Raise Critical Thinkers, Not Atheists

The ultimate gift that all non-theistic parents can and should give to their children is the skill of critical thinking. By critical thinking I’m referring to a combination of empiricism (just the facts), rationalism (the application of logic and reason), and skepticism (a humble balance between credulity and cynicism). Non-theistic parents should instill in their children a willingness to critically examine their own beliefs, so that they will know what they believe and why.

You will be doing your children a disservice by dogmatically coercing them into rejecting theism. Foster in your children a desire for getting at the truth and teach them to be comfortable with uncertainty. Show your children that science and the scientific method are the best tools we have to understand the universe and everything in it. Let your children know that you are not opposed to the existence of things beyond our universe, but that at this point, there are no convincing arguments or evidence to warrant such a belief. Help your children see the importance of viewing all of the data they’re presented with as objectively as possible and to not let their emotions guide the decision making process.

I’m convinced that this is the best we can do for our children.

Certainly let them know your stance on the god(s) issue. But encourage and work with them to investigate the ‘arguments’ and ‘evidence’ for and against belief in the existence of the supernatural.

If you encourage your children to accept your word as authority on issues of belief, then you will be setting them up to one day replace your authority with someone else’s whose ideas you may not agree with. And that is certainly something I’m sure we’d all like to avoid. But most of all, love them no matter what they choose to believe.

“If a man begins with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.” – Sir Francis Bacon

Encourage your children to start with doubts — try not to force your certainty on them; it may one day backfire on you.

I am not ridiculing people, I am ridiculing a concept, an idea .. religion. I think it worthy of not only ridicule, but contempt for the bigotry and hatred that not only historically it has caused, but that it continues to promote. I think the right to do so is something worth fighting for, especially considering that religion holds as truth bigotry against those that do not believe.

I am realistic that the problems you face with your children and critical thinking is part of the over-arching problem of religion, and I do not see how you can avoid it, so long as you hold to these concepts as absolute truth.

I won’t as you do bring out singular situations to ‘prove’ a point of view, I’d rather look at the over arching effects of a concept. There’s a REASON atheists don’t fly planes into buildings, or shoot doctors.

I’ll leave you with this ..

If god wanted people to believe in him, then why did he invent logic?

I’ll be brief so as not to interrupt a thoroughly entertaining discussion. I think this is the kind of thought and dialogue that the world really needs.

Gee Suss: despite the confronting tone in some of your posts, I admire your calm patience, steady reasoning and welcoming style in this discussion.

John: I wish more theists were as honest as you and took the time you have to think these things through and aim for sensible, considered answers to what I know are tough questions for you. I second the recommendation of Dawkins’s science writing. He’s not only an eminent scientist but a remarkably clear teacher. You’ll love it.

This type of discussion is why it’s important we be free to openly criticise and share our ideas. Thanks to you both!

“Really, other than that, I think this discussion has just fallen back on yourself stating ‘Just have faith’, hence not getting anywhere. But I am realistic, faith is blind.”

I think so too. Your last post was a turning point. I was thinking about what you wrote last time. I think when you press my ultimately faith-based assumptions with questions that are based in rationality, you will tend to reveal the faith-based foundations that don’t strictly conform to rationality. I’ll try to say that better, when you use reason to interrogate faith, you will eventually find that faith is not reasonable at its core premises. It’s faith, that’s what it is.

You missed my point with the children response thing. I’m not asking for what you would say. I’m not trying to dodge biological reproduction either (I think it should come later though). I’m asking for what you think I should say given that I’m a Christian, and I believe that ultimately God created my child. Put yourself in my shoes. I know that I can’t be certain that God exists, but I trust this anyways. Presuming you are not going to change my faith, and presuming also that you care enough about my children to desire them to have critical thinking (ie you care about all children religious or not). How should I raise my kids to think more critically when they are so young they don’t have the capacities to be strictly rational. I have only a single critical situation in mind: the 3 year old. I would happily encourage my children to think and explore all manner of ideas as they get older, but when they are very young they are simply sponges. They can’t understand reasonable doubt, or levels of uncertainty. They are black and white, there is no grey. They understand bald indicatives like “God loves you”. They don’t understand questions of existential uncertainty, phrases like ‘probably exist’. I either tell them that God exists or I don’t. How can I be true to myself or my convictions if I don’t?

This is an invitation. Look with me at my practice. You have an intelligent perspective and real concerns, what can I do better? Or has my assumption that you are tolerant of personal beliefs been mistaken? Are you unwilling to think like a theist for even a moment and offer a better direction if one is available? If critical thinking in children is the goal, what more can I do with my 3 year old?

I think that not raising children to be critical thinkers cuts both ways. I have a friend whose father was a devout atheist. My friend recalls times when his father censored any public religious discussion to prevent his son being polluted. If God was discussed on the radio, he would switch channels, with the comment “turn that rubbish off”. I presume my friend was at an age where he could think critically. In fact, my friend was later very disappointed that his father did not help him critically engage with theistic assumptions. Rubbish? You are not saying this of course – I think you are intelligent and friendly. But surely you can imagine some of your atheist friends not showing the same grace (Brian above might be a suitable example). Isn’t that just as misanthropic when half the world (or more) is theist?

