Hi everybody.

This statement from DM has interested me (along with about 10,000 others, but we must begin somewhere, right?):

"…I consider all forms of theistic conditioning or indoctrination to be harmful in fundamentally shaming the personality of children through, for example, the conditioned, implicit association of doubt and/or disobedience with disloyalty, weakness, faithlessness, sinfulness, and therefore unworthiness. Alternatively, it harms them through the conditioned, implicit association of the natural human instinct for autonomy and free thinking with the dangers of wandering from the fold…". (lxxi)

The force of this claim seems to rely on protecting "natural human instinct" for autonomy and free thinking, which I'd like to hear Tom clarify. How does he understand "human instinct"? Is human instinct synonymous with human nature? And more generally, I'd like to hear everybody's thoughts on whether an understanding of human instinct is important for the deconstruction of theism.

I'm wondering about this claim because there's a lot of social psychology research, for example, which shows that humans seem to orient toward bonding and social relationships. One might argue that it's this "natural human instinct" toward bonding and relationships that gives authoritarian religions so much power.

It might be that Tom's understanding is derived from psychoanalytic self psychology. I have been reading psychoanalytic theory lately, including some self psychology, and would like to bring up psychoanalysis in another thread, since it's an analytic that figures heavily in DM. I want to continue with my reading before I do that, though.

I guess where I'm going with this is that the constructs "human nature" and "human instinct" seem to me to be as incoherent and meaningless as "god." They seem both malleable and context-specific. But that's just me :) I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Apologies in advance--I won't have much time until tomorrow evening to shepherd this thread, but will check in as much as possible. Since we have our own space here and there's no rush, I thought I'd post this question anyway, though. Thanks!

OK, taking a quick stab at this just to start my brain thinking - psychology is way out of my depth.

I tend to think of human instincts as those inherent (reflexive?) actions that keep one alive: everything one would instinctively do to be physically nourished and protected if one were raised without familial or cultural mores (I guess, I don't know what I'm talking about).

Human nature seems to me to entail a little more thought on the individual's part, but I can't really formulate at the moment what I'm thinking.

It does indeed seem like Tom is saying that children innately are autonomous and free thinking. Hmmm...I'm not sure about that. I work with a lot of kids. It seems like some are innately curious and some unconcerned. Some are innately dependent and others autonomous. The nature versus nurture issue. What are they born with, what are they indoctrinated with? I can see kids who are definitely influenced by their parents in either direction.

How important is an understanding of human instinct to deconstructing theism? I'm not sure. If Tom is wrong, and children are actually inherently dependent and unconcerned, is theism the answer to what they seek? Can they be dependent on family, culture, govenrment, etc. Maybe taking a look at Christmas and Santa Claus might be instructive? Would a belief/dependency on Santa fulfil the same needs as religion: good behavior earns you rewards?

I'm too tired to think anymore, so that will be my $0.02 for now.

Thanks, Satan. Yes, the "born with" v "indoctrinated with" question seems an impossible one to answer. It seems nature and nurture exist in a kind of mutually reinforcing relationship.

And the Santa Claus analogy makes sense. It's just a smaller scale version of the way a religious ideology can craft a self, in my view, by placing a kid in a structured discursive environment in which certain affects, behaviors and relationships are reinforced and others are discouraged. Santa Claus as god would perhaps be more coherent and intelligible (two of Tom's favorite words :) than some, eh?

The statement you refer to will gain greater clarity and perhaps currency in the larger context of the psychosocial assessment of the MF in Ch. 8, as well as in the Epilogue and PPS and Appenix A, inclusive of all substantive footnotes.

Suffice to say at this point, children's thinking is shaped and conditioned within the social network in which they're raised, and the language-games used within the social life-form they are raised in. Their thoughts and thinking, and consequently their beliefs are formed primarily by their primary care-givers and those within the immediate and extended community in which they develop.

In the beginning the child's mind is very malleable, and is shaped over time, "line upon line, precept upon precept". If the child's parents are embedded in a particular life-form, or way of life, and its related language-game, or way of using language in action, the child will acquire such as their own, particularly if the parents raise the child to do so, and teach, condition and indoctinate the child to accept as right and true those beliefs embedded in, and constituitive of, their way of life and use of language.

