There is a Heaven

[Sean]

You said that children under the age of 7 do not believe in the supernatural. I'm here to tell you that they do.
You also made the sweeping generalisation that children under the age of 7 are not indoctrinated. I'm telling you that in many cases they are. You may recall I mentioned having to learn the catechism at the age of 5? The catechism is catholic doctrine. Feel free to look it up...
Not only that but the 'study' you cited was nothing more than a wikipedia article. 'Nuff said.


I didn't include baptism CP as the child does not 'take part' in the ritual as such. Not even the Irish would force a baby to learn catechism...



Or would they...

[Crackpot]

Baptisim represents basically a "plan to indoctrinate"

[Lord Jim]

children under the age of 7 do not believe in the supernatural

Children under the age of seven, (even under the age of 10) definitely believe in the "supernatural"....

Otherwise this guy wouldn't be so popular...

[Crackpot]

Actually, I should say it's a promise to indoctrinate

[loCAtek]

I did stipulate that children have very active imaginations, but if they were being indoctrinated to point of being unable to think for themselves, then 99% of the population would still believe in Santa Claus.
It is at around the age of seven that they/we begin critically thinking about whether they/we believe for themselves what they've been taught or exposed to. As we age we continue to decide.


On baptism, I thought that was more insurance on your baby being admitted d to heaven, since in the bad old days, many infants didn't survive their first year.

[loCAtek]

LMAO - Between the ages of 5 and 6 I was forced to learn and was tested on catechism. Then I had to take part in a ceremony whilst being told that if I didn't 'accept Jesus' and take it all very seriously I would burn in hell for all eternity like all of the protestant children.

You don't call that indoctrination?

Well, obviously, it didn't work.

[loCAtek]

Reading the book, would of course be the best way to judge it. Sean has a point that as a good myth-buster, I should looking for physical evidence so here it is;

Colton spent a total of 17 days in two hospitals, two days in a Chase County hospital and 15 days at Great Plains Regional Medical Center. A week after Colton's first surgery, he was released. He was in the elevator with his family when the doctor stopped them and said he couldn't go. Blood tests showed indicators there was still poison in his system.

Doctors suggested to the family Colton be taken to a children's hospital, but a snowstorm prevented them from making it to either Denver or Omaha. Todd, his family and his church prayed for Colton overnight and in the morning the infection was gone.

"That night God touched him," Todd said. "He was a different kid the next morning."

This was a change doctors hadn't expected. Todd said a nurse told him they were told not to give the family encouragement.

"They didn't think Colton was going to make it and when they tell us people aren't going to make it, they don't," Todd quoted the nurse.

Subsequent CT scans done at the hospital showed no sign of puss and no sign of infection. Colton had made it through a harrowing ordeal. It wasn't until later Todd found out about the experiences Colton had during one of the operations.

Lexington Clipper-Herald.

As stated, this is not to suggest one-sized Near Death Experience fits all. However, what I don't understand is the objections to a positive religious experience.

This boy was healed.
This families prayers were answered.
His father, a clergy man, didn't molest him.
Colton was never told about the Crucifixion, so he wasn't frightened by an angry God.

Did I miss the memo that says, we can only post about negative dogma?

[Sean]

Not at all. You can post about any kind of dogma you like... as long as you don't expect it to go unchallenged by those of us with a more open mind. You will find (from me at least) objection to any kind of experience (negative or positive, religious or otherwise) if I feel that the facts don't gel with the conclusion as evidence.

For instance:

This boy was healed.

Which is of course something to be glad about.

This families prayers were answered.

No evidence supports this. Is it not possible that the tests were flawed or he recovered due to some means other than 'divine intervention'?

His father, a clergy man, didn't molest him.

I don't recall anybody claiming that he did. You're being a little over-dramatic there.

Colton was never told about the Crucifixion, so he wasn't frightened by an angry God.