I am content to conclude this discussion, and I think that since it is your blog you ought to make the last comment. I will read it, I promise, but I won’t post any kind of lengthy response.

As I said at the beginning, I think this is a good blog. No matter who says what to you in these forums I support your right to be here and I welcome your existence wholeheartedly as critical commentators keeping the church honest. To quote you, “respect, even if we end up disagreeing”. Respect.

Exactly. This is a very telling remark. Religion gives them faith instead of teaching them critical thinking. Parents define their children by their faith, as ‘christian kids, ‘muslim kids’, ‘catholic kids’, etc, dividing them socially and in education. Religion is divisive. Your personal god is not really personal, when you pass the concepts to children as truth.

Bald ape? We have a common ancestor with all life on the planet, our common ancestor with the apes is just closer up the tree than many other species.

Indeed you could say we have a common ancestor with the mushroom, worms, maggots, grass, butterflies .. on and on .. all life.

How totally freaking awesome is that?!

Kinda leaves the ‘magical man did it’ lying in the dust, considering there is overwhelming observable evidence that proves it.

“What would you want me to do? Given my personal faith, if he asks me “Who made me, daddy?”, what should I say? ”

Your mother and I made you son. It goes like this …

Really, other than that, I think this discussion has just fallen back on yourself stating ‘Just have faith’, hence not getting anywhere. But I am realistic, faith is blind.

Your faith, your religion, not only closes the door to critical thinking, but does a good job of stopping others not of your faith being able to have their kids taught it in schools. It opens the doors to radical interpretations of your scripture that causes bigotry, and kills people in the name of your books god.

I might be taking a foolhardy approach here. But I think I’ll just blunder in… I think that my particular truth will ‘win’. I have my reasons, logic and evidence for this, but you have rejected my premises so what good is it to state them? I’ll state it anyways: Jesus Christ is the Son of God who will come back and demonstrate the truth of his claim for universal kingship once and for all, some time in the future. He was raised from the dead, as the victor over death, and the Bible tells me this proves he is king over everything.

“I argue no, as there is no ‘greater truth’ except for the individuals perception and circumstance.”

I think this is a strong argument. I do not refute it, except to offer (cheekily) that you have never encountered how truly amazing Jesus Christ is. Then you would be forced to admit his awesomeness!

With the religious children thing. I simply don’t see how it can work practically. I’ve thought about it seriously and I just don’t think children critically think at a young age. They can parrot critical thinking, but they are just trying to please you anyway. For kids faith = fact no matter what.

So what do you want me to do? Here are a few phrases for my 3yo, that he wouldn’t understand.
“God, should he exist, loves you.”
“In my opinion, God made you. But this could be wrong. You might just be a bald ape.” (Actually he’d probably like this one.)
“It’s up to you to decide, even though you often decide not to eat when you are hungry, and sometimes you decide to jump of tables into walls, and decide to take dumps on the floor. I’ll uphold your right to make critical decisions and allow you to make the decision of whether God exists.”

He’s going to choose to believe God exists because he wants to be like me. I’m his daddy. I give him critical thinking skills in all areas of life and he will undoubtedly apply them to the Christian faith we live out. And kids get very curious, they are always asking tough questions.

What would you want me to do? Given my personal faith, if he asks me “Who made me, daddy?”, what should I say? I believe God made him, I think he can understand it. It will be new information that he has to integrate and I think it ultimately helps develop his critical thinking because its an idea to master, and when alternative ideas arise he can master that also and then decide. What’s wrong with that?

1/ The awesomeness of Jesus Christ is a good reason to believe what religion sees as true.

Regarding belief and not-belief. I thought that was what I said. That’s what I meant by saying you refuse to play the game. You do not affirm the positive? I thought the concept might fit into one of those handy logic formulas… either way I think we are on the same page here.

2/ You nailed me! I’ve even spent 4 years learning Greek! I didn’t think that one through. Point happily conceded. Atheists were before Christians! lol

With regard my statement over “Why do you deny other religions gods? You will find the same reasons you deny them, is why I deny yours”

Let me ask a question .. Do you think that you would believe in Allah if brought up in Islamic society? Or would we be having this same discussion over that particular version of god, and the validity of it’s scriptures?

Myself, I have had these same discussions with people of various faiths and beliefs within wider faith ‘communities’, and all have the same convictions over their version of god. What is it that defines your god as the one true god, over all these others?

I argue there is familiarity, social influence and exposure that defines the majority lean toward a belief, not an inherent ‘truth’. If you would disagree, then why are there large religious communities of differing faiths? These people are already open to the concept of god, wouldn’t the greater truth just ‘win’?

I argue no, as there is no ‘greater truth’ except for the individuals perception and circumstance.

I also do not think you are ‘chucking away your brain’. There’s definitely a process there, but one major problem is this process or lack of it is projected onto young minds before they are able to critically think. They are automatically converted to ‘christian children’ or ‘muslim children’ and taught faith = fact. Critical thinking is not taught to these children. It’s effectively a virus of faith, extremely appealing and supported by popularity.

