Scientology

PDN

5uspect wrote:

Instead, I seem to get the impression from theists that faith is a revealed truth that emparts absolute undeniable knowledge.

Now, 5uspect, you have put your finger on what I suspect (no pun intended) will always be a sticking point between us.

This does not apply to all theists by any means, but this particular theist (PDN) does believe that certain things are absolutely and undeniably true because they are revealed truth. The same would apply to many Christians.

Therefore I treat revealed truth just as I would something that I have seen with my own eyes. Now, I am always open to the possibility that my interpretation of revealed truth is wrong (just as I am open to the possibility that I saw a mirage or illusion and that therefore what I saw with my own eyes was actually misleading) but it would require some pretty strong evidence to bring me to that conclusion. Our concepts of faith, then, are very different. This has already been discussed in other threads, particularly on the Christianity forum. To try to discuss it on this thread will only veer us further than ever away from the OP.

Now, you may (or perhaps 'will' should be more accurate) disagree with me on this. You may see me as being stupid, dogmatic or deluded. That is your inalienable right in a free and democratic society.

The real disagreement, as I see it, is that I believe I have the right to hold my beliefs. I do not have the right to enforce them upon others, but I do have the right to peaceably share my beliefs with others in the hope that they might embrace them. I also believe I have the right to advocate, and to work for, a secular society, with complete separation of church and state, where all religions and philosophies can compete in an open market place. I have consistently argued for this in numerous threads both here and on the Christianity forum. The problem, as expressed in this thread, is that others appear to have a real issue with an evangelical Christian holding and expressing such views.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

I have no problem with people arguing back. I do have a problem with you accusing me repeatedly of arguing by analogy when, in fact, I am using an example or illustration. The two are quite different.

No you are using analogies. From wikipedia:

"In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from a particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is general."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

What do theology and an 80s movie have in common for the purpose of a theological argument - nothing.
Listen, I am trying to pick at your arguments here, not you personaly. Nothing personal is intended and apologies if something was said that hurt or annoyed you.

Your posts are enjoyable and challenging. I would be confident saying, I am not the only person here who thinks that.

5uspect

PDN wrote:

Now, 5uspect, you have put your finger on what I suspect (no pun intended) will always be a sticking point between us.

It does look to be the case.

PDN wrote:

Therefore I treat revealed truth just as I would something that I have seen with my own eyes. Now, I am always open to the possibility that my interpretation of revealed truth is wrong (just as I am open to the possibility that I saw a mirage or illusion and that therefore what I saw with my own eyes was actually misleading) but it would require some pretty strong evidence to bring me to that conclusion.

So you trust your eyes and mental processes? I think that this is a huge mistake on your part. You have no way of trusting any of these.

For example, in my work I use a laser to illuminate fluid flow for measurement.
The laser is a pulsed laser and fires a pulse of light that lasts for arounf 5-8 nanoseconds up to 200 times a second. (Its pretty cool the whole lab glows green! ) Now if I fire the laser just once my eyes aren't fast enough to detect it, I don't see anything. I have no way of knowing that the light was there, apart from the image that the high speed camera I'm using captures. Now this laser is whats called a Class 4 laser which means that a single pulse fired directly into my eye is enough to not only blind me but make quite a mess of my eye ball. Now How do I know that there is indeed light there?
Quantum mechanics (it had to go there some time!) describes how a laser should work. The maths can be worked out in different ways to come to the same conclusion, independent of our mental inadequacies. The results are quite counter intutiative and trusting our evolved commom sense is not a good idea. There is no reason for our senses to tell us the truth to ensure our survival.

PDN wrote:

Our concepts of faith, then, are very different. This has already been discussed in other threads, particularly on the Christianity forum. To try to discuss it on this thread will only veer us further than ever away from the OP.

True, I don't want to drag this much further off topic.

PDN wrote:

Now, you may (or perhaps 'will' should be more accurate) disagree with me on this. You may see me as being stupid, dogmatic or deluded. That is your inalienable right in a free and democratic society.

I wouldn't say stupid, far from it, ill informed or at most slightly naive perhaps.
It seems you've made your mind up based on personal experiences of something you cannot show to be the case. We are both free to think what ever we wish, there should be no such thing as a thought crime, however, to claim so and so is the "truth" without reason is arrogant and (willfully?) ignorant.

PDN wrote:

The real disagreement, as I see it, is that I believe I have the right to hold my beliefs. I do not have the right to enforce them upon others, but I do have the right to peaceably share my beliefs with others in the hope that they might embrace them.

