Should I let my parents force me into going to church?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That was quick.

I just got a private message where the kid alleges he is real. And he is not a crazy lady... yet.

Michael

[We Erred Rand]

I find it interesting that Karl Marx and Ludwig von Mises believed the same erroneous narrative about the origins and evolution of money. Marx, at least, believed that he had historical evidence. Von Mises, on the other hand, made it up rationalistically, being a Kantian idealist.

Following Menger, Mises claimed that money is a good like any other good and that it obeys the same economic laws to which all goods are subject.

The reason people hold money today is that they expect it to have a certain purchasing power tomorrow; that expectation derived from yesterday's expectation of today's purchasing power; etc. The reason this is not an infinite regress into the distant past is that money must eventually resolve itself into its original desire to be held or exchanged directly as an actual commodity-good, as oppposed to being exchanged indirectly as a money-good. There's nothing "Kantian" about this. Mises is simply employing logic. You should try it sometime.

For further reading, see:

http://mises.org/daily/1333

"The Origin of Money and Its Value"

Robert P. Murphy

[We Erred Rand]

For example, what it they apologized and stated at some future date that they were wrong in their current positiion?

A...

For that matter, what if Evan apologized and stated at some future date, "Gee, mom and dad, considering the fact that I'm living in your home, eating your food, attending school on your dime, driving dad's car, and misspending the allowance you both generously give me, I think I'll take you up on your kind invitation to join you for Easter in church"?

Are you ruling out that possibility?

[tmj]

I'm not sure how atheist a 16 yr old can really be. A mature reasoned person can explain the integrations required to understand that atheism is a point of view that comes from an explicit integrated understanding of philosophic axioms. But proir to such integration proclaiming atheism has a more rebellious tinge. My 'formative' years were spent in an a-religious household, as far I can remember religion was never even discussed. I do not think that situation stemmed from any kind of intellectual stance on the part of my parents, and I do not remember asking questions of them on the subject. I do remember 'celebrating the eucharist' a few times, but only because I had spent the night at my catholic friends houses and going to church with them the next day and simply not being stopped from getting in line, I remember being curious about what the wafers tasted like oh yeah and you get wine. I did wonder if on entering a church if or whether I would experience some spiritual call or some such, but not surprised that I hadn't.

I do not think simple exposure to religious ceremonies or rites are harmful or dangerous to thinking individuals, unless those rites include things akin to proving faith by handling serpents or the like.

There is a danger though in the indoctrination of children with religious teachings, but I think it is fair to say that a teenager that identifies as atheist has not been indoctrinated.

I agree with your assessment. Evan read The Fountainhead at 14. In my experience as a parent, youth group leader, and high school teacher, I can attest that 14 year olds are knuckleheads when it comes to philosophical acumen. While they may be intelligent and get good grades, they lack the experience for this level of analysis. But since MEM informed us that Evan said we were “all shooting in the dark”, I get the impression that Evan really doesn’t know where his head is.

RE: your last statement about indoctrination. Having admittedly grown up in an areligious home, how did you come to this conclusion? Would this apply to indoctrination in Objectivism? Personally, I’m against indoctrination, religious or otherwise.

While religious indoctrination in the past may have had some bad consequences, people of my generation and later have a pretty healthy dose of skepticism and question pretty much everything including their religious upbringing. Most adult Christians do not remain the same church as their upbringing.

re the point about indoctrination

Yes it would apply to O'ism and children. If by indoctrination we mean trying to instill concepts, ideas or notions that require a context they have yet to integrate, especially things that deal with philosophic principles. At what age or level of understanding do you think children should be asked to understand metaphysics?

[We Erred Rand]

He never specified his religion.

He never specified his religion? He said he was an atheist! I guess you probably mean that he never specified his parents' religion. You're right. It was simply synecdoche on my part: I used one part, or sect, of the Christian religion (Catholicism) to represent the whole. Perfectly legitimate figure of speech. Look it up. Anyway, I'm reasonably sure, however, that Evan's parents are neither Jewish nor Muslim.

It is metaphysically impossible to apply Christian (altruist) ethics and survive. No one has done it. In every case of a predominantly altruist society existing and enduring - monasteries whether Catholic or Buddhist, just for example - the source of the success was the compromise of individual virtues of intelligence and productivity expropriated by the community and also of "trade" with the outside world in the form of donations and gifts. They also traded in the positive sense, producing goods such as beer and wine for sale. But even so, consider, for instance the old USSR whose gold mines were worked by political prisoners. The "success" of communism was based on the wide application of that principle. So, too, with all altruist societies. At root, no altruistic person has ever consistently applied that morality and lived to tell about it. It is metaphysically impossible.

