Is religious education a form of brainwashing? Should children be free to make their own decisions about fundamental matters of faith? These questions are provoked by the new poster sponsored by the British Humanist Association. [See it here.] Two gloriously happy children hold their hands in the air as if they are about to do a cartwheel. The main text reads: “Please don’t label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself.” And floating in the background are the various labels under attack: “Buddhist child. Agnostic child. Protestant child. Humanist child. Catholic child. Atheist child…”
Religious education in Candelaria
First: The exercise of freedom requires some prior foundation. Children have to learn how to make choices: how to weigh things up, how to judge what is best, how to take responsibility. Any child psychologist knows this. Freedom doesn’t just happen. And an essential part of learning to choose is having some sense of the meaning of the world we inhabit, of the value of our actions, and of the significance of their consequences. In other words, freedom can’t be learnt outside a context of meaning and values.
Religious faith can help establish this context; so can a robust humanism. But to think that freedom can be learnt in a vacuum, without the sharing of any moral or philosophical convictions, is simply naïve. Children who are brought up without inherited values of any kind are actually less able to exercise their freedom and choose for themselves. Just as children who are brought up without boundaries will never be able to learn the significance of crossing them.
Second: If you believe something important to be true, then you shouldn’t pretend it is an open question. This goes for secular humanists as much as for religious believers. If, for example, you are a convinced atheist, and you think that belief in God is false at an intellectual level and damaging through its distorting effects on morality, then of course you would want to share this conviction with your children. It would be unjust to keep it from them. Similarly, if you believe in God, and you believe that this faith is not just a lifestyle choice or a cultural imperative but an objective truth with profound implications for human existence, how could you not share this conviction with your children? Yes, you want to nurture their freedom and you hope they will discover things for themselves. But if it is a question of truth – whether scientific or moral or spiritual – then you will inevitably want to guide your children along a certain path, knowing full well that they may one day choose to veer off in another direction.
Third: It’s a fantasy to imagine that children can be raised in a philosophically neutral environment without some dominant world-view. Theism – as much as atheism, materialism, or secular humanism (these terms are not synonymous) – provides a particular understanding of the meaning of the world and of human life, which will help structure a child’s understanding and values. But if you try to bring your children up in an environment which is indifferent to questions of ultimate meaning, then your purported neutrality will already have been lost. If, in effect, you say to your children, “I don’t care enough about these values or convictions to share them with you”, or “they are important to me but not important in themselves”, then you are presenting them with a very particular world-view. In this view, religious questions and all questions of ultimate meaning are relativised, and indifference is taken to be the predominant value.To say to a child, “I don’t mind – you choose!” is to give the child the strongest possible impression that the available options are all equally significant, which is to say that none is uniquely significant. So this apparently ‘soft’ form of neutrality suggested in the poster is actually a ‘hard’ form of relativism which relegates religious and philosophical questions to the periphery of human interest.
Fourth: A strong notion of autonomy, which is essential to an individual’s freedom, requires an appreciation of one’s human dignity. Children need to know not just that they are loved but that their life has meaning and is valuable in itself. If this is not communicated in some way, then the love of the parents, however profound, will become distorted, because the children will see themselves as valuable to their parents but not valuable as persons in their own right. It doesn’t matter how this innate value is framed (‘human dignity’, ‘the sanctity of life’, etc.) as long as it is articulated somehow.
Human autonomy, rightly cherished by secular humanists, needs some notion of intrinsic human dignity to support it – otherwise it has no foundation and no meaning. So, paradoxically, in order to liberate children from the limited vision of their parents and culture, you have to imbue them with a strong sense of their own worth, of their dignity, of their significance in a framework of meaning. The humanism of the early Enlightenment held on to a strong notion of human dignity and human uniqueness, even as it became more secular. But as secular humanists have become more and more materialist in their outlook, and as materialism has failed to offer any satisfying accounts of human dignity, it has become almost impossible to avoid describing human nature in reductivist terms.