I don't deny you the right to hold beliefs, but you're stating them as facts. Telling a child your beliefs as fact is effectively enforcing these beliefs.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

"Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." (the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

Please underline the bit in Article 18 that says or implies you have the right to indoctrinate your children into your religion?

Surely the Article 18 applies to children as much as adults, and therefore children should be given the opportunity to make up their own mind?

PDN wrote:

Every Jew is entitled to raise their child in the Jewish faith, every Muslim is entitled to raise their child in the Islamic faith, and (much as it may irk some on this board) Christians have the right to raise their children in the Christian faith.

Says who?

PDN wrote:

Where this right is denied by totalitarian regimes, it is protested as a breach of human rights.

You haven't yet established it is a human right to raise your children in your religion. You have just said every religion does it, on which we can both agree.

Should a child not be free from the religion of their parents being imposed upon them? Is that not a "basic human right" under Article 18

PDN wrote:

Let's imagine that Israel passes a law forbidding children to receive religious instruction from their parents. This law applies equally to Jews and Palestinians. You know what happen next. Amnesty International would begin jumping all over the case and as fast as you can say "Shalom" a Resolution would come thundering down from the UN condemning Israel for yet another human rights violation.

That isn't an example, since it hasn't happened. I'm not quite sure how to comment on something that hasn't actually happened.

PDN wrote:

I did something similar with a crowd of people. I asked them if they wished that their parents had taught them that Christ loved them, that their parents had taught them Christian values. Their response was very vocal and very positive.

That actually supports my point PDN.

The parents of these people, be they lax Christians, Muslims, Buddhists or what ever, raised their children as they wished without exposing them to other beliefs. They clearly didn't expose them to different religions or let them make up their own mind about Christianity.

The people you met clearly seem annoyed that they didn't realise Christianity was an option earlier.

You could equally find a Christian like your daughter annoyed that she wasn't exposed to a religion like Islam earlier, and might claim that such exposure would have helped her young life.

It is the responsibility of parents to teach and inform, not to indoctrinate or preach.

You should be teaching your daughter about Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism (and of course atheism) as much as Christianity, and anything else you have time to teach her about, and letting her make up her own mind, so she doesn't turn around in 15 years time angry and upset with you because she didn't realize earlier that Muhammad loves her.

PDN wrote:

"When I spoke about the resurrection, the applause increased by ten decibels - therefore it must be true!"

I would certainly accept that your audience liked hearing about the resurrection, if that is what you claimed.

You seem to be ignoring though the central point though, that Dawkins met a group of young adults who were rather annoyed that they had been indoctrinated into their parents religion as a children when they didn't know any better. You yourself seem to find these people as well, annoyed and angry that they are only being exposed to Christianity now.

I'm sure there is similar resentment with Islamic converts in the west, who are annoyed that they "wasted" a large amount of their childhood being indoctrinated into pointless Christianity rather than being exposed to other religions like Islam and given the choice to make up their own mind.

Running through all this PDN is the common theme that these people are annoyed and angry at their parents because their parents only taught them one thing, only taught them what they believed in.

But rather bizzarely you seem to support this single indoctrination approach, so long as it is indoctrination into Christianity, ignoring the obvious issues that should be clear to you from your example above with a simple switching of "Christianity" to "Islam" and "Jesus" to "Muhammand".

You go further and claim that such indoctrination is not only good, it is a basic human right of the parents to do this.

Surely it was a basic human right then of the parents you mention above, to not educated their children about the religion of Christianity, and damn the children if in later life they are resentful that they weren't informed about this particular religion?

You are also ignoring the obvious fact that as soon as these people could think about it they didn't want to follow their parents religion, and were rather annoyed that their parents had been trying to make them for so long.

The rights of the child seem to being brushed away in favour of the "right" of the parent to indoctrinate their children

I mean no personal offense PDN, I'm sure you are a great father who loves your children very much, but this attitude to the issue is an example of why atheists and particularly secularists such as myself are made very nervous by attitudes towards children such as yours

PDN

Lifted from Amnesty International's Canadian website:

Article 20 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states: “A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the State.” Article 30
states: “In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or persons of indigenous origin exist, a child belonging to such a minority or who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her
own religion, or to use his or her own language.”

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

Lifted from Amnesty International's Canadian website:

Article 20 is irrelevant.

Where in Article 30 does it state a presumption that the religion of the parents shall be that of the child, or give parents the right to indoctrinate the child into their religion?