Do you have a counter-example?

I have lots of counter-examples, but first you have to cite concrete examples, and not just breezy generalities.

>>>It is metaphysically impossible to apply Christian (altruist) ethics and survive.

That's a breezy generality, not a concrete example.

>>> No one has done it.

Breezy generality.

>>> In every case of a predominantly altruist society existing and enduring - monasteries whether Catholic or Buddhist, just for example - the source of the success was the compromise of individual virtues of intelligence and productivity expropriated by the community and also of "trade" with the outside world in the form of donations and gifts

Breezy generality. Can you cite specifics, such as which monasteries? When? Where? Something specific?.

>>> They also traded in the positive sense, producing goods such as beer and wine for sale.

Yes, the Benedictines, Trappists, Cistercians, and others made wine, cheese, and other products. No one except possibly an Objectivist has ever claimed that production and trade are incompatible with altrusim and Christianity.

>>> But even so, consider, for instance the old USSR whose gold mines were worked by political prisoners. The "success" of communism was based on the wide application of that principle.

No it wasn't. There's nothing about communism in the old USSR that was altruistic. Without going into specifically economic arguments about communism, one might claim with a great deal of truth that the reason the old USSR failed was that it was thoroughly atheistic, with a ruling elite who believed in nothing but their own power. We might say this: there has never been a successful civilization in history that upheld atheism.

And now you are welcome to cite counter-examples.

[tmj]

A definition of a successful civilization may be helpful first.

[We Erred Rand]

>>>>A definition of a successful civilization may be helpful first.

Nothing exotic was meant. You can use Marotta's "Existing and Enduring" as two characteristics.

[Selene]

For example, what it they apologized and stated at some future date that they were wrong in their current positiion?

A...

For that matter, what if Evan apologized and stated at some future date, "Gee, mom and dad, considering the fact that I'm living in your home, eating your food, attending school on your dime, driving dad's car, and misspending the allowance you both generously give me, I think I'll take you up on your kind invitation to join you for Easter in church"?

Are you ruling out that possibility?

Of course I considered that possibility.

[Mike82ARP]

RE: your last statement about indoctrination. Having admittedly grown up in an areligious home, how did you come to this conclusion? Would this apply to indoctrination in Objectivism? Personally, I’m against indoctrination, religious or otherwise.

While religious indoctrination in the past may have had some bad consequences, people of my generation and later have a pretty healthy dose of skepticism and question pretty much everything including their religious upbringing. Most adult Christians do not remain the same church as their upbringing.

re the point about indoctrination

Yes it would apply to O'ism and children. If by indoctrination we mean trying to instill concepts, ideas or notions that require a context they have yet to integrate, especially things that deal with philosophic principles. At what age or level of understanding do you think children should be asked to understand metaphysics?

By bad indoctrination, I mean teaching concepts,etc., and at the same time demonizing opposing views rather than comparing/contrasting them. All philosophies entail some form of indoctrination.

At what age do I think kids understand metaphysics? Well, I think metaphysics and epistemology are two sides of the same coin. From my observations the majority of kids (in the US, anyway) probably develop this around 10th/11th grade.

[George H. Smith]

@Ghs: >>>At 16 you may not legally be an "adult," but you are certainly an adult in terms of your ability to make reasoned decisions.

Do you know the kid personally? You mean, automatically, just by virtue of biological age, the ability to make reasoned decisions "kicks in"? I don't think so. Additionally, how do you know this was a reasoned decision and not simply some spur-of-the-moment whim, as in "I just don't feel like going"? Most teenagers make most of their decisions in this manner; what makes you so sure that Evan isn't doing so also? Just because he claims to have read the Fountainhead?

>>>Moreover, even the legitimate rights of parents do not include the right to violate the conscience of their children.

Saying to Evan, "Son, we'd really like for you to join us at church on Easter" is, in your view, a violation of their son's conscience?

>>>Your parents are wrong, in other words, pure and simple.

Evan's parents are WRONG (morally?) for WANTING him to join them at church during Easter?

>>>It is difficult for an outsider to give advice in this matter, but here is what I would do.

Notice, please, Evan, the use of the first-person-singular: "Here is what I would do." Let's see if he's able to maintain this:

>>>1) I would make it clear that you view being pressured to go to church as a violation of your conscience,

(Ahem) I would make it clear that I view being pressured to go to church as a violation of my conscience.