So, contrary to what my views seem to be, no child is a "free thinker" at birth, as I see it and conceive of what it means to be a "free thinker" (as elaborated in a crucial footnote in Ch. 4), and those children raised in religious homes and environments within a given culture that shares a common way of life and use of language -- and consequently a common conceptual framework, world view and related belief system -- invariably will think and believe what they have been taught and conditioned, or indoctrinated, to think and believe.

This is not, as I see it, so much, if at all, about human nature or instincts (i.e. biological drives or needs) as it is about child development.

Even so, and as I argue later in Chs. 5,6, 8, the Epilogue and PPS and Appendix A, human nature does play a significant part in understanding religious belief formation and experience, including religious conversion.

So, as I think you wrote in an earlier post, "fasten your seat belts"!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2013 04:15PM by tomriskas.

Thanks, Tom, for clarifying. I think I understand now that you’re referring to the way religious beliefs, practices and language intentionally structure a child’s development, creating a particular kind of self—one consistent with the religion’s ideology.

The traditional Mormon developmental environment (and the traditional Catholic environment I grew up in) relies on, in your words, “exploitative inducement of an affective, infantile state of mind characterized by submissive, ‘child-like’ feelings of dependence on, love for, attachment to, and awe of the Mormon ‘Parent-God,’ and the likewise regressive magical, wishful thinking beneath the believed efficacy of prayer and authoritatively administered priesthood rites and ordinances of salvation” (p. 280).

To follow, then, this kind of discursive environment would not cultivate or promote a free-thinking self, one who is “capable of critically thinking about and rigorously testing their core beliefs for intelligibility, coherence, and factual content” (p. 123). Freethinking needs to be a value that’s experienced as part of daily life.

I really appreciate that you examine the developmental aspects of theism and the damage it can do to freethinking, Tom. It’s a neglected perspective.

As an aside, as an educator I can sometimes be cynical about how much value as a culture we place on cultivating freethinking young people. Given the pressures of today’s developmental environment, it seems over-determined that an intelligent, resource-rich young person today will develop into a conservative, fearful, bottom-line thinker. Also, there is no necessary relationship between a freethinking individual and a high-achieving one, based on the students who take my classes. (It’s a part of my job to teach them how to deconstruct themselves and I love it, but it’s a challenge.)

As you suggest, I need to continue my reading! Seat-belts fastened ☺



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2013 10:16PM by Darkfem.

Would you please define "free thinking"? Are you "speaking" in terms of promoting divergent thinking as a cultural value?

Hi Chickd. Do you have the book? I'm working with Tom's conceptualization of freethinking, which he explains in footnote 82 on pp. 123-124.

I'm not sure what you mean by "divergent thinking as a cultural value." I'm referring to teaching young people how to be self-aware and thoughtful of the way their own histories and contexts are implicated in their values and beliefs.

Darkfem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Chickd. Do you have the book? I'm working
> with Tom's conceptualization of freethinking,
> which he explains in footnote 82 on pp. 123-124.
>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "divergent thinking
> as a cultural value." I'm referring to teaching
> young people how to be self-aware and thoughtful
> of the way their own histories and contexts are
> implicated in their values and beliefs.

I do not have the book, which is why I'm asking for definitions. Given the clarification that you've supplied, how would you or Tom propose teaching children to be "free thinking"?

I'm not a parent, so I can't speak personally about child-rearing. Tom's book alludes to the emotional environment that fosters analytic thinking in children. One essential component, it seems, would be lack of shaming or guilting as disciplinary practices, so children can let their minds take them into new and exploratory realms without fear.

As an educator, I focus on teaching students how to examine a cultural phenomenon (such as "slash fic") from multiple perspectives, for example, so they can see that there is no absolute truth about its meaning. They learn to question, why do certain meanings take hold and become dominant? What are the contingencies of meaning, or what are the conditions that make this construction possible? What kinds of values undergird this construct? How do my values and context shape my understanding of this phenomenon? Those are a few of the things I do pedagogically, if that makes any sense. It's past my bedtime :)