Arguably Article 30 protects the child from such indoctrination by protecting the child's right to practice and profess his or her own religion.

At what point can a child be considered to "belong to a religious minority". Surely not until the point where he or she has been given full and balanced information and allowed to make up his or her own mind. In a secular society, being born to parents who adhere to a certain faith doesn't - or shouldn't - automatically make the child a member of same.

UU

There's nothing more to it - Scientology is a crazy, nutty and evil cult full of crazy, nutty and evil leaders who endeavour to take over vulnerable people's minds. They believe in things even more stupid than Christianity and Islam, such as alien thetas being stuck to our bodies and emporer Xenu. And it was set up by a wacko science fiction writer called L. Ron Hubbard who was a big fake and made a claim that the best way of earning money is to set up a religion, and boy wasn't he very clever and right! Of course, I don't see Scientology as much different than extreme fanatical forms of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. as they all work on similar principles of mind control tactics, etc., etc........

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Lifted from Amnesty International's Canadian website:

No one is suggesting PDN that a child, or anyone else for that matter, be denied the right to "to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language."

In fact what you quote above is key to the argument.

Everyone has the right to decide what is their own religion, and practice that based on that decision. That includes children.

What you are doing is confusing the religion of the parent with the religion of the child

A parent should facilitate this decision, through education and exposure, not make the decision for the child.

This, as we have both seen, can lead to resentment and anger towards the parents.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

No one is suggesting PDN that a child be denied the right to "to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language."

What you are doing is confusing the religion of the parent with the religion of the child

Everyone has the right to decide what is their own religion. That includes children.

A parent should facilitate this decision, through education and exposure, not make the decision for the child. This, as we have both seen, can lead to resentment and anger towards the parents.

Oh yes, the child decides its own religion just like it decides its own culture and language. I see, that must be what Amnesty is talking about. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Oh yes, the child decides its own religion just like it decides its own culture and language.

Yes, of course he/she does!

For someone who calms to be interested in defending individual rights you don't seem to really get the purpose of the articles you quote, nor do you apply them to children for some bizarre reason.

I know a girl who was born to Greek parents but grew up in London. Who decides how she feels about what is or is not her culture, her or her parents?

If she thinks she is "British" but her parents think she is "Greek," who is right, her or her parents?

If she thinks English is her first language and prefers to speak it in general conversation, but her parents think Greek is and don't like her speaking English, do they make that decision for her?

(BTW her parents are nothing like this, I use it just as an example)

A child has the right to decide their own identity, just as an adult does.

A I've said before parents should (and should want to) facilitate this choice, not make it for them. This includes culture and religion.

rockbeer

PDN, it sounds as though rather than advocating a secular society, you instead support a ghettoised one in which you are left alone to practice your particular brand of faith without having to engage with the responsibilities being a proponent of secular society places upon you.

Significant amongst these is to allow your children the full benefits of secularism which you yourself wish to avail of, i.e. to receive a balanced education as free as possible from religious bias.

A secular society isn't something you can just take advantage of in order to enjoy religious freedom for yourself. It places duties on you too.

History suggests that faiths can only be sustained by exposing young, impressionable children to them. If your arguments are so persuasive, why not give your children the full picture and let them decide for themselves?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Yes, of course he/she does!

For someone who calms to be interested in defending individual rights you don't seem to really get the purpose of the articles you quote, nor do you apply them to children for some bizarre reason.

I know a girl who was born to Greek parents but grew up in London. Who decides how she feels about what is or is not her culture, her or her parents?

If she thinks she is "British" but her parents think she is "Greek," who is right, her or her parents?

If she thinks English is her first language and prefers to speak it in general conversation, but her parents think Greek is and don't like her speaking English, do they make that decision for her?

(BTW her parents are nothing like this, I use it just as an example)

A child has the right to decide their own identity, just as an adult does.

A I've said before parents should (and should want to) facilitate this choice, not make it for them. This includes culture and religion.

And if she was raised as Greek Orthodox?

pinksoir

PDN wrote:

And if she was raised as Greek Orthodox?

That's the whole point. She doesn't choose, she is raised that way.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

And if she was raised as Greek Orthodox?

Then she would probably be a bit pissed off about that fact if she became a Muslim at 23

Because her parents attempt to raise her Greek Orthodox doesn't mean she is Greek Orthodox

PDN

pinksoir wrote:

That's the whole point. She doesn't choose, she is raised that way.

