Seeds of Religion

[Ace Rimmer]

Alright, let's discuss religion and kids. Good? Bad? Ugly? According to this study, religion is good for kids, at least from a disciplinary standpoint. Please don't misunderstand here, I'm not touting the benefits or endorsing either religion or that study or it's validity. I'm simply pointing to an article to spark discussion. You should all know already my stance on religion and child rearing anyway.

What I want to know is what you think and why. Children start out completely helpless and must learn, either from *example or actual teaching (or a combination of the two). So, if you do not accept any sort of guidelines from "above", then how do you set standards and such and then go about enforcing them?

How did religion play (if any) part in your upbringing and would you be any different with/without it?

*everyone knows they learn mostly from how you act, not what you say, unless it's backed by how you act

[Xocrates]

According to this study, religion is good for kids, at least from a disciplinary standpoint.

That article is interesting, although I think the connection religion->good behavior is a bit simplified. In particular it implies that any social gathering where good values are taught could work the same way (regardless or religious affiliation or not).
I do like the final note that it may not simply be a case of religion -> good behavior, but a case of good behavior -> easier to attend religious services.

Anyway, I think the "guidelines from above" is a fallacy when it comes to define what is good and bad. A bit of introspection some time ago made me realize that there are very good reasons to follow many of the common religious teachings that however have nothing to do with religion. Many of those teachings are rules that allow us to work better as a society, and quite frankly that is more a good survival tactic (at least in ancient(er) times) that anything else.
Of the ten commandments, if you remove those that basically mean "There is only one god and I am it, so obey me" you're left with don't kill/steal from/or otherwise betray you neighbor and his trust. This is just general good advice if you live in social groups, as you might need his help someday.

As for my upbringing: As I mentioned in another thread I was exposed to religion, but since no-one really cared I was free to take my own conclusions and define my own beliefs. And quite frankly, I'm actually a bit scared of what the alternative might be, as I feel I have a freedom I might not otherwise have if I had been constantly hammered the point that there was one god and disobeying him will cause me to go to hell.

"All religions are true. For a given value of truth."

[Xarlaxas]

I think that religion is useful when it comes to raising kids because it provides a system of morality as well as rewards/punishments for following the creed. There is no need such a system to also include belief in God(s) or seraphin, djinni, or faeries, they just provide a framework for children to work by "be good and you'll go to heaven" or "if you're bad you'll go to hell".

Children need discipline in their lives it is true, and it is probably easier to call upon some kind of higher power to be watching all the time, waiting to dispense justice, but it's not really necessary, if parents take proper charge of their children's education, teach them proper morals and rules of behaviour from a young age they won't really need religion to provide that.

[Ace Rimmer]

So, a framework of morals or a code of ethics without the supernatural? What incentive would any person have for truly following such a code? Granted, religion as a whole has done a marvelous job of it , but my question still stands.

[Xarlaxas]

Punishment? Bring back spanking! Grounding, etc. Things which are actual tangible forms of punishment. ;-;

[Xocrates]

So, a framework of morals or a code of ethics without the supernatural? What incentive would any person have for truly following such a code? Granted, religion as a whole has done a marvelous job of it , but my question still stands.

Anyway, I think the "guidelines from above" is a fallacy when it comes to define what is good and bad. A bit of introspection some time ago made me realize that there are very good reasons to follow many of the common religious teachings that however have nothing to do with religion. Many of those teachings are rules that allow us to work better as a society, and quite frankly that is more a good survival tactic (at least in ancient(er) times) that anything else.
Of the ten commandments, if you remove those that basically mean "There is only one god and I am it, so obey me" you're left with don't kill/steal from/or otherwise betray your neighbor and his trust. This is just general good advice if you live in social groups, as you might need his help someday.

The last sentence sums it up nicely, I believe.

[Xarlaxas]

Indeed, we don't need to have divine beings to tell us how to behave, we have the intelligence ourselves to come up with our own rules and regulations to keep society in line.

[MaximusBrood]

When I would raise my children I would obviously not do it in a religious way, as I am atheist -- and no, I'm not going to joke that I would be raising them with the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the 'Magic Tree Fairy' .

