From: judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Teaching Superstition     was God's Family Values
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:43:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: locus.1992Sep08.194345.2205224
Distribution: usa
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

In article <1992Sep5.021811.11710@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>In article <1992Sep02.231012.2221907@locus.com> judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes:
>>
>>Okay, so you were taught a religious belief that caused you
>>nightmares.  Whether or not the belief is true is of less consequence than
>>the effect it had.  So if you were taught that there are sexual perverts who
>>sneak into unlocked windows at night and molest little children and had
>>nightmares from that it would have had the same impact.  Correct?
>>
>
>No, because there is a difference in being afraid of self-verifiable
>reality, and being afraid of ghosts, on the other hand.  

Well, here I think is your first flaw.  After all there are many 
parapsychologists out there who will tell you that ghosts ARE self-verifiable.
The problem you have is that there is and always will be "mysteries" in
life.  From who built Stone Henge, to UFOs, to those intricate patterns that
mysteriously appear in wheat fields (which some believe are space aliens
trying to communicate with man).  

So your first flaw, as I see it, is that you are teaching your child that 
everything is "self-verifiable".  It presupposes certain assumptions about
our perceptive ability.  An hallucination is "self-verifiable".  Then you
have to say, "Oh, well, more than one person must see it".  And then you
find yourself in the conundrum of "If a tree falls in the forest, does it
make a sound?"

While the rationalist may wish to have scientific evidence to explain each
and every mystery in life, this is as much a pipe dream as the tooth fairy.

>I think
>the difference that I am trying to pin down is the difference between
>rational fear and irrational fear.  Something tells me that irrational
>fear is not a good thing, perhaps the source of much psychosis.
>I know that there are quite a few people who swallow religion so
>hard that it cripples them in some ways.

So you are saying that lying in bed unable to sleep for fear that a rapist 
may come barreling through your bedroom window is a rational fear for a
child who has never met a rapist, never been abused, and lives where the
chances of this happening is less than 2%?  Of course it isn't.  

What makes the difference in a neurosis and a fear is the degree to which
the fear dictates the person's actions.  So, if you know that airplanes
crash (and they do) and people die and are nervous when you fly but fly
nonetheless because the chances of being killed in a play crash are marginal
then you have a rational fear.  If you cannot and will not set foot on an
airplane because the chance that it COULD crash equates, in your mind, the
probability that it WILL crash then you have an irrational fear and a
neurosis. (A psychosis is something else and generally thought to be brought
on by chemical imbalances within the brain).
>
>>Are we still talking about teaching superstition?  Or are we talking about
>>teaching things which will deeply disturb and upset children?  Because reality
>>is, IMHO, scarier than any superstition created by man.
>
>Perhaps.  Is that a reason to add irrational fears to the rational ones?

You are assuming that all religious teaching instigates fear.  Are you 
saying it's okay to teach "that which is not self-verifiable" as long as it
doesn't produce fear?  Or are you saying that as long as it is "self-verifiable"
it is legitimate to teach it regardless of its impact on a child?

[ Since our biggest problem is that of disagreeing on the premise, much of
the rest of the debate will fail and therefore I have not commented on the
rest. ]

>>                                          ....  The parent is to impart their
>>own view of the world to their child.  It would be dishonest for a parent who
>>did not believe in God to teach their child God.  And it would be dishonest for
>>a parent who does believe in God NOT to teach their child about God.
>>
>
>Hmm, well it looks like my kids are going to get a different story
>from Mom than they will get from Dad.  Any thoughts on the possible outcome
>of this?  (I am hoping for solid skepticism to be the ultimate outcome.)

Let me guess, you're the skeptic so you are hoping that your child will
listen to what you say rather than Mom?  Hee hee, watch out!

However, starting a new thread at the end of this post, I think that it
is perfectly healthy for children to realize that different people have
different views on everything from religion to politics to food preferences 
to music preferences, etc.  Because that means that they will find their
own beliefs, political agenda, tastes, and preferences.  

What you give your child in openly disagreeing is the opportunity for the
child to find the answers for himself himself.  


-- 
Judy Leedom Tyrer

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"	- William Blake