Nobody says he was. I would suggest that he was probably told about a kind Jesus and guardian angels; and that is what his fevered brain conjured up to help him through his trauma. People are often too quick to jump to the supernatural explanation without giving any thought to the body's amazing power to protect and defend itself...

And seriously Lo I for one am always eager to expand my knowledge on all subjects. I would really like you to point me towards the studies you have read which conclude that "children aren't indoctrinated, or inclined to believe in the supernatural till about seven". I'm sure they will give me food for thought on this whole issue...

[Scooter]

I can remember my parents taking me to church from age 4 at the latest.

I was being given religious instruction in kindergarten (age 5) since I attended Catholic school.

[Gob]

Actually the best age to get kids believing in nonsense is between the ages of 4-8. Piaget described this as the "preoperational stage".

Egocentric, Animistic, and Magical Thinking . a. When researchers change the nature
of the visual display to include familiar objects and use methods other than picture selection, 4-
year-olds show clear awareness of other's vantage points. b. Preschoolers adapt their speech to fit
the needs of their listeners. C. Research indicates children's animistic responses result from
incomplete knowledge about objects, not from a rigid belief that inanimate objects are alive. d.
Between 4 and 8 years, as familiarity with physical events and principles increases, children's
magical beliefs decline. e. A realistic understanding of death is based on three ideas-permanence,
universality, and nonfunctionality. Without explanation, young children rely on egocentric and
magical thinking to make sense of death. Ethnic variations suggest that religious teachings affect
children's understanding.

2. Preoperational stage [2-7 years] - Language is the big thing. They are developing ability to think symbolically and to use language. But, child's thinking is still very intuitive. Very concrete. The name for a thing is real--is the thing. Can't shut them up. Words become intriguing and fascinating to them. But they have a tendency to confuse words with the objects they represent (if a child labels a block a car and you use it to make a train, child may be upset.) To children, the name of an object is as much a part of the object as its size, shape, and color. This brings about a preoccupation with name calling, and an insulting name may hurt as much as 'sticks and stones." "You panty-girdle!" is no joke. Quite egocentric = unable to take the viewpoint of other people. Can't differentiate between fantasy and reality. [Magical thinking. The child is the center of the world, it is "mine" and "I made that happen." "Real" sense of control. If parents are going through divorce problems, the child may feel totally responsible. Not a period of logic. What the child can see and manipulate concretely --that's the experience. Experience is not what the child might logically follow through...*] Reversibility (unable to reverse their thoughts - "I have a brother, Tim." "Does Tim have a brother?" " No.") NOTE: Although children are beginning to talk to themselves and act out solutions to problems, touching and seeing things will continue to be more useful than verbal explanations. Concrete examples will also have more meaning than generalizations. The child should be encouraged to classify things in different ways. Learning the concept of conservation may be aided by demonstrations involving liquids, beads, clay, and other substances.

So if you want to get kids to believe that everything around them is made by a big man in the sky (who came down to earth so that we could kill him in order for him to forgive us,) and gf they are not good boys and girls and behave in the way your cult wishes, (pagan ham etc) then he will burn them in hell for eternity, or ignore them, or whatever, then this is the age to start frightening them into servitude teaching them your cult's mores.

Which is why religious indoctrination instruction is always started early, you wouldn't want them tothink for themselves not follow your own beliefs would you?

[Big RR]

I recall reading an article a while back from a religious leader who said the same thing(in defense of early religious training/education); FWIW, it's my biggest problem with organized religion. I am troubled that the truth would be something that has to be drilled into young children or they will never come to the belief system on their own (if this is indeed true). FWIW, most religious/spritual people I know came to their beliefs in adulthood, many in direct contradiction of what they were taught as children.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Which is why religious indoctrination instruction is always started early, you wouldn't want them tothink for themselves not follow your own beliefs would you?

A lot of truth in Big RRs closing sentence. I'm interested in the notion expressed above and which I think Big RR alluded to in having a problem with "organized" religion (presumably as opposed to disorganized religion?) and "drilling" of things into young people's heads. Should truth not be taught and who determines what is truth?

