Board index ‹ Assorted Bible Questions

[Master Wise]

If you’re so confident that your religion is the only true and correct one, why do you have to indoctrinate your children at ages where they’re essentially unable to question things for themselves and come to their own conclusions?

[jimwalton]

For the same reason we start children in school at age 5: the sooner they start being educated in the truth, the better. It's not indoctrination, it's education.

Secondly, children naturally have many questions, and we educate to address those questions. The habit of asking good questions should never stop, and it should be encouraged from the earliest ages. So also should be the giving of truthful answers.

We don't let our children "come to their own conclusions" about whether the Earth is flat or whether the Holocaust happened. They need to be taught the truth about things.

[Master Wise]

> It's not indoctrination, it's education.

No. Education is being taught how to think. Indoctrination is teaching them what to think.

Primary schools don’t just teach 2+2=4. They teach how you can figure what 2+2 is on your own.

> We don't let our children "come to their own conclusions" about whether the Earth is flat or whether the Holocaust happened.

You should.

> They need to be taught the truth about things.

You’re not giving them much credit.

[jimwalton]

> No. Education is being taught how to think. Indoctrination is teaching them what to think.

Education is both. As per your example, we do indeed teach that 2+2 = 4. We teach the what, the why, and the how. A complete education doesn't just teach us how to think, it also brings us up to speed on all the things that have been learned from the past (the "what"). That's what science and history is all about. We don't let each student start from scratch. We tell them what we have already learned (the "what"), then at the same time we teach them how to think on their own (which includes proper ways to do research and experiments so that we can not only discover but also discern truth), and then we teach them why so that they are fully-rounded and balanced students and scholars.

> You should.

I disagree. If we "should," then we might be not only allowing but also encouraging students to fall for lies and to be duped by false information.

> You’re not giving them much credit.

It's not a matter of credit. The young human mind is amazing capable but also strikingly impressionable. We have seen children from the youngest of ages be taught to be racists, haters, and even killers. They need to be taught not only how to discern truth from untruth, but also the content and nature of truth, as well as the morality of truth.

[Logic Tree]

Isn't there a reason we wait to educate children about sex until they're an appropriate age?

Isn't a parent telling their child their beliefs as truths an overbearing pressure on the child to agree with those unproven beliefs?

[jimwalton]

> Isn't there a reason we wait to educate children about sex until they're an appropriate age?

Yes, absolutely. We also wait until certain ages to teach children about money, and we usually try to shield them from a certain level of violence until they're older.

> Isn't a parent telling their child their beliefs as truths an overbearing pressure on the child to agree with those unproven beliefs?

I can see behind your statement here that you are making a distinction between beliefs and truths that at times may be valid ("I believe Joe Biden would make a good president") and other times not ("I believe the moon is made of green cheese"). Based on research, evidence, logic, and experiences, I am 100% convinced that God exists. It is no longer a "belief" in the sense of the word you seem to be using it, any more than I believe the sun will set tonight. When I'm confident in the truth, I'm confident teaching the truth.

> an overbearing pressure on the child to agree with those unproven beliefs?

This shows your hand. "Overbearing pressure"? "Unproven beliefs"? This betrays your opinion that religious conviction is a matter of non-evidenced conjecture that we foist on poor innocent children. Instead, when the logic and evidence lead me to the firm conclusion of the truth of theism and of Christianity, there is no need to withhold realism from a child any more than I'd wait to teach them the dangers of walking out in the road.

[Logic Tree]

> Based on research, evidence, logic, and experiences, I am 100% convinced that God exists. It is no longer a "belief" in the sense of the word you seem to be using it, any more than I believe the sun will set tonight.

I'm not sure how feeling more confident about something you can't verify makes it more than a belief.

> When I'm confident in the truth, I'm confident teaching the truth.

Is there only one truth?

> there is no need to withhold realism from a child any more than I'd wait to teach them the dangers of walking out in the road.

How would the promise of deceased loved ones in heaven compare to the dangers of walking on the road?

[jimwalton]

> I'm not sure how feeling more confident about something you can't verify makes it more than a belief.

You know that when it comes right down to it, you can't even prove to me that you exist. Of course we all accept such things, but you really can't verify it. Formulating foolproof criteria for certainty and knowledge has never been successful.

I also came across an interesting article (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/falsifiability/) that even science functions under a false illusion of verifiability. But, of course, we still accept such things as reality and knowledge. We still know that things are true even though absolute verification may be out of reach.

> Is there only one truth?

Truth is both broad and narrow. There are truths everywhere. Every book I read has truth in it. Every discipline has truth in it. Even every religion has truth somewhere in it. We are surrounded by true things.

On the other hand, truth is very narrow. There may be 100 theories about what happened to Amelia Earhart, but once we discover the truth (if we ever do), only 1 of them (if that) will be right.

I know from researching the topic that there are more than a dozen hypotheses about where Solomon's Temple stood on the temple mount in Jerusalem and which direction it faced. But only 1 of them is true.

When it comes to God, I've considered the logic of the theistic position. I've examined the science to infer the most reasonable conclusion about the nature of the universe, its source and characteristics. I've examined the evidences about the historicity of the Bible. Considering all the angles and evidence, I've become convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt, let alone just a reasonable doubt, that God exists. I would be remiss not to pass that on.

> How would the promise of deceased loved ones in heaven compare to the dangers of walking on the road?

They compare favorably. They are both true. In the realm of science we make flat statements that we know the world exists, yet we have to believe God exists. Why should we use different wording? It has to do with a principle of authority. Our view of science causes us to talk talk about material things as existent, but non-material things as simply our opinions or beliefs. And yet a moral law within us (some sense of right and wrong) exists just as surely as the stars in the heavens (reflecting with Kant). Does dark matter exist? The theory says yes, but it is unknown what kind of materiality it has. So do we know it exists or do we believe it exists?

And what about time? It's non-material, yet no one questions its existence. We don't just have to "believe" in it. We know that time is relative to us while being independent from us. Present, past and future do not exist in physics; they exist in our experience only in relation to us.

The principles of Physics are delimited for the sake of objectivity, but physics cannot and does not cover the whole of reality. Metaphysics have always existed alongside of Physics and are needed to fill in the totality of reality. Never in history were these things seen as in opposition. Humans always seek to give sense and value to their life. Belief and knowledge together make up the totality of reality; science cannot have ultimate authority because it is only one slice of reality.

Knowing God exists is no different than knowing my car mechanic exists. You might object to this right off the bat, but think about it. Suppose someone says their friend went to Europe on a vacation, but he promises to call when he returns. It would be absurd to claim because I can't see him and touch him that I can't be sure he exists. The Bible also tells us of a God who has been here tangibly in the past (Jesus), has told us about himself, who has gone away and has promised to return.

Have you ever seen one of those Magic Eye pictures? (You look at it sort of cross-eyed, or 10' beyond it, and then the picture comes into clarity.) We have to learn how to see a coherent pattern. We process clues, we learn how and where to focus, and we can make something out of it.

Knowing God, knowing my mechanic, or seeing the picture: we're just learning to evaluate data to derive a coherent pattern of reason.