I have a half-sister and half-brother from my father's side, and the they're now 7 and 9 years old respectively. I absolutely can't say that I raised them (as I only visited/visit my father once in a few weekends, usually), but I do think that I have some effect in their upbringing. I've always had the attitude to never explicitly hide information from them; if they ask me something, I won't ever shun from giving an honest answer except maybe about personal things I don't want to disclose. That makes everything open to discuss; not selectively censoring information like many parents do, when children genuinely ask things they want to know.

I think that helps much better than any religious framework can provide.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

So, a framework of morals or a code of ethics without the supernatural? What incentive would any person have for truly following such a code? Granted, religion as a whole has done a marvelous job of it , but my question still stands.

The incentive would be a better life. If you look at something like Taoism or Confucianism they rely almost entirely on the promise of a better life to provide incentive for adherence.

[Ace Rimmer]

But it's clear that society of it's own can't truly keep society "in line". Why would I say that? Because every time somebody comes up with a new way of harming another person, we as intelligent people must come up with a new law to say, "oh no you can't do that, either".

Case in point, the school shooting in Arkansas in '98. The law at the time did not take into account that children would want or attempt (and actually commit) murder of other children.

The two youths were among the youngest ever charged with murder in American history. The Jonesboro prosecutor later stated that were it not for their ages, he would have sought a death sentence for the pair. In August 1998 they were both sentenced to confinement until they reached the age of 18, the maximum sentence available under Arkansas law. They would have served until only age 18 had federal authorities not added additional confinement for weapons charges. (Both were confined until age 21.) Judge Ralph Wilson commented, "this is a case where the punishment will not fit the crime." This case led to a wide public outcry for tougher sentencing laws pertaining to juvenile offenders. Since then, the laws regarding young offenders have changed in Arkansas. Had Johnson and Golden committed their crimes several years later, they could have both been charged as adults and imprisoned for life.

Johnson was released from custody on August 11, 2005. Golden was released on May 25, 2007. Many members of the Jonesboro community have since expressed outrage, citing the facts that the killers will not be placed under any supervision and will be able to legally purchase firearms.

[Xocrates]

We were not talking about written laws. It's impossible for those to cover everything. However you don't need a god to devise a set of guidelines on how to behave.

Also, society includes religion. So by stating that "Society can't keep society "in line"", you're implying that religion can't either.

[DTNC Vicious]

I stopped going to religion 3 years ago, im 16 right now, did it have any affect on how i do things .. No, was it a waste of my time..yes, Relgion did not help me out with anything

[Ace Rimmer]

We were not talking about written laws. It's impossible for those to cover everything. However you don't need a god to devise a set of guidelines on how to behave.

It's not impossible. Also, I apologize, I assumed that because the 10 commandments were referred to above, that constituted a valid reason to refer to written law.

Also, society includes religion. So by stating that "Society can't keep society "in line"", you're implying that religion can't either.

That's if you work on the basis that society is religious. I would argue that while large parts of society claim to be religious, it is in fact not.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

We were not talking about written laws. It's impossible for those to cover everything. However you don't need a god to devise a set of guidelines on how to behave.

Also, society includes religion. So by stating that "Society can't keep society "in line"", you're implying that religion can't either.

Yes, and religions are constantly creating new dos and don'ts as well, so there is really no difference on that point.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

We were not talking about written laws. It's impossible for those to cover everything. However you don't need a god to devise a set of guidelines on how to behave.

It's not impossible. Also, I apologize, I assumed that because the 10 commandments were referred to above, that constituted a valid reason to refer to written law.

You can't just say it's possible without giving some proof. Has it ever been done? Not that I am aware. And from an informational theory point of view a finite written law is going to be limited in what it can encompass. Since the possible actions of man are more or less infinite it is hard to see how they could all be encompassed by any written law (religious or otherwise).

Also, society includes religion. So by stating that "Society can't keep society "in line"", you're implying that religion can't either.

That's if you work on the basis that society is religious. I would argue that while large parts of society claim to be religious, it is in fact not.[/quote]

The point being made is that any religion constitutes a society. If no society can keep people "in line" then no religion can either. This is actually pretty well born out by history. No period in history has ever kept everyone 'in line". There are always criminals, sinners, etc..