Atheist scientist claims religion will be gone in a generation. Is he right?

[hrmjustin]

Interfaith post.

Christian Science Monitor By Husna Haq
Nov 6, 2014 5:20 PM

Religion can be eradicated in one generation?

That's according to atheist scientist and cosmologist Lawrence Krauss, who recently stoked controversy with comments suggesting that religion could disappear in the near future if schools gave students the tools to determine as much.

“What we need to do is present comparative religion as a bunch of interesting historical anecdotes, and show the silly reasons why they did what they did,” Krauss said at an Aug. 29 dinner presentation on cosmology and education at the Victorian Skeptics Cafe in Melbourne, Australia, in response to a question about religion being taught in schools. The video of his response was uploaded on Monday to YouTube.

http://news.yahoo.com/atheist-scientist-claims-religion-gone-generation-222009723.html


[okasha]

1. I don't think humans

are going to give up an activity they've practiced for perhaps 200,000 years on this guy's say-so.

[el_bryanto]

2. well it's an if statement

If we start teaching religion as a bunch of silly fairytales, than students will abandon it and it will disappear.

I don't know if he's right, but even before you get to that question, you have to consider the likelyhood of schools teaching it as a bunch of silly fairytales. That seems unlikely.

Bryant

[okasha]

6. Interestingly enough,

religion is rebounding in Russia and China, two nation where children were/are still being taught that religion is a bunch of silly fairy tales.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Sleight of hand going on in the headline.

Last edited Tue Nov 11, 2014, 01:45 AM - Edit history (1)

Krauss didn't say it WILL be gone in a generation. He said it CAN be, if we take certain steps.

But I agree with him, if we put our minds to it, and teach children how to approach the question of faith on their own, rather than telling them what to think.

Problem is, we aren't. For every family I know, raising a child like mine, there's at LEAST one family I know actively indoctrinating sub-5 year olds into a particular faith.

And suspiciously, I note none of these children are of a different faith than their parents. I know an enormous number of Christian families. All their kids speak of Jesus. Not a single one speaks of Allah and his Prophet Muhammad, or the Dali Lama/Enlightenment, or any other number of enormously popular current religions.

Not one.

Fascinating.

No, religion won't be gone in a generation, because the precondition Krauss suggests, isn't happening. And that's why Krauss DIDN'T say 'will be gone'.

[goldent]

4. Can you take the indoctrination talk to another group?

There are at least two of them.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. I didn't do that.

I said it CAN be. (In agreement with Krauss that it is possible.) I didn't say we must or should.


Edit; obviously I am biased, and obviously I would prefer such an outcome, but I'm not proselytizing about it. I pointed out why the precondition Krauss specified isn't happening and won't happen, and thus the outcome won't happen.

There's another factor I didn't mention, but, also, humans appear somehow predisposed to faith. Not universal, but statistically measurable, and childhood teaching cannot account for all of it.

[goldent]

15. Here is what you said that I think is offensive

For every family I know, raising a child like mine, there's at LEAST one family I know actively indoctrinating sub-5 year olds into a particular faith.

There are at LEAST two other groups where you can complain all you want about how children are "indoctrinated" about religion - you can even call it child abuse. This is not the place.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. I would not equate indoctrination and child abuse.

If I meant child abuse, I'd have said it, because I do not lie, equivocate, or hide the truth.



indoctrinate
/ɪnˈdɒktrɪˌneɪt/

verb (transitive)
1. to teach (a person or group of people) systematically to accept doctrines, especially uncritically.
2. (rare) to impart learning to; instruct


I stand by that usage. It is not slander, slur, insult, or anything else. It is purely descriptive of the behavior I have observed. And I noted material reasons why it rises to the level of 'uncritically' or 'systematic'. If I saw deviation from the faith of the parents in young children, then I would withdraw that description. However, I don't see a statistically representative portion of Christian or Islamic households with children of the opposite faith. (one of many possible combination examples)

This is quite different from my household. I don't/will not systematically instruct my child to be an atheist. He is simply unaware of things like the concept of god(s). He will discover them in due time, and he may choose one if he wishes. My household is de facto 'atheist' in that no gods are actively worshipped here. There is no need for an atheist doctrine, it is my son's natural unaltered state.

If you feel that use of 'indoctrinate' is not valid as a descriptor, I do not know a word I can substitute it with to show a systematic instruction of doctrine, without critical evaluation. It is what it is.

I can't promise to be fluffy and cuddly, but I do promise to be honest in this venue.

[el_bryanto]

17. Without critical evaluation might be a bit of a sticking point

Many believers believe that they have subjected their beliefs to critical evaluation, and found them to stand up to that; I understand that you don't believe that's accurate.

I was raised as a believer - and my mother was fairly uncritical in her beliefs, but my father, I feel, encouraged inquiry and questions. He felt that if you didn't question your faith, as you would question everything else, your faith would remain weak. He was a believer and he hoped that his children would build a relationship with God as well, but he didn't want that belief to be based on parroting what he or our religious leaders said.

But from your point of view, it's likely that any real critical evaluation of faith would find it wanting.

Bryant

[rug]

5. Have you also noticed the disturbing trend of children reciting the Gettysburg Address. WTF?

It's more likely that democracy could vanish in as generation than religion.

Krauss certainly will be gone in a generation

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Agreed on both points.

Not sure what you meant about the GA though.

[rug]

10. Civics can be indoctrinated, if that is the right term, as easily as religion.

The Little Red Book, the salute to the Emperors, and even today's observance of Veterans Day, are all civic values imparted by societies and parents. Many of these values are dubious and all of them are debatable.

There is nothing wrong with a parent or a society imparting to its young what it values. That is in fact the mechanism of human progress from one generation to the next. As long as a critical mind is imparted as well.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. I would call them Nationalism, and I don't impart that

In my child as a given either. A nation must earn the respect of the citizens, just like any individual.

Our government as it stands today cannot rest on the laurels of the past, and expect citizens to view citizenship as any more binding than our selection of cable subscription. (protection of our rights as terms of service, for example. Can I get a better deal in... Germany? Possibly.)

[rug]

14. And there's a good argument against conventional patriotism, as it enables jingoism and exclusion.

Nothing said, to an adult or a child, is free of peculiar values.

[el_bryanto]

12. You read that differently than I did

I took it to mean that religious skepticism should be taught as part of our educational system. He was presenting on cosmology and education - and that if the state took it upon itself to educate children properly about religion it would fade away - once they get in the school system I mean.

But you are referencing childhood education between a child and a parent. Not sure what could be done about that - and reasonably certain you wouldn't want the state to get involved in that (although I could be wrong).

Bryant

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Oh I absolutely don't want the state to meddle there.

That would be horrible. Enough people already view the state not allowing pro-religious instruction (First amendment issue for public schools) as the converse; active secular indoctrination. That alone has blowback issues.

And, it would violate the First Amendment in my opinion.

I think it might be a little late to teach skepticism for that purpose in schools, but, better than nothing, and it applies to everything we do as a society, implications far beyond religion/not religious.

[Union Scribe]

9. Lol, they've been saying that for centuries.

I'm reminded of that song with the refrain, "I'm the King of Wishful Thinking..."