Contemporary secular humanists are largely unable to explain to children why their freedom and autonomy have any significance, why their life has any meaning – and this is why the exaltation of freedom proposed in this poster feels a bit hollow. If you really want your children to be free, you need to tell them why their freedom matters, and help them appreciate some of the values they might pursue. And to do that, you need to use at least a few labels
Bridges and Tangents 
You are right, of course, Stephen. The big challenge in religious education is to bring it alive and make it relevant to the lives of the students. This requires good RE teachers and a dynamic syllabus. But something tells me that in many schools, including Catholic ones, this is not happening. Having said that, religious studies is now one of the most popular subjects at A Level.
For me the problem with statements is that there is always a counter statement. Who decides what true freedom is? Who decides you can fill in someones believes for themselves? For secular or atheist people? We all believe. All in our own ways.
When I used to be in highschool I had this wonderfull teacher. He was a devout christian but never forced this upon us – he explained his believe in God by saying that; every human has a black hole in his soul and one would fill this with faith, where another whould do this with music, art or any other form of creation. With that he created a comfortable environment for the seeking, the hardcore atheist and believers amongst us rather than having us to defend what we stand for or don’t stand for.
He was an excemption. School was where I learned the biggest nonsense about religions other than christianity and inside the various religious institutes my parents send me it was always about their own religion views versus the other. The other being quit oft the wrong ‘evil’ one.
To me the timesonline article appears to be a tad bit generic if not short around the corner and does exactly what the add did. Ofcourse no person could tell another person how to raise a child or judge it for the way he/she raises the child. To dismiss the believe of a parent to let the child choose is just as offensive as saying that a child should have it as a fundamental right to choose.
I do think when we talk in term of religious education at school, kids are being brainwashed or severly malinformed when it comes to other religions. Religious education at home is no form of brainwashing but a form of parenting. Sometimes bad sometimes good but just like a secular household – not to be judged.
Well said indeed,
This is merely more atheist propaganda as Richard Dawkins wonders whether there is occasion for “society stepping in” and hopes that such efforts “might lead children to choose no religion at all.” Dawkins also supports the atheist summer camp “Camp Quest.”
Phillip Pullman states the following about his “fictional” books for children, “I don’t think I’m writing fantasy. I think I’m writing realism. My books are psychologically real.” But what does he really write about? As he has admitted, “My books are about killing God” and “I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief.”
More evidence here:
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/11/deceptive-manipulative-propagandist.html
Yet again, atheists are collecting “amazing sums” during a time of worldwide recession not in order to help anyone in real material need but in order to attempt to demonstrate just how clever they consider themselves to be—while actually loudly, proudly and expensively demonstrating their ignorance and arrogance—need any more be said?
“If, for example, you are a convinced atheist, and you think that belief in God is false at an intellectual level and damaging through its distorting effects on morality, then of course you would want to share this conviction with your children. It would be unjust to keep it from them.”
Hardly, I think. An atheist need not think belief in a god is damaging, first of all. When asked, I would of course tell my hypothetical offspring my view. Knowledge of religion is important, but religious education is structured often to teach children what to believe rather than to teach students how to think about values and belief. Furthermore, it seems numerous people fairly devoid of any religious dialog during childhood have found their own ways to religious faith.
I’m not sure it’s such a big deal, although those kids in the poster are too young.
I quite agree that atheism does not necessarily mean you think belief in a god is damaging; but if you do think that, then of course you would want to share that conviction.
Just found you and your blog via Times OnLine (my UK fix here in Brooklyn, NY, USA). Wonderfully well-thought out and well-put. The biggest lack I see in our kids, including those being taught in our Catholic schools and religious ed programs, is a foundation for their human dignity. It’s all “self-esteem,” grounded on nothing but…self-esteem.
When I start a year with a new class as a catechist, I always tell my kids that every other class will tell them facts, but their religion class will tell them who they are. That usually gets their attention…
Thanks. I love the images on your blog…
If I may take you up on some of your arguments Stephen.