>>>and that as Christians they should understand and respect this principle. You respect their decisions in this matter, and they should respect yours.

(Ahem) I respect their decisions in this matter, and they should respect mine.

>>>You might even ask them to consult their minister in this matter and ask his advice.

(Ahem) I might even ask them to consult their minister in this matter and ask their advice.

>>>Many Christian ministers -- the intelligent and conscientious ones, at least -- would counsel them to respect your decision.

(Ahem) Many Christian ministers . . . would counsel them to respect my decision.

[That last statement is a riot. Yes, I can see it now:

"Minister, our son doesn't want to join us at church for Easter. What should we do?"

"Well, let's see. Has he read The Fountainhead?"

"Why, yes, we believe he has. Why do you ask?"

"It has been my experience that when an adolescent of the male sex has read The Fountainhead and responded positively to it — and by 'positively', I don't just mean masturbating furiously over the rape scene, but actually grasping the deeper meaning of individualism and integrity comprising much of the theme of that great novel (and please, please! Don't misunderstand me! I'm not saying that he shouldn't masturbate furiously over the rape scene! God forbid! I would never dare to interfere...I mean, when I read the novel as an adolescent and I began to furiously... I mean, well, never mind...), to continue: I have found that adolescent men, that is, teenage boys, appear to be fully in control of their cognitive faculties, and completely able to make informed, mature, reasoned decisions. So if he wants to stay home on Easter, do not violate his conscience by enticing him with the promise of free food, and cajoling him with the possibility of a romantic liaison (perhaps even a tryst) with one of our juicy, nubile female church members. That would be morally wrong, plain and simple. Respect his rationally-informed wishes and let him stay at home."

"Thank you, minister! That was a great help, and eased our burden considerably. God bless you!"

"You're most welcome! By the way, what did your son plan on doing during that time while you two are attending Easter service?"

"He told us that he wants to reread the rape scene in The Fountainhead."]

* * * * * * * * * *

See that, Evan? Even when someone claims not to pressure you by saying "It is difficult for an outsider to give advice in this matter, but here is what I would do", he reveals (by unwittingly switching pronouns) that he's really telling you what to do. Don't you find that fascinating?

He does...I mean, they do...I mean, I do.

Truly one of the dumbest posts I've read in a long time....

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Probably drunk.

--Brant

been there, done that

[tmj]

RE: your last statement about indoctrination. Having admittedly grown up in an areligious home, how did you come to this conclusion? Would this apply to indoctrination in Objectivism? Personally, I’m against indoctrination, religious or otherwise.

While religious indoctrination in the past may have had some bad consequences, people of my generation and later have a pretty healthy dose of skepticism and question pretty much everything including their religious upbringing. Most adult Christians do not remain the same church as their upbringing.

re the point about indoctrination

Yes it would apply to O'ism and children. If by indoctrination we mean trying to instill concepts, ideas or notions that require a context they have yet to integrate, especially things that deal with philosophic principles. At what age or level of understanding do you think children should be asked to understand metaphysics?

By bad indoctrination, I mean teaching concepts,etc., and at the same time demonizing opposing views rather than comparing/contrasting them. All philosophies entail some form of indoctrination.

At what age do I think kids understand metaphysics? Well, I think metaphysics and epistemology are two sides of the same coin. From my observations the majority of kids (in the US, anyway) probably develop this around 10th/11th grade.

10th/11th graders on average would probably be the age I would guess. Richard Dawkins makes the case that children younger than this should not be exposed to religious indoctrination because to exercise free choice in the matter(and all the 'matters' involved with accepting a religious point of view) one should have a near fully formed rational capacity. He makes great pains to explain how much he hates even the labeling of children : Hindi children, Xtian children ect. I agree with his position, for the reasons I stated, the subject matter is at a fairly high level as far as the ability to integrate all the complex abstractions involved with making those choices about accepting things as true. Not that we shouldn't teach 'about' metaphysics and epistemology in general but we should be very careful not present things that are based on a context or level of abstraction they have yet to acquire. Not exactly the same but similar to the idea of expecting children to grasp calculus without them having a fair mastery of arithmetic.

[Mike82ARP]

RE: your last statement about indoctrination. Having admittedly grown up in an areligious home, how did you come to this conclusion? Would this apply to indoctrination in Objectivism? Personally, I’m against indoctrination, religious or otherwise.

