Is religion important when raising children to become good members of society?

Except having dinner never bothered to deny what we now know to be fundamental truths. Of course, we are blocking progress every moment we're not coming up with something new and revolutionary in a way. But these are moments of passive indolence. There's an obvious difference with the active impeding of progress that religion has been guilty of.

Even so, I know, religion hasn't been the only hindrance to progress. That wasn't the point to begin with. It has been an obstacle to progress, and contrary to the other "collations of ideas" you mentioned, it offers very little in return in the present timeframe.

I don't really see how the evolutionary theory has changed mankind's views on death and disaster. Care to explain?
To be honest, it's indeed rather hard to try and come up with an image of history where religion is outright absent.

Then you assume that a child even fully grasps the concept of hell, which I doubt. I think a young child would be more scared if it were threatened with something it can understand. You can't see hell. You can see the cookies in the cookie jar that you won't get if you're naughty. It's a silly example but it works.

And also; punishing a finite sin with eternal damnation? That's downright cruel.

I'm sorry, but that has to be the most ******ed post in this thread so far.
(1) The basis of engineering relies on scientific laws and principles. To say that engineering is more important than the very principles it is based on is downright idiotic. Not to mention that the actual construction of devices isn't limited to engineers. There are plenty of examples where scientists with no major in engineering have invented useful items and principles. One example just to drive my argument home: Michelson was the physicist (read: scientist) who developed the interferometer.
(2) How does a dedication to learning rather than applying actually hinder us? You haven't explained this anywhere in your post.
(3) If everyone would think the way you did, in terms of "THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO WITH THIS!", then a lot of contemporary applications wouldn't even have come to be. Sometimes a theory doesn't prove useful right from the get-go but only much later. It is essential for any scientist to understand this. Do you think Gregor Mendel had any of the present applicances of genetics in mind when he conducted his experiments on peas?
(4) I fail to see why we can't be doing both at the same time. And we are. It isn't one or the other.

No, it doesn't. We could be ruling our cattle and tending our farm and still be stuck in the Bronze Age.
Name one benevolent evolution that the Bible has been responsible for, that wouldn't have occured if it weren't for them. Go on. Just one.

That's the thing about being counter-productive. By definition, it makes progress impossible.
It does not encourage advancement in any way. If anything, it implies stagnation.

 

I know it wasn't the point to begin with, I was merely pointing out that religion seems to be the only thing people talk about blocking progress due to its infamy i.e. the denial of Galileo's theory about the Earth revolving around the sun. But rarely do you see people acknowledging that religion isn't the only hindrance.
Regardless, we are severely off topic from "the point to begin with" - discussing what a good member of society is and if religion can be important in the production of that. Instead we are fixated on talking about trivial things, like the bad examples of people who have spent a childhood in the Catholic church and being emotionally scarred, followed by the ethics of doing that to a child. We discuss this, instead of the majority of the community who have been raised with the pretty much the same ethics and morals that exist with the people who are outstanding members of society without a religious childhood.
The problem when discussing any group is that you don't hear about specific people who are close to the norm. Instead you hear about fanatics who obsess about the group, or people who become cautionary tales, who work as scapegoats to why people shouldn't conform to the group, or a mix of both.
For instance, many articles reflect people in gaming circles who have resorted to domestic violence after playing a video game. This turns people off gaming as they say "Games are silly, they make people violent." Also, the stereotype of a gamer is a person who has no social life and resorts to escapism through playing games in their parent's basement. Both of these examples are rarely true for the majority of gamers, but you only hear about the fanatics (basement playing loners) and the cautionary tales (violent gamers) because the average member of the gaming community is boring to talk about. It doesn't take much to conclude who the fanatics and cautionary tales are in the kind of people you guys are talking about.

Yeah the other collations of ideas I mentioned were not the best examples, I'll admit that. That's because the connotations made with religion is a concept, whereas when you think of farming or eating dinner you consider those activities. I would have said

Spoiler

Imagination

But that would be opening another can of worms.
Your phrase considering the returns of religion in this quote is offensive to me, as you attempt to pass opinion off as fact.

