.

Dear George,

.

You wrote:

“how would you "preserve" religion to "consenting adults" without outlawing (and enforcing the prohibition of) any education that does not see religious insight into reality as "delusions". I tried to offer my personal experience with that, which you apparently did not understand.”

I just looked back over your posts on this thread in order to recall your childhood "personal experience" which opened up "religious insight into reality".

I found a couple of passages where you specifically mention experiences relating to your childhood but none that I could pin point as demonstrating "religious insight into reality".

Would you kindly indicate some examples? I have no preconceived ideas on the matter and am unable to say in advance whether I would consider them "delusions", enlightenment, inspiration or anything else.

“Talking to me about a variety of world-views (including, of course, atheist), history, politics etc in a perspective broader than the narrow-minded one atheist teachers were allowed to offer, had nothing to do with "flame of religious faith", whatever that means.”

If belief in the supernatural or some form of god or gods is a prerequisite for such "broader perspective", I consider that the preservation until adulthood of a child's freedom to choose, outweighs any advantage of such "broader perspective" at childhood.

“Or do you really believe that the present Pope (or George Pell) is a "tyrant", comparable to those who sent millions to the Gulag?”

I am unfamiliar with the professional religious activities of George Pell. However, if they are similar to those of the Pope, I perceive both these gentlemen as actively collaborating with the State in order to perpetuate religious beliefs through tyrannical practices consisting in taking profit of the inability of children to differentiate between fact and fiction.

"fearing that it might open horizons for the child"

I do not. I simply place “freedom of thought and opinion” very high on the list of individual rights which responsible citizens have a moral obligation to defend on behalf of defenceless children and persons not in full possession of their intellectual faculties.

.

.

Dear George (continued),

.

It is also possible that the church may "fear" that if it waits until children attain adulthood before attempting to "open" their minds to a "broader perspective", its chances of success may be considerably reduced due to the fact that it would no longer be dealing with immature minds incapable of discernment.

If such were to be the case, the results could be interpreted as a negative outcome, not just for the church, but for society generally. However, I am unaware of the existence of any statistical information tending to prove that children having received religious education have a more “open” mind and a “broader perspective” than those who have not received such education.

I might also observe that you, George, who did receive a religious education, seem to me to be particularly brilliant, but perhaps you are an exception. Perhaps you are brilliant despite your religious education. Perhaps you would have been just as brilliant or even more so without a religious education.

How does one measure an “open” mind and a “broader perspective”? What is there to prove that religious education does not have an adverse effect on some children, producing a “closed” mind and a “narrower perspective”?

Is it not possible that there may well be examples of the adverse effect of religious education on some of us here who post regularly on OLO ?

.

Dear Banjo,
I do think humanity needs some kind of spiritual (for want of a better word) connectedness, a reason to live, beyond subsitence, procreation or indulgence for their own sakes. A lot of secularists kid themselves that they have that; their families, for instance, and togetherness, and taking pride in their "achievements" and careers--and let's not forget the flag, which forces the most craven to stand up straight, and masks a host of sins. Then, of course, many derive their self-worth from the "fabric" of their lives; the house, the two cars and the holiday-home etc. Even those less materially well-off will draw succour from their lifetime of "hard-work" and being "self made"--the legendary battlers. And then the part-time intellectual and the artist squeezes what s/he can from a desperate sense of superiority or aloofness. The successful among this set are generally devoid of humility, though they'll make a nice pretence, finding their self-worth all around them in the form of public adoration 'and' material success, not to mention their buckram-bound conceits; invariably both derivative and deterministic. "The well that springs not from the heart is vain".
Which brings me to "inspiration" and its etymology in belief that you mention; just as mean and impoverished as liberal rationalism, in my opinion, if it's inspired by fear of God or death. I suspect true inspiration is extremely rare, perhaps only the province (in some measure) of the idiot savant, who is uniquely isolated from the full formative influence that culture, religious or secular, exerts.
A vicious culture surely makes vicious citizens, notwithstanding veneers of pietism and civility, or an ideology of self-congratulation.
Imagine what we could achieve if we were truly inspired and self-sufficient within an inspired culture.
There's a big difference between inspiration and infatuation, and it's the latter that controls the masses, religious and secular, imho.

