As an atheist, I like to engage in discussion about faith, religions, gods etc. In fact I like to talk about anything that exists at the furry edge of our current knowledge. You know, that grey area between what we know and what we don’t know. This area includes such things as ghosts, the afterlife, astrology, homoeopathy, UFOs and so on.
Recently I have started to find all this a little frustrating. Here’s why: Anyone coming from the standpoint of reason and evidence is prepared to change their mind on production of evidence that is contrary to their beliefs. However people from a faith-based position don’t do this. This is because their faith puts their beliefs beyond reason and evidence, so however illuminating the reasoning and compelling the evidence, their faith will not be shaken. I’ve heard it said that if a fact contradicts with what is written in the Bible then the fact will be disbelieved. When you are debating with someone who is prepared to disbelieve facts and reject evidence then what could possibly be achieved? Some time ago, the Turin Shroud was carbon dated and shown to be a fake. The response of the pope who was in office at the time was to say that although they now know the Turin Shroud is not Christ’s burial robe, they would still believe that it is.
I believe that this ridiculous state of affairs is brought about because people are indoctrinated with the religion of their parents choice when they are children. This occurs before they are educated, and at such a young age that their critical thinking and reasoning ability have not yet developed. As a consequence, their education and reasoning is built around the unassailable religious doctrines previously implanted. This would explain the two-mindedness that can be seen in some scientists and others who work with facts, evidence and reason all week at work and then flip their minds into “religious mode” on a Sunday for their faith-based worship. They are able to have two completely different and separate mind-sets.
I previously thought that Richard Dawkins was being rather extreme when he spoke of children being taught religion as a form of child abuse, but now I realise why he spoke in such strong terms. If children were to be educated without any form of religious teachings until they were an adult, then their naturally questioning and reasoning minds would develop without being distorted in any way. If the concept of religion and God was introduced once they had become adults it would be dismissed immediately as utter rubbish.
I feel that teaching religion to children who are too young to reason, make a judgement or think critically about what they are being taught are having their human rights violated, and this indoctrination is, indeed, a form of child abuse.
