are going to give up an activity they've practiced for perhaps 200,000 years on this guy's say-so.

If we start teaching religion as a bunch of silly fairytales, than students will abandon it and it will disappear.

I don't know if he's right, but even before you get to that question, you have to consider the likelyhood of schools teaching it as a bunch of silly fairytales. That seems unlikely.

Bryant

religion is rebounding in Russia and China, two nation where children were/are still being taught that religion is a bunch of silly fairy tales.

Last edited Tue Nov 11, 2014, 12:45 AM - Edit history (1)

Krauss didn't say it WILL be gone in a generation. He said it CAN be, if we take certain steps.

But I agree with him, if we put our minds to it, and teach children how to approach the question of faith on their own, rather than telling them what to think.

Problem is, we aren't. For every family I know, raising a child like mine, there's at LEAST one family I know actively indoctrinating sub-5 year olds into a particular faith.

And suspiciously, I note none of these children are of a different faith than their parents. I know an enormous number of Christian families. All their kids speak of Jesus. Not a single one speaks of Allah and his Prophet Muhammad, or the Dali Lama/Enlightenment, or any other number of enormously popular current religions.

Not one.

Fascinating.

No, religion won't be gone in a generation, because the precondition Krauss suggests, isn't happening. And that's why Krauss DIDN'T say 'will be gone'.

There are at least two of them.

I said it CAN be. (In agreement with Krauss that it is possible.) I didn't say we must or should.


Edit; obviously I am biased, and obviously I would prefer such an outcome, but I'm not proselytizing about it. I pointed out why the precondition Krauss specified isn't happening and won't happen, and thus the outcome won't happen.

There's another factor I didn't mention, but, also, humans appear somehow predisposed to faith. Not universal, but statistically measurable, and childhood teaching cannot account for all of it.

If I meant child abuse, I'd have said it, because I do not lie, equivocate, or hide the truth.



indoctrinate
/ɪnˈdɒktrɪˌneɪt/

verb (transitive)
1. to teach (a person or group of people) systematically to accept doctrines, especially uncritically.
2. (rare) to impart learning to; instruct


I stand by that usage. It is not slander, slur, insult, or anything else. It is purely descriptive of the behavior I have observed. And I noted material reasons why it rises to the level of 'uncritically' or 'systematic'. If I saw deviation from the faith of the parents in young children, then I would withdraw that description. However, I don't see a statistically representative portion of Christian or Islamic households with children of the opposite faith. (one of many possible combination examples)

This is quite different from my household. I don't/will not systematically instruct my child to be an atheist. He is simply unaware of things like the concept of god(s). He will discover them in due time, and he may choose one if he wishes. My household is de facto 'atheist' in that no gods are actively worshipped here. There is no need for an atheist doctrine, it is my son's natural unaltered state.

If you feel that use of 'indoctrinate' is not valid as a descriptor, I do not know a word I can substitute it with to show a systematic instruction of doctrine, without critical evaluation. It is what it is.

I can't promise to be fluffy and cuddly, but I do promise to be honest in this venue.

Many believers believe that they have subjected their beliefs to critical evaluation, and found them to stand up to that; I understand that you don't believe that's accurate.

I was raised as a believer - and my mother was fairly uncritical in her beliefs, but my father, I feel, encouraged inquiry and questions. He felt that if you didn't question your faith, as you would question everything else, your faith would remain weak. He was a believer and he hoped that his children would build a relationship with God as well, but he didn't want that belief to be based on parroting what he or our religious leaders said.

But from your point of view, it's likely that any real critical evaluation of faith would find it wanting.

Bryant

It's more likely that democracy could vanish in as generation than religion.

Krauss certainly will be gone in a generation

Not sure what you meant about the GA though.

The Little Red Book, the salute to the Emperors, and even today's observance of Veterans Day, are all civic values imparted by societies and parents. Many of these values are dubious and all of them are debatable.

There is nothing wrong with a parent or a society imparting to its young what it values. That is in fact the mechanism of human progress from one generation to the next. As long as a critical mind is imparted as well.

In my child as a given either. A nation must earn the respect of the citizens, just like any individual.

Our government as it stands today cannot rest on the laurels of the past, and expect citizens to view citizenship as any more binding than our selection of cable subscription. (protection of our rights as terms of service, for example. Can I get a better deal in... Germany? Possibly.)

Nothing said, to an adult or a child, is free of peculiar values.

I took it to mean that religious skepticism should be taught as part of our educational system. He was presenting on cosmology and education - and that if the state took it upon itself to educate children properly about religion it would fade away - once they get in the school system I mean.

But you are referencing childhood education between a child and a parent. Not sure what could be done about that - and reasonably certain you wouldn't want the state to get involved in that (although I could be wrong).

Bryant

That would be horrible. Enough people already view the state not allowing pro-religious instruction (First amendment issue for public schools) as the converse; active secular indoctrination. That alone has blowback issues.

And, it would violate the First Amendment in my opinion.

I think it might be a little late to teach skepticism for that purpose in schools, but, better than nothing, and it applies to everything we do as a society, implications far beyond religion/not religious.

I'm reminded of that song with the refrain, "I'm the King of Wishful Thinking..."