First of all I would like to point out how funny I find it that you dismiss the conjecture of what could have been in your debate with Slaughtermatic by saying "We'll never know" and then go on to say "We could still be stuck in the Bronze Age". I guess "We'll never know." But still... yes, we could be doing that and be stuck in the bronze age, or we could be caring and nuturing the world with today's resources. My point is, isn't the reason for botany and agriculture brances of science being invested in so we can help establish a stable planet? So we can learn how to properly tend and rule our animals? I'm saying that the intention to work the Earth to its best output exists in the Bible too, and yet odly enough despite the similar reasoning people try to put the two forces against each other only because one states there is definately a god who we should try to appease.

That's a loaded trick question. We're not discussing a book, we're discussing the ideals of all religion that is not limited to the one behind the book. What you're asking is comparable to saying "Name one change in the world that The World Almanac has been responsible for."
In regard to one of the many "benevolent evolutions" of religion as a whole has been responsible for, which wouldn't have occured without the concept of religion would simply be the functionality of an ideal temple.

Yeah, it does make progress impossible.
But I'm not clear how this point came across because you just defined counter-productivity without presenting any discussion.
I meant people deliberately use science to make spiritual philosophical development stagnant, which blocks a development in its own right (as opposed to it being stagnant allready and anti-theists pointing that out).

 

Easy: It's all a part of natural selection. Only the fittest survive. There was an Earthquake in Japan? Well it's sad, but it'll teach the rest of the world that it's important to build earthquake and tsunami-proof buildings and secure their nuclear power plants better. The citizens of Japan who died were not equipped for an earthquake, and thusly died by way of natural selection. It's nature's way.

I understood it pretty well when I was a kid. Then again I did start college when I was 14 which is pretty unusual, so I guess I'm sort of a special case. Either way, can you really think of any kind of pain worse than burning?

Also I do not believe sins are finite, but that's another argument.

 

Because as far as I know, religion is one of the prime examples. Not just in terms of impact, but also in terms of organization.
But yes, as I have admitted, religion isn't the only example.

Guilty as charged.

I don't think they are so trivial. Granted, these anecdotes deal with individuals and not with society as a whole, but they are part of one side of the medal. The Catholic Church has been an epicenter of a major paedophilia scandal here in Belgium last summer. You have no idea how much has been divulged at the time. The facts are mostly outdated now, but why should we believe that anything has changed?

Exactly. They are pretty much alike. Which brings me to my core point: religion isn't necessary in today's society.
As a matter of fact, it's pretty superfluous.

I am well aware that not every Christian is in cahoots with the WBC so to speak. I know that there are decent, loving, caring, etc. Christians out there.
But here's the thing. It cannot provide us better morals and values than an education without religion can. Put simply, I can teach the same morals and values to my children as a Christian family would without ever mentioning God, Jesus or the Bible.
Christian parents teach children about Jesus and use him as a sort of role model, correct? Which is good. The right role models can make raising children that much easier. But it isn't necessary to pick Jesus as a role model. There are plenty of alternatives.
Are role models necessary? Probably.
Are the particular role models of religion necessary? No. Which was the gist of the thread's question.
Don't let that stop you from using them though. If you can find yourself in the ideas of the Bible, then by all means go nuts.

Indeed it would.

Suppose everyone would start raising their kids in a manner devoid of all religion, making no mention of God, Allah or whatever. Do you think this would have a negative impact on society? Be honest.

I don't see how you can extract the "similar reasoning" out of such a line in the Bible. It says little more than God wanting us to tend and rule all plants and animals. We could be tending them as inefficiently as possible and we'd still be tending them. If a farming community exploits all of their fields in three generations, then they were lousy farmers but farmers nonetheless. It makes zero mentions of progress, let alone economical and ecological advancements.

I do not see the Almanac analogy but I see your other point.

Feel free to give another definition to the word "counter-productive".

How would something as personal as philosophical and spiritual development translate into progress? How would it even develop? How would it look like if science didn't "hinder" it? I assume you can answer these questions, because how else would you know that science is a hindrance to it?