George

Had Hitler been an atheist, it is a stretch for the Pope to equate the Nazi regime with atheism. These deeds were not done in the name or cause of atheism. Atheism does not promote the killing of non-believers just the opposite. Christianity does not promote the killing of non-believers (not anymore) and Hitler's religious views did not provide the impetus to kill innocent Jews.

It was a deliberate and false distraction and we will have to disagree on that point.

The Pope also advised against aggressive secularism. Many Christians are secularists it is not an atheist concept, and in fact was instigated by theists wanting to prohibit government interference in the Church. You cannot have the benefits of secularism without also the hindrances.

Secularism should not be seen as a threat - it actually pushes tolerance for all faiths.

The Pope said ""There are some who now seek to exclude religious belief from public discourse, to privatize it or even to paint it as a threat to equality and liberty," he said during his homily."

There is nothing wrong with the Pope expressing concerns about liberty and equality but his claims that religion is not allowed in public discourse is not the reality. Atheist commentators are a relatively new phenomenon and up until modern times the Church had a free run. Equality and liberty do not apply only to the Church.

None of us can stop, nor should we, criticism of a theist or non-theist perspective and we now live in times where this is possible without threat of death or imprisonment.

Equality and liberty works both ways and if the preachings of any Church reduce those equalities and liberties it is remiss of others not to pull them to account.

It was pleasing to see the Pope express regret for the failure of the Catholic Church to act on child abuse complaints - that is a good start and lets hope that the future will see a more progressive approach on Church matters.

Dear Banjo,

>>experiences relating to your childhood but none that I could pin point as demonstrating "religious insight into reality"<<

One teaches "religious insights" (or e.g. open-mindedness) differently to a seven year old and differently to a seventeen year old. Of course, a seven year old would not understand directly what "religious insight into reality means": it is presented to him/her in the form of narratives and other "models" from everyday life that he/she could understand and identify with (also e.g. mathematical "insights" are gained first through the counting of apples and oranges). This is how "religious insights" were arrived at by pre-rational humanity as well - through narratives, mythology etc.

Do you really need to be given examples of "religious insights into reality", i.e. philosophies compatible with, or even based on, religion, e.g. Christian? There are hundreds if not thousands of books devoted to these philosophies, including contemporary ones, that form an unassailable part of our Western heritage.

>>the preservation until adulthood of a child's freedom to choose, outweighs any advantage of such "broader perspective" at childhood<<.

Again, a small child does not need any "broader perspective", however I am grateful to my father that he did not make me wait until adulthood to understand the meaning of "Timeo hominem unius libri - whether that book is a Marx-Leninist text or the Bible (or Koran or Dawkins' "God Delusion" or what you like).

If I understand you properly, you answered with "yes" my question "do you really believe that the present Pope is comparable to those who sent millions to the Gulag?". This I find rather amazing, if not offensive to the Gulag victims. Belive me, they suffered more than e.g. you on the hands of this Pope!

"Freedom of thought and opinion" goes hand-in hand with freedom to give your child education in the world-view that you prefer (hoping that in his/her adulthood he/she will preserve and expand it, but also leaving it to him/her if he/she wants to adjust it to his/her own liking, or reject it and replace it with something else). (ctd)

(ctd)
I have to repeat, that there are many things - not only "religious insights" but also understanding and outlooks associated with mathematics, music, foreign languages etc. - that I am grateful for having been instructed in before I was "in full possession of my intellectual faculties."

>>It is also possible that the church may "fear" that <<
Many things are possible, especially if assumed from the position of a wishful thinking.

I agree that there is probably no statistical information on what groups of people have a more open mind and a broader perspective than other groups. These desirable properties are not the result of "religious" or "godless" education but of GOOD education, provided by open-minded teachers with a broad perspective, if you like, theist or atheist. Unfortunately, there are not many of them in either of the camps.

>>How does one measure an “open” mind and a “broader perspective”?<<
I don't know. There are many qualities one cannot measure.

>>Is it not possible that there may well be examples of the adverse effect of religious education<<
It is, however again, not religious or areligious education, but education resulting in a deficient, narrow-minded understanding of one's own world-view (arrived at for whatever reasons), or that of the alternative, or both, has "adverse effects". Yes, also I could (but would not) name people on this OLO who seem to fall into this category, again from both camps.