All children are born atheists.

1/ Of course I make assumptions, but I do so using reason, logic and evidence. An assumption is a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn. How we come to an assumption is very important to the value of it. Is their any good reason to believe what religion says is true? Not that I can find. I am not making an assumption your claims are not true, I cannot find any reason that they are. I am not assuming they are untrue, just because you postulate a concept. If I was to take the position that what you said was possibly true, I would be making an assumption as to that.

I can claim anything and it does not mean it is therefore a valid assumption. Not having a belief in god is not an assumption anymore than not stamp collecting is a hobby, or being bald is a hair colour. To state I am denying the positive is meaningless in the form that if you are not a theist, then you are an atheist. There is a big difference between positively believing that a thing does not exist, and simply lacking belief in it’s existence.

Do you only ‘believe’ the god Thor does not exist? Or do you ‘not believe’ in Thor? Are you ’simply denying the positive’, not affirming the ‘negative’?

Quite simply, this comes down to the burden of proof, and it lies with those that are making the claim.

2/ I was just stating this out of interest, as you mentioned in your own post. But since you are discussing it, I will point out that indeed you are actually incorrect. The word comes from atheos in greek, and was actively used in the 5th century BCE. Christians were not the ‘original atheists’, they were called that as anyone for hundreds of years that went before them were for not believing in the god of the majority. Diagoras was actively called an atheist, Socrates was as well, Euhemerus, Epicurus (even tho he was really a deist) .. The ‘Cārvāka School’ starting in India around 6th century BCE is probably the most explicitly atheistic school of philosophy in India. The earliest use of the term ‘theist’ was in 1662 by Edward Martin in “Five Letters”… atheists have been around before religion

\Why do you deny other religions gods? You will find the same reasons you deny them, is why I deny yours.\

I doubt it. This question troubled me greatly for many years. To cut a long story (I hope you take seriously that it is a long story) short I eventually found an odd sort of resolution in the fact that Jesus demanded exclusivity…. [pause] (this makes me look bad).

This sort of thing does make me look bad. I’m guessing when you talk to Christians they will tend to come up with crutch-sounding responses to hard questions. It’s true, we do. But contrary to what you think, many think hard about it. Admittedly not many are gifted enough to properly articulate the difficulties they encounter when trying to articulate how they should go about their grief and suffering. Or how troubling they find natural disasters. Or even how hard they find the Bible’s (seemingly) contradictory messages. For example when I try to boil down my long journey into a few compressed sentences, I will play into the stereotype you have of Christians, uncritical, irrational, leap of faith into the dark. Because at the end of the day, after years of hard, hard thought arriving at little noumenal phrases like ‘Jesus demands my exclusive worship’ seem like I’m chucking away my brain. Why do I deny other gods? Jesus asked me to. Great. Not only does it look like I disvalue any worth in other religions, it looks like I haven’t even investigated them, because captain Jesus told me not to. End of story.

Maybe I am chucking away my brain at the end of the day because I settle for an answer that requires faith. But, to press the analogy further – leaping into the dark can be very carefully planned, and can require determination and courage. The courage occurs in the relegating rationality to second place, in order to stake one’s life on the claims of a bronze-age text. This is not easy, esp when some of us are built to value reason, as you are.

To acknowledge your points: this applies to logical paradoxes and infinite regressions.

There are a few moments where I feel a little misheard. Not that I care, but I’ll clarify anyways:

1. \I do not refuse to accept a god exists, I am an atheist. I do not have a belief in a god. There is a very clear definition here I think you are missing, and something most of faith have trouble accepting.\

I originally didn’t say ‘accept’, I said ‘assume’. I think whether God exists is an assumption that you either affirm or deny or refuse to play the game. You refuse to play the game – I do not have a belief is simply denying the positive, not affirming the negative \God does not exist\. To your credit I believe this is the strongest atheist position.

I don’t feel you have adequately dealt with my charge that you also make assumptions at the most foundational level. You have to, everyone has to. I’m not being religious here, I’m being philosophical.

2. \For interest: Did you know the term atheist came before theist? (from atheos)\

This is a minor point, because you agreed with my sentiment. It’s not just that one term preceded the other (in which case, logically ‘theist’ would be primary, the negating suffix a- must be an addition to an original); my point was even more ironic – *Christians* were called atheists. Christians were the original atheists…. how’s that? Stick that somewhere on this website.

\I am open to changing my position, are you?\

This is very generous, Gee Suss. Of course I am! But this would not be the context under which fundamental changes would happen… I find these discussions stimulating; it makes me want to look more intently into things I should have a deep answer for, but don’t. I desire to be an increasingly critical thinker esp with regards to my faith, and a discussion like this inspires me.

‘No it would take something alot more sinister to change my fundamental positions’

PS. thanks for the Dawkins tip. Dawkins has a reputation for being a brilliant evolutionary biologist even in my circles. I would read him on this.