Darkfem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not a parent, so I can't speak personally
> about child-rearing. Tom's book alludes to the
> emotional environment that fosters analytic
> thinking in children. One essential component, it
> seems, would be lack of shaming or guilting as
> disciplinary practices, so children can let their
> minds take them into new and exploratory realms
> without fear.
>
> As an educator, I focus on teaching students how
> to examine a cultural phenomenon (such as "slash
> fic") from multiple perspectives, for example, so
> they can see that there is no absolute truth about
> its meaning. They learn to question, why do
> certain meanings take hold and become dominant?
> What are the contingencies of meaning, or what are
> the conditions that make this construction
> possible? What kinds of values undergird this
> construct? How do my values and context shape my
> understanding of this phenomenon? Those are a few
> of the things I do pedagogically, if that makes
> any sense. It's past my bedtime :)

Yes, it makes sense. It sounds like investigative inquiry. I, too, would propose the elimination of shame and guilt based parenting via education. I would, in fact, wish to see such education as mandatory in the U.S. I don't see this as limited to the confines of a theistic vs atheistic framework.

Darkfem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> developmental aspects of theism and the damage it
> can do to freethinking...

I wonder if the term "damage" could be applied to the
effects of my atheist father's rigid control over the
household discipline while I was growing up? Or might
such mandatory childhood atheism be applauded as a
rare and valuable social counterbalance? It obviously
affected me, but evidently not to the point of "damage."

UD

Were your father's damaging disciplinary structures enacted in order to fulfill the stipulated exigencies of atheism? I doubt it. So that's a facile analogy as far as I can tell, UD.

Darkfem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Were your father's damaging disciplinary
> structures enacted in order to fulfill the
> stipulated exigencies of atheism? I doubt it. So
> that's a facile analogy as far as I can tell, UD.

I think it was mostly to combat the surrounding Mormonism.
He was not an intellectual, just fully convinced that his kids
MUST grow up knowing that all things supernatural were fiction.

It caused me to critically examine every single "belief"
that came under his critical oversight: from life's origins
to whether or not ghosts could be real. So long as I
appeared to mimic his pronouncements, he did not bother
to interrogate me, as to what I might actually be thinking.

I honestly think he wanted to protect us kids. Ever hear
Johnny Cash's song: "A Boy Named Sue?"

At any rate, I don't perceive any damage -- and in fact
the presumed protection may indeed have been real.

UD

Uncle Dale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...
> At any rate, I don't perceive any damage --
> and in fact the presumed protection may indeed
> have been real.
>
> UD


Looking back, I see that my final line was somehow lost,
when I posted these comments -- it was a question:

Can we say that parental imposed atheism can be useful in
fostering children's "free-thinking;" while theism imposed
by one or more parents is generally damaging to children?

Sorry about that.

UD

Uncle Dale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Can we say that parental imposed atheism can be
> useful in
> fostering children's "free-thinking;" while theism
> imposed
> by one or more parents is generally damaging to
> children?


I was wondering about this as well. No matter what you teach your children, you will be indoctrinating them.

I think in the discussion related to teaching our children to be free-thinkers, that we leave out the term "atheist." I believe we should teach children to question everything and learn how to think through problems using logic and reason and not appeal to the mythical and mystical as part of that process. If deity ever becomes part of the discussion, it receives the same scrutiny anything else does.

If I'm reading Riskas correctly, the problem comes when including deity because later, when that child (either as a child or adult) does have real questions and doubts related to deity, they are set up to experience cognitive dissonance. They then feel, "disloyalty, weakness, faithlessness, sinfulness, and therefore unworthiness." (lxxi)

I must also add that this is not only a problem with children, but adults who become members of the Mormon church are also indoctrinated and encultured so when they have doubts, they too experience the same "disloyalty, weakness, faithlessness, sinfulness, and therefore unworthiness."

I've been reading a book given to me by a Native American friend,
called "Legends of the Iroquois" by William W. Canfield.

Although the Anglo editor is the one who sets the traditions
in order and represents ancient ideas with modern English words,
it is the venerable Indian leader "Cornplanter" who preserved
the material -- taught the mythology.

I'm attempting to picture how these traditions might be handed
down to tribal youth, in such a way that a "reasonably
skeptical mind-set" is fostered and preserved.

One solution would be not to introduce any of the sort of stuff
until the Iroquois kids were off on their own in college. Let
them discover it for themselves.

Another solution might be to have an outsider present the old
legends, so that they could be taught objectively as falsehoods,
wherever supernatural or nativist elements cropped up.

Or, the kids could just be taught now as their ancestors
were taught, and learn to sort out myth from history as they
themselves grew and matured.

