no such thing as a neutral world view
People are still talking here about Richard Dawkins bizarre views on religion after his recent TV programmes. Thing that baffles me about Richard Dawkins’ line of argument is that he seems to consider himself neutral. He argues that children should not be "indoctrinated" with religion, simply left to make up their own minds later. But if you don’t teach them religion, you don’t teach them nothing, you teach them an alternative. An atheist point of view is just as much a "religion" as Christianity in the sense that it is a worldview with a commitment to belief that extends beyond rational thought.
The real issue in raising and teaching children is not WHETHER to teach them a world view, but thnking about what you are teaching them (both deliberately, and subliminally), about how to give them a sense of security yet also the freedom not to think in every way as you do, so as to extend and not limit their capacity to engage with the world. You have to measure carefully in order to give them both a sense of security and confidence in what they know, and that necessary degree of agnosticism required for any kind of genuine, honest enagement with the world. I teach my son both what I know, and also what I believe – but I also teach him that not everyone believes as we do. I teach him that widely accepted views (such as most of the science we "know") is always contingent, always subject to revision. I teach him what I think – but I also try to teach him how to think. I give him the space to try out ideas that spill over the edge of what I believe, for the sake of allowing him to think and weigh and own the beliefs he grows up with. Recently he made friends with a child from a Jewish family, and said that we should pray only to God and not to Jesus – his reasoning being that he didn’t want to think he was "leaving his friend out" when we prayed. Rather than inisisting on our "orthodoxy", I went along with it, taking it as an opportunity to teach him a bit about the common ideas and history of the two religions, and how to live constructively with people who agree with us on some things and disagree on others. We didn’t convert, we gained confidence both in the stability and the flexibility of our own faith.
Of course, I may decide 20 years from now that I got it wrong. But I think there is all the difference in the world between "indoctrination" and teaching about God and faith from within a religious viewpoint.
6 Responses to “no such thing as a neutral world view”
Comments
-
author musician theologian
Maggi has kept a blog since September 2003, writing about theology and faith, the arts and literature, and a little about life and random nonsense...
In an increasingly secularised society few people have a good working knowledge of the Bible. Yet a great deal of our culture is built on stories or ideas that come from the Bible. Literature, art, music, language and even the fabric of our society - such as our justice system - are built on Christian concepts and biblical references. The Writing on the Wall provides a fascinating introduction to the Bible's best-known, and most influential, stories. Each chapter gives some background to the text of the Bible, and shows how the stories have become enmeshed in Western culture. Adam and Eve, the ten plagues of Egypt, The Prodigal Son and Mary Magdalene all feature - along with how the Bible has influenced everyone from Shakespeare to Monty Python, and Caravaggio to Banksy. 
Giving It Up explores the Lenten idea of 'giving up', taking it beyond the traditional idea of simply abstaining from something, and suggesting instead that what we need to give up is our existing ideas about God. With a daily readings for each day of Lent, from Ash Wednesday to Easter Sunday, it follows the heroes of the Bible who had to give up their own too-small ideas about God.
This is Maggi’s bestselling book of daily readings for each day of Advent, Christmas and Epiphany. Advent is the beginning of the Church year, and marks the anticipation of the coming Messiah. These readings explore how beginnings and endings in our own lives are illuminated by the different Gospel narratives of Christ's coming.
-
Search
-
-
I imagine that Dawkins might say that if theists assert that God exists, the burden of proof lies with them, and if they cannot make their case atheism is the default position.
I found this sentence of yours intriguing – “I teach my son both what I know, and also what I believe – but I also teach him that not everyone believes as we do.” – I’m not sure what you meant by “we”, did you mean “we” as in Christians, or we as in “My Son and I?”..because I wonder if children do believe in the same way as adults do, or whether they just “believe” what they are told? I think I “believed what I was told” until I reached the age of about 15; whereupon I decided I was being told a lot of nonsense. But then I was being told, in a very dogmatic way, things which in reality are very much up for debate, and asked to accept them on the say-so of adults who I now think did not offer any adequate explanations, and who in many cases had maybe not thought their own faith through very well at all.
I’m wondering if I should start my own blog rather than filling yours up with vast blatherings like these.
“if theists assert that God exists, the burden of proof lies with them, and if they cannot make their case atheism is the default position.”
I’ve heard this claim quite often, but the base assumption behind it is atheistic (in other words, it assumes the atheist is right beforehand). Why should the atheist’s claim be the default position? It’s by far the minority both historically and currently. The default human belief has always been in the divine – surely the atheist needs to present evidence to refute this!
pax et bonum
Hello John,
But the point is not about belief, it is about existence. If you assert that something exists (in this case God, but it could be anything) the burden of proof lies with you. Personally I would say the default is agnosticism (as the word is commonly used), I was simply speculating on what Dawkins might say.
TonyB – “as we do” referred to me and my son. For the time being, at any rate, the two of us believe this way.
Why is the burden of proof on theists? For the same reason (thanks to Bertrand Russel) that if I was to posit the existence of a teapot orbiting the sun (or fairies at the bottom of the garden) the buden of proof would be on me. It doesnt help understanding or acting in the world to assume the existence of anything and everything until shown otherwise. It would lead to a rather crowded (let alone self-contradictory) world for one. For similar reasons, the burden of proof is on the theists. (& btw: once youve ‘proved’ the existence of god you can go on to prove why your particular brand of abrahamic god is the one. I won’t wait.
for some reason my last comment wasnt approved but can I at least suggest that those who comment on Dawkins’ book read it first? Quite clearly deals with the questions of “burden of proof’ (subject of my last comment quoting Russel) and indeed of “neutrality”. He clearly claims the God Delusion is – unlike earlier books -seeking to change opinions. And no-one is claiming religion shouldnt be taught but rather taught objectively: “here’s what some people believe (from christianlity to islam to hinduism to the flying spaghetti monster…) and here are the critisisms of this as a tenable belief system to make sense of the world. btw: Maggi, I don’t know how old your son is, but is he old enough to make an informed decision about which – if any – faith system he believes in? Why isnt he a muslim? only because you arent? Again, to quote the good prof D: no such thing as a “christian child’ (or ‘atheist child’) only a child of christian parents. Would one refer to a ‘Keynsian’ or ‘neo-Hegelian’ child. Of course not. So why label kids with other at least as complicated – and contested – belief systems?