While religious indoctrination in the past may have had some bad consequences, people of my generation and later have a pretty healthy dose of skepticism and question pretty much everything including their religious upbringing. Most adult Christians do not remain the same church as their upbringing.

re the point about indoctrination

Yes it would apply to O'ism and children. If by indoctrination we mean trying to instill concepts, ideas or notions that require a context they have yet to integrate, especially things that deal with philosophic principles. At what age or level of understanding do you think children should be asked to understand metaphysics?

By bad indoctrination, I mean teaching concepts,etc., and at the same time demonizing opposing views rather than comparing/contrasting them. All philosophies entail some form of indoctrination.

At what age do I think kids understand metaphysics? Well, I think metaphysics and epistemology are two sides of the same coin. From my observations the majority of kids (in the US, anyway) probably develop this around 10th/11th grade.

10th/11th graders on average would probably be the age I would guess. Richard Dawkins makes the case that children younger than this should not be exposed to religious indoctrination because to exercise free choice in the matter(and all the 'matters' involved with accepting a religious point of view) one should have a near fully formed rational capacity. He makes great pains to explain how much he hates even the labeling of children : Hindi children, Xtian children ect. I agree with his position, for the reasons I stated, the subject matter is at a fairly high level as far as the ability to integrate all the complex abstractions involved with making those choices about accepting things as true. Not that we shouldn't teach 'about' metaphysics and epistemology in general but we should be very careful not present things that are based on a context or level of abstraction they have yet to acquire. Not exactly the same but similar to the idea of expecting children to grasp calculus without them having a fair mastery of arithmetic.

Good point. But when you wrote, "free choice in the matter(and all the 'matters' involved with accepting a religious point of view) one should have a near fully formed rational capacity”, it seems to imply that somehow free choice for the kids would be negated in the future. Dawkins himself was raised (or indoctrinated) in the Anglican Church, but later exercised free choice in making a determination on his worldview, so Dawkins is making a specious assertion in this case which does not surprise me.

The teaching my kids receive is relatively simple. We do not expect them to comprehend complex theological issues, but in order to avoid raising kids with a relativistic mindset, some sort of authoritative basis for teaching is necessary.

[tmj]

RE: your last statement about indoctrination. Having admittedly grown up in an areligious home, how did you come to this conclusion? Would this apply to indoctrination in Objectivism? Personally, I’m against indoctrination, religious or otherwise.

While religious indoctrination in the past may have had some bad consequences, people of my generation and later have a pretty healthy dose of skepticism and question pretty much everything including their religious upbringing. Most adult Christians do not remain the same church as their upbringing.

re the point about indoctrination

Yes it would apply to O'ism and children. If by indoctrination we mean trying to instill concepts, ideas or notions that require a context they have yet to integrate, especially things that deal with philosophic principles. At what age or level of understanding do you think children should be asked to understand metaphysics?

By bad indoctrination, I mean teaching concepts,etc., and at the same time demonizing opposing views rather than comparing/contrasting them. All philosophies entail some form of indoctrination.

At what age do I think kids understand metaphysics? Well, I think metaphysics and epistemology are two sides of the same coin. From my observations the majority of kids (in the US, anyway) probably develop this around 10th/11th grade.

10th/11th graders on average would probably be the age I would guess. Richard Dawkins makes the case that children younger than this should not be exposed to religious indoctrination because to exercise free choice in the matter(and all the 'matters' involved with accepting a religious point of view) one should have a near fully formed rational capacity. He makes great pains to explain how much he hates even the labeling of children : Hindi children, Xtian children ect. I agree with his position, for the reasons I stated, the subject matter is at a fairly high level as far as the ability to integrate all the complex abstractions involved with making those choices about accepting things as true. Not that we shouldn't teach 'about' metaphysics and epistemology in general but we should be very careful not present things that are based on a context or level of abstraction they have yet to acquire. Not exactly the same but similar to the idea of expecting children to grasp calculus without them having a fair mastery of arithmetic.

Good point. But when you wrote, "free choice in the matter(and all the 'matters' involved with accepting a religious point of view) one should have a near fully formed rational capacity”, it seems to imply that somehow free choice for the kids would be negated in the future. Dawkins himself was raised (or indoctrinated) in the Anglican Church, but later exercised free choice in making a determination on his worldview, so Dawkins is making a specious assertion in this case which does not surprise me.