Setting aside some rather repugnant practises (like that Christian boot camp thing), what is the difference between "educating" and "drilling"? We used to have "times tables" drills at junior school: all chanting 2 x 2 is 4 and 2 x 3 is 6 and so on. I always had trouble remembering that 9 x 8 was the same as 8 x 9. When does "organized" religion do this drilling and where do they do it?

I would think that if Gob truly wanted children educated to "think for themselves" he would cheer on Religious Education classes in school (at least in the form of comparative religion). And why is the "drilling" into children's heads of the absence of religion (the removal of any god possibility) from school not exactly occasioned by the same overwhelming desire to "follow (my) beliefs"?

I've been a Sunday School teacher for years and my four year olds knew about the crucifixion, resurrection, heaven and all other manner of biblical things. They kind of preferred David and Goliath because of getting to kick over all those cardboard walls built out of wine box dividers . But they got the gospel right from day one - and that just built on what they'd been doing for the previous two years.

In the case of the four year old in the OP, it astounds me that a child as OLD as that and the son of a pastor has escaped a lot of "drilling". Where does the pastor put his children on a Sunday when he's preaching? Of course, I can't 100% dismiss the child's story but I'm hovering somewhere around 99.9999999999999999999999999%

Meade

[Big RR]

My point Meade was not that instruction was, in and of itself, bad; what concerns me is the belief, rightly or wrongly, that unless they are taught young, we will "lose" them forever. I don't buy it, but if it really is true,it bodes badly for religion.

And FWIW,i see "drilling" as teaching ideas without understanding, memorizing, e.g., a catechism rather than discussing ideas contained therein. And this occurs in many churches (indeed,i helped many of my RC friends to memorize their catechism and can still recall most of it). Now how not teaching religion is "drilling" is beyond me;perhaps yu could explainthat?.

[Gob]

I would think that if Gob truly wanted children educated to "think for themselves" he would cheer on Religious Education classes in school (at least in the form of comparative religion). And why is the "drilling" into children's heads of the absence of religion (the removal of any god possibility) from school not exactly occasioned by the same overwhelming desire to "follow (my) beliefs"?

No one has argued for the drilling of the absense of religion into kids heads, though I would argue for philosophy and thinking skills over any religious eductation. Religious education, comparative or not, should not be then remit of schools. (IMHO)

[Big RR]

Religious education, comparative or not, should not be then remit of schools. (IMHO)

I agree.

Meade--do you really want something as important as this is to you to be taught by the public schools?

[thestoat]

Religious education, comparative or not, should not be then remit of schools

But the problem then is that without the bombardment on impressionable young minds children, who have many other demands on their time, might move away from religion. And then in a couple of generations god would die. You wouldn't want that would you?

[thestoat]

His father, a clergy man, didn't molest him.

I don't recall anybody claiming that he did. You're being a little over-dramatic there.

I think the point was that there can sometimes be occasions when a member of the clergy doesn't molest a child

[MajGenl.Meade]

My point Meade was not that instruction was, in and of itself, bad; what concerns me is the belief, rightly or wrongly, that unless they are taught young, we will "lose" them forever. I don't buy it, but if it really is true,it bodes badly for religion.

And FWIW,i see "drilling" as teaching ideas without understanding, memorizing, e.g., a catechism rather than discussing ideas contained therein. And this occurs in many churches (indeed,i helped many of my RC friends to memorize their catechism and can still recall most of it). Now how not teaching religion is "drilling" is beyond me;perhaps yu could explainthat?.

I see - OK. As with languages or math, children taught at an early age are more likely to retain what is taught. Barna has done research indicating that children who are taught Christianity before the age of 7 (not drilled - I agree that's not good) are more likely to remain 'churched' than if they are not. This does not reflect a judgement of quality - just a factoid.

I don't think one should worry about the future of Christianity (you use the word religion, I recognise). God's in charge and He will not lose any one who should be saved. From Nietzsche to thestoat the prediction of God's demise has been much exaggerated.

