In order to be completely honest however, I must say that due to psychological defect or some other unknown cause I cannot say with certainty that deep within my mind there is not a flickering candle of hope for something more.

Perhaps an equally interesting discussion would be why does this candle continue to flicker? and Could it explain why a vast number of people choose religion to fan this flame, while others can extinguish it, and some of us can reduce it to a dim flicker but not fully smother it?

I'm just trying to honestly explain what goes on in my mind and not make a logical argument. That is why I suggest discussing why myself and many others find ourselves in this place.

I believe it has been suggested that a tendency toward religion and even credulity could be the result of evolution.

[JoeBentley]

"Being completely honest" does not mean tacking on an exception for every special pleading solipsistic exception.

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by ratcat

Ok how about this. I fully accept all the evidence. I fully agree that death is the end of all conscious life.

In order to be completely honest however, I must say that due to psychological defect or some other unknown cause I cannot say with certainty that deep within my mind there is not a flickering candle of hope for something more.

Sure, but that's a different question.

[ratcat]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

"Being completely honest" does not mean tacking on an exception for every special pleading solipsistic exception.

I intend to make no such exception. It strikes me as odd that an argument continues to be found where none is offered. Its obvious to me that the human mind is subject to other influences that pure logic. It may not be logical to be afraid of small spaces, but that fact alone doesn't alleviate the fear.

Have I not already stated that i logically agree with the arguments presented?

[ratcat]

Originally Posted by godless dave

Sure, but that's a different question.

Absolutely. I'm just trying to explain why even though I don't believe in afterlife I seem to be unable to rule it out completely. I'm only responding and trying clarify that this seems to be something just beyond my control. I likened it to a phobia in my other post. I'm not sure if that's a good analogy, but I'm trying to cement the point that I am not trying to make any type of a logical argument, but just to describe what is probably an emotional response.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by ratcat

Absolutely. I'm just trying to explain why even though I don't believe in afterlife I seem to be unable to rule it out completely. I'm only responding and trying clarify that this seems to be something just beyond my control. I likened it to a phobia in my other post. I'm not sure if that's a good analogy, but I'm trying to cement the point that I am not trying to make any type of a logical argument, but just to describe what is probably an emotional response.

It's called wishful thinking. Enjoy it but don't think it means anything.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

That's what I was essentially getting at, but I admire your way of saying it; much better than mine!

Thank you. I think the OP has taken more than enough knocks for being a) human and b) smart enough to change his views acording to the evidence.

[ratcat]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

It's called wishful thinking. Enjoy it but don't think it means anything.

OK.