The teaching my kids receive is relatively simple. We do not expect them to comprehend complex theological issues, but in order to avoid raising kids with a relativistic mindset, some sort of authoritative basis for teaching is necessary.

I would agree that some sort of authoritative basis for teaching is necessary, but this would require that the authority be very cognizant of the material presented , I think. I do not mean to single out Christianity as the only example, but.. should children be taught that Jesus was killed for the redemption of them? It seems to incorporate many higher level abstractions which I think results in those types of ideas being accepted solely on the argument from authority perspective, which I would think most rational adults would not accept as valid for themselves. I mean by that they would not accept that the validity of the argument was sound, not the conclusions drawn, but of course they would have a broader context of knowledge to make that determination about whether or not to accept the truth of that conclusion .

[Mike82ARP]

Well, you’re heading in a different direction. Anyway, can kids understand the concept of sin? Yes. It is analogous to disobeying their parents. Can they understand that there are consequences for sin? Yes. They realize that every time they are punished for misbehaving at home.

I’m a rational adult and think Christianity is perfectly rational if you understand the meta-narrative of the Bible. Most people, including many Christians and nearly all atheists do not. What I’ve learned from the Bible comports with what I’ve seen in the world based on my purposely diverse experience as an individual, egoist, parent, student, cop, Army paratrooper, fraud investigator, chiropractor, and teacher.

[Brant Gaede]

Did you jump off (drop off) the 200' tower at Benning?

--Brant

[Mike82ARP]

Did you jump off (drop off) the 200' tower at Benning?

--Brant

Yup!!! I was then with the 82nd and later 5th Group at Ft Bragg.

[Brant Gaede]

Was that the red patch?

--Brant

[Mike82ARP]

Was that the red patch?

--Brant

This one for the 82nd

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/82_Airborne_Patch.svg

If you meant the SF badge backing, the 7th group had the red and the 5th the black with the Vietnamese flag ribbon which was removed years after I got out.

[Brant Gaede]

I was in the seventh at Bragg in 1966 (after training group) and the fifth in Vietnam 1966-67.

--Brant

[Mike82ARP]

I was in the seventh at Bragg in 1966 (after training group) and the fifth in Vietnam 1966-67.

--Brant

Good man....Those were some tough years to be there. Was group at Bunker Hill at Bragg in your day? I guess you ETS’d after your tour. I almost re-upped, but got married and didn’t want to subject my wife to military life.

[Brant Gaede]

I knew Vietnam was a crock and the military sucked anyway so that was that for me. In jump school in 1965 a training NCO told us trainees that conventional forces were going to be committed to Vietnam. I wondered if it was going to be like Korea with +40,000 dead Americans in several years. Then I considered that they stopped the fighting in Korea because they could draw a defensible line across the country. You couldn't do that in Vietnam. When I was in Vietnam, the 10,000 American was killed. I escorted two of them in Nov. 1966 to the morgue at the airbase/airport in Saigon. There was a long row of empty marble slabs streching away from those bodies. I knew it was slack time. Many more bodies were coming. Payback was six day later when we "accidentally" went into Cambodia and killed 56 communist soldiers using airboats, hoovercraft and Hueys. It was completely surreal, like that "Heart of Darkness" movie set in Vietnam.

I don't know or remember(?) "Bunker Hill." For my time it was "Smoke Bomb Hill."

--Brant

[We Erred Rand]

>>>Truly one of the dumbest posts I've read in a long time....

Well, thank you, Ghs! I've always thought the same thing about all of your posts. In fact, I'm amazed at how you manage to outdo yourself in dumbness from one post to the next.

In your last one, I especially enjoyed the operatic hyperbole — the drama-queen overblown-ness — of your assertion that parents who request of their teenage son that he join them at a service in observance of an important religious holiday (the most important holiday for Christians) are violating his conscience!

Brilliant high satire!

[9thdoctor]

One might always try recreating this scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2h9HuqmWC8

[George H. Smith]

>>>Truly one of the dumbest posts I've read in a long time....

Well, thank you, Ghs! I've always thought the same thing about all of your posts. In fact, I'm amazed at how you manage to outdo yourself in dumbness from one post to the next.

In your last one, I especially enjoyed the operatic hyperbole — the drama-queen overblown-ness — of your assertion that parents who request of their teenage son that he join them at a service in observance of an important religious holiday (the most important holiday for Christians) are violating his conscience!

Brilliant high satire!

Should a serious thought ever occur to you, however unlikely that may be, please let us know.

Ghs