But arguably, mankind would have gotten to that point sooner if it hadn't been for religion. Mankind would still have the same technical intelligence, meaning they could go against nature at roughly the same point in time. The prime difference is that the question of whether they should go against nature wouldn't pose itself.

Probably. Most kids I know don't plan very far ahead, let alone as far as the afterlife.

Pain still can't be quantified. Given the proper intensity and frequency, anything can feel worse than burning.
Also, I think that's slightly beside the point.

 

Uh... This is off topic I know but Japan is more prepared for earthquakes then anyone else in the world. They were equipped for an earthquake. However, you can only scale building design for earthquakes to a point realistically. Most Buildings in Japan are built to stand up to 7's and 8's. 9's are EXTREMELY rare, and 10x more powerful then an 8. This was the first time it's happened in recorded history in that region, There was no reason to prepare for such a huge earthquake, It's never happened. The Fukushima Plant was built to Handle a large amount of damage, the problem is predicting the secondary effects. It was a chain reaction of things that brought the Plant down on it's knees, not the Earthquake and Tsunami. Point is I guess, don't say they were not equipped, they kept a very very strict standard to there preparation for the worst event the knew could happen. There was no mass slacking off that did this.

 

We don't know that though. Charles Darwin came up with his theory in a world that was predominately religious, so it's really impossible to know whether someone would have found it sooner. The point is, before they were capable of finding something other than religion, they needed SOMETHING, and religion was really the only viable option.

No, it's not. Whether or not you can comprehend the concept of eternal suffering, it doesn't take a lot of brain power that having your entire body being burned is incredibly painful and something your parents can't do to you.

It may not have been the best example but it gets the point across. The point is that natural selection can be used as a crutch for people to be comforted about death.

 

Unless we do a big brother special on Catholic priests I don't see how anyone can know for sure.[/joke]
I took this question as rhetorical, but I would like to discuss the concept of knowing when times have change are indeed upon us.
When there are no more true claims in the present, you'll know things have changed. In my country it is even more impossible for a male to get work as a primary school teacher than it is overseas, in particular the earlier years of primary because of the same negative paranoia. But with this paranoia comes with the silver lining of the publicity, that is children in the present are more vocal about feeling uncomfortable. The Catholic church is going through the same thing. One person says "a teacher molested me as a child" this creates a domino effect of other victims speaking up. It increases awareness and such, but now there are less claims being made by adults. From this we can assume that that's about it. The children on the other hand are now conditioned to say if this is a problem today. Once the usual victims who have been considered usual due to past examples no longer claim that there is an issue shortly after the publicity scandal, things should have changed. Just some food for thought on that topic.

I think it would have a neutral impact on society. The good thing I think about being raised in a religious enviroment is that it offers a source of being able to reflect upon yourself, and decide to change if necessary. Sure, you can do that with other methods and causes of reflection completely seperate from a religious community. However it is unique through the whole concept of reflecting in regards of your life being because of something greater than humanity as a whole. The fact that this unique source is offered is one of the many things that in my eyes makes religion not superfluous in a general sense. But the thing is, if no mention of gods were made no source in that niché would be present until later on in life if someone were to stumble upon religion at a later point in their life.

Wait, are you talking about the script which is where people translate Genesis from? Because I haven't read the so I personally wouldn't know if there is no mention of progress or not. If you are, I'll take your word for it that it has no mention of progress.

Well the thing is the Bible contains the history of the Christian faith right? If I were to answer your initial question without considering it a loaded question I would have said the founding of Israel. But that didn't happen because of the Bible. It happened alledgedly because of God. The most iconic things that have happened because of faith are recorded in the Bible but don't happen because of the Bible. Just like the most notable things are recorded in the Almanac but aren't planned to be in the Almanac.

Simply put, how close people are to what Bhuddism refers to as enlightenment. It can develop through people reaching enlightnment, or close to reaching it and acting on the personal knowledge of themselves they have gained. Charity starts at home.
But when people say science proves the big bang was a completely random occurance and so is everything that has followed this places obstacles on the path to enlightenment. Like doubt, and apathy. What I think would be interesting is what science would look like if it developed entirely in a way that coincided with spiritual development. Like why does it have to be a random occurance?