Using your definition of "drilling" (particularly the 'not understanding' part) then to NOT teach something is NOT drilling; I agree. I was thinking more along the lines of teaching all other things BUT.... which has the same purpose. (BTW reviewing the USA standing in education vs the world, I might hazard a guess that the lack of drilling and effective teaching in the subjects that are offered indicates that the absence of relgious education is almost equalled by the absence of any education. With that track record the teaching of religious studies may not be something I'd like to turn over to the schools )

I wouldn't mind Gob's suggestion of Philosophy for that encompasses examination of why things are. Still I could see people getting their knickers twisted about that too, no matter what their worldview. Comparative religion classes are taught at higher levels and you are right Big RR to suggest that this too could be poorly done in my view. I'd rather the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity and the law of excluded middle were "drilled" into the little buggers. But if Christianity is truth, then I would not be afraid about (and I have participated in) teaching children about Islam and other religious views.

Meade

PS all the kids are away on a long summer camp and the soup kitchen has been discontinued by our sponsor so other than religious studies at SATS (I'm on Apologetics and the Wisdom Books at present - 280 credit hours completed) I have some time on my hands.

[loCAtek]

This boy was healed.
This families prayers were answered.
His father, a clergy man, didn't molest him.
Colton was never told about the Crucifixion, so he wasn't frightened by an angry God.

Did I miss the memo that says, we can only post about negative dogma?

This was a bit of a jest, as while this forum is called Philosophy and Religion, much posted in it is criticism of dogma and fanaticism.

Some thoughts then Sean, and no I wasn't saying i couldn't speak to you about various topics; and I'm also sorry I can't on in length about the other points brought up, but I'll try to get to them soon.

There seems to be some semantic confusion, that being taught anything about faith or religion, is being 'indoctrinated'. It could lead to that possibly, but at that age there's a lot more conditioning that would need to done to call it complete subjugation. In this case, it's been admitted by the father/pastor that he had not taught his son advanced teachings, and he had not given him catechism as they were not Catholic. Checking that out Pastor Burpo was a Wesleyan (think “conservative Methodist”)

From Wiki;

In addition to anti-slavery, the early Wesleyan Methodists championed the rights of women. The Wesleyan Chapel in Seneca Falls, New York hosted the first Women's Rights Convention in 1848, also known as the Seneca Falls Convention. It is commemorated by the Women's Rights National Historical Park in the village today. Luther Lee, General President in 1856, preached at the ordination service of Antoinette Brown (Blackwell) the very first woman ordained to the Christian ministry in the United States. The Alliance of Reformed Baptists of Canada ordained the very first woman to the ministry in Canada in the late 1800s. At the general conference in 1867, a resolution was adopted favoring the right of women to vote (as well as the right of freedmen—blacks). This was 44 years before the US constitution was amended to allow women voting privileges.

So, along with chlldren's versions of Biblical teachings, the above is also likely what the boy Colton was learning about in his household. The real basis of any true religion, which is to love and respect each other.

[Sean]

Don't worry, there is absolutely no confusion on my part on what being indoctrinated means... Indoctrination does not allow for questioning of what one is 'taught'; it is a completely blinkered and closed-minded form of 'education'. It is exactly what one might expect to find in a household where the parents are deeply religious... say a Pastor and his wife for argument's sake.

It's also worth pointing out that catechism is the Christian doctrine not just the Catholic one (although it is typically associated with Catholics) so we cannot in good conscience completely rule out the (albeit unlikely) possibility that it was used in this case. You should also be aware that catechism is not the only way to indoctrinate a child. And if it is indeed true that the good pastor had not taught his son 'advanced teachings' it is highly unlikely that he would be learning anything yet from that wiki article you quoted. My guess is that he would have learned about how God and Jesus love him and send guardian angels to look after him; angels who are often as not quite musical what with the heavenly choirs and the harp playing and what have you...

Sound familiar?