I'd guess that a five-year-old really ought to be taught
differently than a ten-year-old.

UD

I think yours is an important question Dale.

The words that struck me in your question were "imposed" and "damaging."

"Imposed," to my mind, connotes authoritarian indoctrination (including believed "benevolent" authoritarianism) inherent in "Patriarchal Social Systems," where such indoctrination entails the teaching and operant conditioning of subjects (children, in this case) to a particular ideology and way of life for their own good,", based on the implicit, superordinate values of obedience to authority and thought/behavioral conformity (or self-sacrifice) to such ideology and way of life; which values are built into an implicit moralistic "Code of Patriarchy." as presented on pp. 355-8 of the Epilogue.

"Damaging," to my mind, means the wounding and loss of the personality (and consequently of "free-thinking" and "intellectual integrity") through the "toxic shaming" inherent in such authoritarian indoctrination. (See footnotes 2 and 233 in your reading of my "Psychosocial Assessment of the Mormon faith" in Ch. 8, as well as in the Epilogue, PPS and Appendix A.)

Can such authoritarian abuse occur in Atheist families? Yes, of course, particularly if Atheism is regarded as an ideology and the parents are shame-based themselves, and operate from the "Code of Patriarchy" and their own dogmatic "Moralistic Core."

Still, my sense is that, while such "damaging imposition" through indoctrination exists in all walks of life to one degree or another within the moralistic patriarchal culture or society we live in, it is, I suspect, perhaps more prevalent and damaging (and potentially dangerous and destructive to society) within theistic, heirarchical institutions, and even theistic life-forms (or ways of life) built on "religious values" and the imposed reality of Parent-gods, revelation, commandments and covenants of obedience, sacrifice, consecration, and eternal rewards based on unwavering faith, repentance, faithfulness and worthiness through obedience to authority.

The alternative, as I see it, is not without necessary structure for child development, or the necessity for parental teaching and guidance by precept and example. The raising of healthy-minded, "free-thinking" children -- free to question and think critically -- can be done, and, as I see it, must be done.

I appreciate hearing your views, Tom. They seem to be reasonable
and carefully thought out. As in so many instances, once we get
past some differences in vocabulary, I do not find myself in
great disagreement with most of what you communicate.

It is getting tiresome for me to keep referring back to myself
as an example of growing up in this world and making choices.
It would be better for all concerned if we could move a step
or two past the subjectivity of personal story-telling. But at
the moment I cannot think of any other examples. I hope folks
can forgive the seeming egotism in such conversation.

In my family there were two parents, but my atheistic father
made most of the rules. We all just followed them until it
was possible to seek out viable alternatives. My theist
mother provided a counter-balance to his authoritarian child
raising, albeit it in quiet, unobtrusive ways. There might
be a much different history to relate if they had both been
in perfect agreement about life and what their kids should
learn in advance of living in the world on their own.

It may be a wrong conclusion, but in this one case, at least,
I'd say that it was the polite tension between my parents' views
that provided me with space for developing "free-thinking,"
more so than just about any other environment I can imagine.

Living in South Asia, China and the Pacific I've observed
many different styles of child-raising. I was most impressed
with those examples in which the kids were both rooted in
their heritage and encouraged to move beyond it. That may be
an inexact reflection, but those are the best words I can
find to summarize what I saw.

UD

Darkfem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Were your father's damaging disciplinary
> structures enacted in order to fulfill the
> stipulated exigencies of atheism? I doubt it. So
> that's a facile analogy as far as I can tell, UD.

I think that Dale's comment neatly raises the issue of parenting styles,regardless of the presence of religious influences. If the proposals in Riskas books are that of promoting "free thinking" (as I understand it by the definition that you so kindly supplied)in children, what provisions has the author made for molding parenting styles and is that a realistic goal?

Tom's book is a deconstruction, a complex and rigorous analysis that I recommend you read.

As far as I'm concerned, performing that analysis is enough. In other words, it is not incumbent on the analyst who performs the deconstruction to offer readers with re-constructed alternatives. That's the job of another book, another kind of analysis. Although I believe Tom does make very strong case for a secular care of the self that we enact toward ourselves and one another. I myself need to finish reading, though.