But arguably, mankind would have gotten to that point sooner if it hadn't been for religion. Mankind would still have the same technical intelligence, meaning they could go against nature at roughly the same point in time. The prime difference is that the question of whether they should go against nature wouldn't pose itself.


Probably. Most kids I know don't plan very far ahead, let alone as far as the afterlife.


Pain still can't be quantified. Given the proper intensity and frequency, anything can feel worse than burning.
Also, I think that's slightly beside the point.

 

Spirituality was probably the only viable option. You're right about that. I do not think, however, that religion had to have taken the form it took (that of a governing body and organization) for it to have a positive effect. But like I said some posts ago: that step was most likely inevitable.

Actually, I didn't find out how being burned felt until pretty late in my childhood. But anyway...
The reason I said it was beside the point is that it's not really relevant who can inflict the most painful punishment. The point was that both parents and God are able to convey the importance of being a good person, which still stands.

I gave a bad example. Perhaps it will work better if inverted.
Consider the difference between the arguments "You'd make mom very happy." and "You'd make God very happy.". If I were a child, I wouldn't care about this God person, omnipotent though he may be. Mom feeds me, mom plays with me and mom teaches me new stuff. Even if God is pulling the strings in the greater scheme of things, he's an abstract concept (especially to a child's mind), and trying to explain him to a kid would be more of a bother than it's worth.

Well then I know that in my country it hasn't. And yet my wariness isn't even the main reason that I'd rather not raise my children in a religious way. The main reason is that it's not necessary, as I've been trying to say. If anything, the risk of faith being abused is merely one of the smaller weights that help tilt the scales.

I think it would have a neutral impact too. The unique

Yes, I was refering to Genesis 1:28-1:30.

Ah I see. It's not really what I meant but good point. I see a gap in it though. Iconic things that happened because of faith are recorded in the Bible, but you have to have faith in order to believe that those happened the way they were recorded. It's not an argument that works against everyone.
Personally I was thinking of events that happened because of the impact of the Bible, i.e. achievements of the Church.

So what you're saying is that science waters down spirituality in a nihilistic and fatalistic way?

 

Hold up hold up.... I meant were you refering to the Torah in Hebrew? Or are you refering to a modern translation? Because what I was meaning was that I haven't read the Hebrew Torah, so I wouldn't know what it has to say on the subject of progress.

So what you're saying is that science waters down spirituality in a nihilistic and fatalistic way?[/QUOTE]
Science in itself isn't to blame. Moreso, it's people who persecute for whatever reason those seeking enlightenment which makes some people give up and show nihilistic and fatalistic idealogies as they don't know what to believe, but usually it's just a bit of doubt and that usually doesn't make people say "It's all pointless!" permanently, if not at all. It's just usually one of the arguments that is brought up in the prosecution is "THERE IS NOTHING BUT SCIENCE!!!one!!!!!4" Which is ironic in the sense that athiests are often prosecuted with "THERE IS NOTHING BUT GOD!!!five!!!!!!6"

 

This works the other day too though. Yeah, your parents can feed you, play with you, teach you stuff, etc., but God can do anything. God can give you anything you want. God can make you the strongest person in the world. God can give you an eternal awesome life in Heaven. These are things your parents can't do.

 

Nah, I meant a modern translation. Though the different versions aren't as different, at least for those verses. I went to bible.cc to verify my claim. It's a website that files most (all?) of the Bible's versions per verse.

Yeah, I see what you mean now. I think a reasonable amount of doubt is more of a positive thing than a hindrance though. It leaves room for skeptical thinking and criticism to both sides. And when someone eventually makes their choice and is actually convinced, their resolve is usually stronger than before.
But even I don't think that religion and science aren't mutually exclusive...well, with some exceptions (e.g. creationism).

Yes, but children aren't always so patient. If they are promised something, they usually want it right away or as soon as possible.
That's where I think the difference lies. Not saying that bringing God up isn't going to work at all, but the "parents are kinda God" tactic works just as well.