Exactly, the whole point is that she was raised that way. And the Convention of the Rights of the Child, and Amnesty International, nowhere hint that her parents have infringed her rights by raising her that way. What they do say is that she should have the right to continue in her religion.

Of course if, or when, she chooses to reject or change that religion of her own free will she should be absolutely free to do so.

It is laughable to insinuate that allowing parents to raise their children in a particular faith is somehow incompatible with a secular society. The most secularised societies in the world, such as Norway, have never attempted such an attack on the rights of parents to do this. The only societies I am aware of attempting such a thing would be Communist, Nazi, or wedded to one extremist religion (Spain under the Inquisition, or Islamist societies).

So far we have had a lot of hinting. Is any poster here really prepared to lay their head on the block and say that they would support legislation to prevent parents from raising their children in the faith of their choice (obviously excluding anything that is commonly agreed to be harmful such as physical or sexual abuse)? Would any of you, for example, support legislation that would prevent Christian parents from teaching their children about heaven and hell from the parents' own perspective?

pinksoir

Missing the point entirely again. It isn't about preventing the parent from doing anything, but rather emphasising teh point that what is right for the parent may not be right for the child and it is in the child's best interests to be educated in all religions and then given the right to choose instead of having a bias towards one from birth. How do you not get this?

rockbeer

Exactly ^^

No one here has advocated banning or suppressing religious education. I for one merely want to see it properly balanced by other points of view.

Why do you find this so threatening?

PDN, it is you who has advocated witholding certain (i.e. non-christian) information from your children, and teaching them your beliefs as though they were incontrovertible fact.

To fail to teach them that other equally valid viewpoints exist is a denial of their human rights.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Exactly, the whole point is that she was raised that way. And the Convention of the Rights of the Child, and Amnesty International, nowhere hint that her parents have infringed her rights by raising her that way. What they do say is that she should have the right to continue in her religion.

That only works if you consider that her religion is automatically the religion of her parents.

Why would that be?

The whole point of Dawkins (and others, he certainly wasn't the first to argue this), is that a child's religion is not automatically the religion of his/her parents. A child should choose their own religion when they are old enough to understand what that actually means. Parents should support this decision through educating the child to the world around them.

PDN wrote:

Of course if, or when, she chooses to reject or change that religion of her own free will she should be absolutely free to do so.

Why should she have to reject or change a religion that she never actually picked in the first place?

PDN wrote:

It is laughable to insinuate that allowing parents to raise their children in a particular faith is somehow incompatible with a secular society.

Its incompatible with respecting the child. Secular society is not the issue, bad parenting is.

PDN wrote:

The only societies I am aware of attempting such a thing would be Communist, Nazi, or wedded to one extremist religion (Spain under the Inquisition, or Islamist societies).

My parents did this, and I can assure they were neither Communists nor Nazi (that I'm aware of) :rolleyes:

PDN wrote:

Is any poster here really prepared to lay their head on the block and say that they would support legislation to prevent parents from raising their children in the faith of their choice

I don't think any poster here brought up legislation except for you.

It is not really an issue of laws and legislation, it is an issue of what is right and wrong. You cannot legislate that a parent be a good parent. But that doesn't stop someone from saying "Hold on, it is the wrong way to treat a child"

As Dawkins says it is not about legislation, it is about consciousness-raising. All he can do is write books, all the rest of us can do is post to internet forums.

joe_chicken

pinksoir wrote:

what is right for the parent may not be right for the child

And who decides this? The child?

pinksoir wrote:

it is in the child's best interests to be educated in all religions and then given the right to choose instead of having a bias towards one from birth. How do you not get this?

You have this image of a perfect world where everyone is born a blank sheet with completely no bias, and that through learning ALL the religions they can make an objective choice....

Impossible.

How do you propose doing this? Shutting them in a big dark room right after birth with a library of religious texts and telling them not to come out until they've made up their minds?

Zombrex

rockbeer wrote:

No one here has advocated banning or suppressing religious education. I for one merely want to see it properly balanced by other points of view.

Quite the opposite in fact, I consider the wide ranging exposure to different world religions in my childhood as being extremely valuable education to me.

There is a difference between teaching children about religion and teaching them that one particular religion is the correct one.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

My parents did this, and I can assure they were neither Communists nor Nazi (that I'm aware of) :rolleyes:

Your parents attempted to pass legislation on this issue? I don't believe you.

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote:

And who decides this? The child?

