Most Christians are "Christian" Because they were Indoctrinated as Children

[Diogenes]

In the post "Christians: aren't you embarrassed and angry?" posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=1073778
I wrote:

When they finally "get it" and realize most of them are Christians mainly because of childhood indoctrination and step out of the bondage of fantasy they were taught at an early age, then they are embarrassed or angry or both. ... and it has little to do with the reasons stated in post #1.

This suggests the current topic, 'Most Christians are "Christian" Because they were Indoctrinated as Children.'

In support of this proposition I quote from the Southern Nazarene University website,
http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/ages.htm where they claim 85% of Christians have their conversion experience ("are saved") at ages 4 to 14 and only 4% after the age of 30.

Parenthetically I note the human brain does not fully develop until about age 25.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621648/

[historia]

Second, neither of those two ideas is a "science-based claim."

The world of ideas cannot be divided into just two categories -- claims about the supernatural on the one hand and "science-based" claims on the other -- as you seem to imagine.

Instead, as is quite evident, there are numerous ethical, philosophical, and political ideas that are neither about the supernatural nor grounded in science. The belief that all people have equal moral worth under the law is one of those.

The overarching point I'm making here is that both religious and non-religious parents pass ideas that are not based in science or observation to their children, and in roughly the same way. And those idea are effectively -- even if unintentionally -- accepted as true facts about the world by their children.

And yet, some participants here are objecting to this process -- not the ideas themselves, mind you, but the process by which the ideas are conferred to children -- only when it involves religious parents, thus making their argument a case of special pleading.

This glosses over the fact that we can indeed make a major epistemological distinction:

Between objective facts that can be directly observed with the senses (science), and those that cannot, that are wholly subjective (religious, spiritual, feelings, opinions). Facts or claims in the first category are falsifiable. Those in the second are not.

And you think this has a bearing on what I wrote because . . . ?

This is twice now you've raised this concern without tying it directly to the argument I'm making.

I'll happily grant you that different ideas have different epistemological grounding -- that's obvious. History, for example, is neither derived from direct observation with our senses nor is it wholly subjective. But, until you tell us what relevance you think any of this has to our discussion about parenting, your concerns here are just a non-sequitur.

[TRANSPONDER]

Second, neither of those two ideas is a "science-based claim."

The world of ideas cannot be divided into just two categories -- claims about the supernatural on the one hand and "science-based" claims on the other -- as you seem to imagine.

Instead, as is quite evident, there are numerous ethical, philosophical, and political ideas that are neither about the supernatural nor grounded in science. The belief that all people have equal moral worth under the law is one of those.

The overarching point I'm making here is that both religious and non-religious parents pass ideas that are not based in science or observation to their children, and in roughly the same way. And those idea are effectively -- even if unintentionally -- accepted as true facts about the world by their children.

And yet, some participants here are objecting to this process -- not the ideas themselves, mind you, but the process by which the ideas are conferred to children -- only when it involves religious parents, thus making their argument a case of special pleading.

This glosses over the fact that we can indeed make a major epistemological distinction:

Between objective facts that can be directly observed with the senses (science), and those that cannot, that are wholly subjective (religious, spiritual, feelings, opinions). Facts or claims in the first category are falsifiable. Those in the second are not.

And you think this has a bearing on what I wrote because . . . ?

This is twice now you've raised this concern without tying it directly to the argument I'm making.

I'll happily grant you that different ideas have different epistemological grounding -- that's obvious. History, for example, is neither derived from direct observation with our senses nor is it wholly subjective. But, until you tell us what relevance you think any of this has to our discussion about parenting, your concerns here are just a non-sequitur.

The relevance is about, while parents are effectively trusted guardians of children (not necessarily biological guardians) on behalf of state -based society (as indeed are schools when parenting is not enough for education), what is taught the children is the question. So far (despite the ongoing and strenuous efforts of religion - not just in the USA) scientifically validated information and the humanist consensus on ethics is what is taught, and should be. And the validity of this is what is being argued - why is the 'supernatural' not equally valid? Because it is not equally validated.

[historia]

Now, human moral codes are a red herring. They are neither supernatural nor 'science'. It is as irrelevant to your argument as dragging art or poetry into it.

If you think so, then you haven't properly understood my argument.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to historia in post #218]

"Christianity is more than just the Bible."

This is true, but it is a poorly 'mixed bag.'

The admonition in Revelation, “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,” is largely disregarded by the 'Church'* and its congregants who have created a 'Christian' culture that would make Jesus of Nazareth vomit.

But to the point of democracy and equality, despite the centuries of resistance of Christianity, Jesus (the guy Christianity is not based on), is as responsible as anyone for the (relative) equality of women today. Even Greece, the birthplace of democracy, did not allow women to vote until 1952.

But Jesus venerated women. He treated them as equals. He stood up for the woman at the well, the Canaanite womon; he surrounded himself with women and defended them despite being admonished for it. Paul but the brakes to that influence to a degree, but we should acknowledge the powerful influence of Jesus regarding at least a measure of equality for women.

Jesus's Countercultural View of Women
The place of women in the first-century Roman world and in Judaism has been well-documented and set forth in several recent books.1 Most frequently, women were regarded as second-class citizens.
Jesus’s regard for women was much different from that of his contemporaries. Evans terms Jesus’s approach to women as “revolutionary” for his era....
For Christ, women have an intrinsic value equal to that of men.

https://www.crossway.org/articles/how-j ... ued-women/

No one comes to mind who has been a greater force for the equality of women than the man, Jesus of Nazareth, as depicted in the Gospels.

_______________
*Especially LDS

[TRANSPONDER]

Now, human moral codes are a red herring. They are neither supernatural nor 'science'. It is as irrelevant to your argument as dragging art or poetry into it.

If you think so, then you haven't properly understood my argument.

I think I have. But you haven't understood it, let alone my input

your #215

"The overarching point I'm making here is that both religious and non-religious parents pass ideas that are not based in science or observation to their children, and in roughly the same way. And those idea are effectively -- even if unintentionally -- accepted as true facts about the world by their children.

And yet, some participants here are objecting to this process -- not the ideas themselves, mind you, but the process by which the ideas are conferred to children -- only when it involves religious parents, thus making their argument a case of special pleading."

I'm well aware of the process, the flaws and dangers, and yet the necessity of letting it continue. All that can be done is to ensure that the parents pick up enough true facts and at least sound reasoning to pass on as possible. That brings up the point about the validity of teaching the supernatural, which was my point, even if it wasn't yours. It is not valid because it isn't validated, and objecting to parents instructing their kids because they may pass on invalid ideas is irrelevant. It is the system we have to deal with because ethics says we cannot take kids away from parents except under compelling need. If we are in agreement over that, it is not the point I was making which was based on you apparently protesting that not regarding angels as valid to teach as any science. Thus your referring to some people not being happy with parental input is a red herring and irrelevance.

If you concede that teaching the supernatural is NOT as empirically valid as teaching science, then we can agree and move on.