 

I would say that nurturing any kind of faith is very bad for a child's development. Religion is not needed for a system of ethics. In fact, a religion may stunt growth in ethics by setting rules down without ethical reasoning that clearly contradict other ethics that the person may hold. But this also goes into what you consider a good member of society. A conservative will think that only conservatives are good members of society. The same could be said of most liberals with their kind. And many Christians feel this way about anyone else. In the same way that they feel that many other Christians are not good members of the church. I hold that the best way to raise a 'good member of society' is to raise them with questions instead of answers. Ask them what they think instead of telling them what you think. Always... If by good you mean submissive and obedient, then your definition of good is hardly worthwhile. You want to raise people with morals of their own; with individual minds and convictions not shaped by you or some book. You waste a mind when you teach it too much of your ethics early on. Even just telling a child that stealing is wrong without getting them to tell you why they think it is wrong is a problem. Showing them what the Bible or some kind of law says before asking them this soils their perception of the act. This I hold to strongly in most all things.

 

I'll just agree to disagree here then. I can honestly tell you that there a few times when I was a kid where I could have stolen something but didn't because I knew God would be upset with me. My parents never could have found out.

 

Is 'being good' out of fear really 'being good' at all? A person's first and last responsibility is to themselves. Get them to decide why it is wrong for them to do it. Not to accept that someone or something will make sure that they are always caught.

 

That is how I feel now, but I was a kid then. You really just can't get stuff like that.

 

But that mindset existed because of the way that you were raised. Consider that George Washington was able to do Trigonometry at the age of twelve, and he was considered of average mind by all of this friends. Kids do not get this stuff because people feel that they cannot, and do not try to teach them. Instead of nurturing questions, they give simple answers and rules and boundaries are laid down. In a Christian home, rules are made and breaking them is called a sin. Of course, if you break them, you sinned. That is why it is wrong. But that makes no sense. It just makes you accept it and avoid anything tied to that word without reason. This from a very young age. Only when they grow out of dependence do they question, like you do. I wonder if you might have thought about it if you were forced to earlier on, instead of simply told not to in the name of a god like you were...

 

I did think about it. A lot. At first I didn't understand why it was wrong to steal. I didn't really have anyone to explain it to me (Single mother, bad conditions, blah blah blah), so I spent a lot of time thinking about it. If someone had told me about Social Contract Theory or something back when I was 5, I might have gotten it or I might not have, I don't know. But the (at the time) abstract idea I had of God was enough to convince me that stealing was wrong.

Also I have no idea where you're getting your information from but it was not like that how I grew up. If you broke the rules, you were punished, and God was never usually brought into the picture unless it was a really big deal involving Christian values (Like stealing).

 

I draw from my own upbringing. Not accurate enough for you? Sorry. That is strange. But, then again, I have always had a problem with double standards. If I thought that I had a right to keep things without having them stolen, then others did too. Did that ever cross your young mind?

 

I always understood that stealing from other people was wrong, but stealing from places like Walmart never seemed bad to me because I wasn't stealing it from anyone directly. Social Contract Theory is good non-religious answer to this but again at the time I didn't have anyone to explain that to me.

 

Ahhh. But it couldn't really be said that what you did was wrong in that case. It is like if someone does not realize that the river that crosses through a piece of land is owned by the man who owns the land as well. Or rather, if they simply didn't understand that swimming in it is still trespassing either way. Morality generally deals with intentions and understandings. If someone could have explained to you that a person owned that store and bought those things planning to sell them to yet other people, the social contract would have done just as well. In fact, it would have done better, as you could not have understood the social contract at that age. They could have explained that if you were rich and had enough toys or games to go around, you might keep them at home or in a shed, and might plan to sell them to your friends for a profit. If one of your friends or just anyone took one of them from your shed (which symbolizes a store) without paying, you would have lost something. It would be theft, the same as if they took it out of your hand. Religion was not needed for this, and at best it was a convenient lie that had nothing of morality in it. You were not convicted. You were afraid of retribution and rebuke. That is all...