Of course the child!

You think a child cannot make judgments on their own over what aspect of religion or culture they accept or don't accept, believe or not believe?

joe_chicken wrote:

You have this image of a perfect world where everyone is born a blank sheet with completely no bias, and that through learning ALL the religions they can make an objective choice....

Impossible.

Why?

Are you suggesting that religion outlook is genetic?

joe_chicken wrote:

How do you propose doing this? Shutting them in a big dark room right after birth with a library of religious texts and telling them not to come out until they've made up their minds?

Or, and this is a radical idea I know, simply teaching them about different religions without putting forward any one religion as the "correct" one

Millions of parents around the world do this every day, as mine did.

rockbeer

joe_chicken wrote:

How do you propose doing this? Shutting them in a big dark room right after birth with a library of religious texts and telling them not to come out until they've made up their minds?

Not at all. It is the responsibility of each parent and educator to give the child balanced answers to their questions and provide the most honest information possible. This does not mean teaching the child that the parents opinions are necessarily right. Neither, as a parent, does it mean not telling your child your opinions.

It does involve telling your child that your opinions are just that, and that alternate equally valid opinions exist. It also involves giving them the evidence, rather than the answers according to you, and thus the opportunity to use their intelligence to think things through for themselves.

It doesn't have to be a perfect world, it just involves people making a bit of effort.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Your parents attempted to pass legislation on this issue? I don't believe you.

No, my parents attempted to raise me in an environment where I was introduced to different religions and people of different religions, and my parents particular religious views were not put forward as correct or ones that must be followed.

Its pretty simple really. No legislation. No Nazis. No Communists. Just respectful parenting.

And I think you realize this, even if the concept makes you uncomfortable. I understand that you believe that your faith, and only your faith, is the correct one, and therefore you think it is in the best interests for your children to be taught this "correct" faith.

But ultimately it is up to your children to decide on their own what is or is not correct for themselves when it comes to religion or other personal beliefs.

5uspect

Dawkins uses the example of the feminists as an example of "consciousness-raising". Today we wouldn't think twice about a woman casting a vote or going out and getting a job but at the time such a thing was unthinkable. They did as the're fathers/husbands said. In a similar manner Dawkins says he wants people to cringe when they hear the term Cathilic child or Muslim child because that child is not old enough to know whay it is yet.

Its about changing an attitude not the law. Like I said earlier, if you were to tell your daughter that you "hoped" so and so was the case, rather than I definately "know" so and so. Its about being completely honest and not being biased in dealing with religious issues.

joe_chicken

Wicknight wrote:

Are you suggesting that religion outlook is genetic?

Or, and this is a radical idea I know, simply teaching them about different religions without putting forward any one religion as the "correct" one

Millions of parents around the world do this every day, as mine did.

The point I'm making about the dark room is that all sorts of things bias what we believe in (whether directly or indirectly), so no matter how our parents "teach" us, we will still be profoundly effected by what they actually believe.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Millions of parents around the world do this every day, as mine did.

Yes, and look how you turned out.

ONLY KIDDING!

Zombrex

I remember when I was about 7 my dog died I asked my grandmother what happened to him.

She took me for a walk in the park and talked about different ideas of the afterlife, from different cultures and philosophies (I distinctively remember the idea of the Native American "Happy Hunting Ground"). She talked about what she thought, and what my grandfather thought, but also about what others thought.

And when she was finished she turned and asked me where I though my dog was. We both had a bit of cry afterwards.

This is one of my fondest memories of my grandmother.

The most important thing about the above story is that I owned my own idea on where my dog went. I wasn't given it or told to accept it.

Children are not as stupid as people think. They are capable of forming their own ideas given the opportunity and the education and most importantly the opportunity.

I am certainly not saying we should hide religion from children. Children often take greater comfort from religion that adults. I certainly believed that my dog was in an after life, where as now I certainly don't. But it must be their religion formed by what makes sense to them.

There is nothing more important to a person, including a child, than the ownership of their own ideas.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Yes, and look how you turned out.

ONLY KIDDING!

LOL ... guess I walked into that one

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote:

The point I'm making about the dark room is that all sorts of things bias what we believe in (whether directly or indirectly), so no matter how our parents "teach" us, we will still be profoundly effected by what they actually believe.

True, but if the parent believes that their child should make up their own mind, and acts in accordance with that philosophy, this to will have a profound effect on the child.

This isn't about which religion is correct.

This is about choice and the ownership of our own choices.