A while back, I was in a microbiology lecture pursuing the online magazine, Aeon.co in order to stay conscious. I came across this article written by Michael Ruse, director of History and Philosophy of Science in the University of Florida, entitled, 'The God Decision'. The long 3,000 word article, of which the good author spends only about ~300 words actually actually arguing his thesis and the remainder bashing the Catholic Church (did I mention he's one of them new atheists?) asks the pertinent question about whether is it is moral to raise one's children to believe in God. The article is very sloppily written for a philosopher; hey, it has to be, if you have a medical student pointing out the non sequiturs, and runs through a few ideas, before he drops morality altogether and runs on his opinions. However, I can't be bothered to deal with new atheists, many of whom are rather illiterate; it is the original question that he poses that interests me tonight. Is it moral to raise one's children to believe in God?
Well, the short answer is, yes. (But Ruse believes otherwise)
Of course, if one doesn't believe in God, then one has no moral obligations to teach one children such. This is the case, wherein one can claim invincible ignorance over not knowing God, or being properly convinced that there is one. After all, one cannot pass on faith if one doesn't have it. This is what Ruse argues, and that's alright so far. It is necessary to have a belief in a truth, whether true or not, in order to anchor our exploration of the truth. If one is truly open to the truth, as St Augustine was in his philosophical tour through Manichaeism, then God will surely bless him with the truth.
However, such openness to ideas is hardly seen nowadays and there is a certain abject intellectual laziness that permits most people. I have entered arguments with many people over issues like abortion, euthanasia, and other subjects that the world has decided to go to war with the Catholic Church about. Sadly, most of the time, the same poor arguments are thrust in my direction, and the same straw men erected to be burnt. Their weapons, having been obtained from such illustrious Journals of Philosophy as the New York Times, or The Daily Mail, or The Irish Times, are easily disarmed, but they are none wiser to it. If they would just spend more time actually examining the stand of the Church, to take the time to invest in reading, it would probably make a significant difference to their perception of reality.
Rant aside, there is another point that Ruse was trying to argue. That it is immoral to teach one's children about God even if one believed in him. He puts this forward in the usual relativistic way, that it is okay if the belief is harmless, but when it comes from a bastion of moral truth, then it is wrong. Taken at its face value, his argument is absurd enough to not require comment. Why would anyone deny their children the gift of salvation? The chance to know Christ, the God who created them, who gifted them to their parents, who is a person who wants to love them? It would absurd to think that such a thing could even come across a believer's mind!
However, with a slight twist to the context, there are the foolish, who out of some misconceived idea of how children work and what reality is, think it is alright to allow children the leeway to choose for themselves, of course when the time is right, which is usually the arbitrary legal age of 18. It is, after all, a matter of exercising free will. Children have this free will too, right? Therefore, we cannot impose our belief system on their will. It's wrong.
Now, of course, if one's parents are invincibly ignorant and agnostic, then as with the case above, it would be fair to raise one's children to make their own decisions regarding religion. (Btw, Dr Ruse, atheism is belief system as well) They have free will after all. However, in the case of those have beliefs, then the question becomes one of grave matter, and of course of stupidity. Children do not come to parents preprogrammed with twelve years of catechism and training in critical thinking, they come to parents essentially in the state of tabula rasa. They long to learn what is true and what is false, and how to differentiate the two, and whom do they learn from? Their parents. Thus, it would an offense against free will to deny them that anchor of apparent truth that comes from having a belief. And, it is from this anchor that they will be able to turn when facing difficult questions, and seek answers from it, and along the way to discover what is really true.
However, in denying them that state, instead allowing them to raise themselves, with their unformed cognitive centres, parents are denying them the ability to truly use their free will to affirm what is true. It's just silly. It also speaks volumes about the parents' own religious convictions. I promise you that you will never hear any parents say, 'well, Jim, ya know what. I'm gonna let little Timmy here decide whether the sky is blue on his own. If he asks me about it, I'm gonna tell that that's just my opinion, and he has to come to his own conclusion.'
Obviously, children do not work that way, and they will end up learning what their parents believe in anyway, through the means of observation, be it atheism, agnosticism, or theism. However, how well the child will be able to make use of their free will will certainly depend on how honest and sincere their parents are in addressing contradictory beliefs.
PS: I wish I could work this over again; I wanted to develop it a bit more philosophically instead of rant, but I have an OSCE (practical) tomorrow which needs revision. Prayers appreciated!
No comments:
Post a Comment