Darkfem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom's book is a deconstruction, a complex and
> rigorous analysis that I recommend you read.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, performing that analysis
> is enough. In other words, it is not incumbent on
> the analyst who performs the deconstruction to
> offer readers with re-constructed alternatives.
> That's the job of another book, another kind of
> analysis. Although I believe Tom does make very
> strong case for a secular care of the self that we
> enact toward ourselves and one another. I myself
> need to finish reading, though.

Thank you, Darkfem. If participation on this thread is conditional on having read the book, please inform me of such and I'll willingly cease posting on this dedicated forum.

The purpose of the forum is specifically to discuss the book. That's hard to do if you don't have it. I don't think anyone who isn't an admin wants to be the forum police and say who can/can't participate. However, I would say that it is unfair to ask people to continuously supply information that is given in the book for the benefit of those who don't have it. The book is quite weighty and thoroughly exploring it it will be much easier to say "See pp113-116 footnotes 89-91" etc. instead of trying to type in all of the relevant information. I'm guessing that if a person can basically follow along with minimal reliance on others filling them in, then it's probably no big deal.

I guess I'm saying none of us will kick you off, just don't expect others to go to extra work to fill you in. (Does that sound harsh? Hope not.)

My $0.02.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/16/2013 12:10AM by Satan Claus.

I don't plan to continue on these thread. That plan is subject to change. What impresses me thus far,is that when I've asked for clarification or definition, the readers of this book have a difficult time articulating an answer with regard to conceptual content. This leads me to suspect that the book, which has been described elsewhere as a "dense read", might actually be an overly complicated piece for which there is scant usefulness to those who appear to be impressed by the claimed density itself. When I see that the reader is unable to form a cogent answer to a question regarding, in my case, the development of children and particularly when it appears that an author is making recommendations to parents regarding child-rearing practices and strategies as they relate to his personally preferred philosophical underpinnings and without his readers being able to speak in terms of facilitation of such, my skepticism takes a front seat. I'll be content to continue reading this thread as I have time, however, my inclination is to avoid discussions in which respondents continually respond with recommendations to read the book or refer to the book,instead of answering the questions posed, since it is a constant reminder of the very same thought-stopping responses used by apologist when attempts are made to engage.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2013 07:55PM by Susan I/S.

Please define what you mean by the term "language-game". I'd also like to know if you propose that the developing child be shielded from the influence of their parents in terms of religious thinking.

"Language-game" is a Wittgensteinian notion that refers to the primary language and the actions into which it is woven within a particular form of life (e.g. Mormonism).

In a theistic way of life, the "language-game" consists of how, for example, the way Mormons live their religion gives meaning to the language they use. The Mormon language-game is language-as-use, which is different than the conceptual framework of the language itself employed to make assertions about the Mormon faith, or the beliefs or theology. For example, the word "testimony" finds meaning in the Mormon language-game, not by the concept of "testimony" as commonly understood, but rather by the practice of "bearing testimony" peculiar to the Mormon way of life, or the practice of the Mormon faith.

On the other matter, I oppose all forms of theistic or religious teaching, upbringing and social conditioning or indoctination, or raising a child superstitiously, or to believe in the existence of gods, angels, spirits, spirituality, prayer, good and evil, the plan of salvation or eternal purpose, fate, life after death, eternal families, the preexistence, heaven , hell, the devil, ghosts etc..

I propose, rather, raising children as free-thinkers with a naturalistic perspective without superstitious, moralistic or metaphysical foundations, as well as with a natural appetite and curiosity for learning, but with a critical and reasonably skeptical mind-set, and a value for intellectual integrity and epistemic responsibility.

I do not think that anyone needs religion or beliefs in gods or an afterlife in order to thrive or survive, and there is ample evidence that human beings can survive and thrive without such beliefs or language-games.

We are social animals, but the natural need for communitas does not require religiosity, and is certainly not confined to religious community.

Religion may be here to stay as a vestige of our superstitious nature, personal and collective "stupidity" (Welles), "basic biological situation" (Faber), and existential angst (and related "Denial of Death"; Becker), but I for one (and I'm certainly not alone, though admittedly in the minority) think the world, including ourselves and loved ones, and especially our children. would be far better off without religion, as commonly conceived, and particularly theism.

I can see nothing that might be considered necessary to human well-being offered by religion that cannot and is not offered in virtue of a purely secular society, and I argue such in Ch. 8, the Epilogue and PPS of the book.