First:
Who is suggesting that children should be raised, and freedom learnt, in a philosophical vacuum?
The Atheistic argument is that if you desire to teach children a worldview that includes, for example, an omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect policeman you better have good evidence or argument to support it. In other words, the burden of proof is on you.
Second:
Is it the case then, that a Ku Klux Clan member should share their convictions with their children? If not, why not?
Third:
Once again, this has not been claimed by any serious person. You’re knocking down a straw man.
Thanks for the comments Jim. I’m responding to the poster, and I hope not to any straw men. I may have misinterpretted it, but it seems to suggest to me that the sponsors do not wish children to grow up in an environment that is dominated by a worldview that is theist or atheist or humanist or vegetarian or whatever; in other words they do want children to be in an environment that is purged of philosophical convictions or guidance about fundamental issues – this is the ‘neutrality’ that seems to be proposed. This is what I believe is unrealistic, for all the reasons I explain. Yes, it is about burden of proof – but I am arguing that every conviction (atheist, theist etc) needs some proof; and if you hold that conviction, then you are probably convinced by that proof, and that is the reason you care enough to want to share it with your children. It doesn’t make it true, but it helps us to understand why you would want to pass it on. So, yes, I would not be surprised if anyone with strong convictions wanted to share them with their children. It doesn’t mean I approve of these convictions, or agree with them, but my experience of parents who care about anything important is that they want their children to care too. I would be surprised if they didn’t.
Ah, hey there Stephen, thanks for the reply.
If we are talking about the new Atheist movement, which is what I believe started this discussion, then the argument is the inculcation of children in worldviews that do not have sufficient evidential or argumentative backing.
I am not aware of anyone who seriously claims that education can occur outside of a philosophical framework. Maybe you could point me in the right direction?
I see your second point. Presumably this is prosaic though? Surely no one disputes the fact that parents wish to pass on what they believe important?
Maybe I’m mistaken, but I assumed this was a normative issue. The question of what we should and should not teach children is the issue.
I think the atheistic point is clear: only that which we have good evidence or argument to believe to be true or just.
I think the question of ‘sufficient evidence’ is indeed one big issue in discussions about atheism/theism/education etc, but what is so striking about the poster campaign (which is what started this particular debate) is the suggestion that it’s wrong to immerse children in a worldview even if you think you have sufficient evidence. I say this because the poster, sponsored for the most part by self-professed atheists, suggests that even atheism is something we should not want to promote to children (because we want them to make up their own minds). Now unless the atheists are being disingenuous, they seem to be saying that even a conviction (their atheism) which they think is a rational worldview, with sufficient evidence, should not be promoted, because it takes away from the freedom of the children – who will want to make up their own minds. This is the point that really interests me – not simply the point about evidence. Because it is an appeal for a kind of relativism which does not sit easily with the more objective arguments of atheists. A good atheist, in my mind, would want a poster saying ‘help your children to discover the truth of atheism and the irrationality of theism’, rather than the present poster, which seems to be saying ‘anything or everything might be true – as long as the children have found their own way to their own truth’. Do reply if you want – but I might need to spend a bit less time commenting for the rest of the week! Thanks for the discussion.
Of course, thank you for indulging me!
I think the point of contention is maybe this: This brand of atheism is not a worldview – It is simply a probabilistic position on one particular existential claim. The belief in the non-existence of such a God is a consequence of lack of evidence of its existence.
Thanks
I just found your blog through this article on another website. Loads of great stuff to read, having to tear myself away.
Thank you.
Thanks for the encouragement!
Hi, Stephen
i happen to read an article written by you about vocation and it was greatly encouraging and led to this great site of yours it has great informative stuff and request for your prayers as i go through my discerning process.
Thanks and God bless.
If it is generally accepted in modern society that brainwashing is moraly wrong, then why are children allowed to practise religion?…
> Is religious education a form of brainwashing? Should children be free to make their own decisions about fundamental matters of faith? These questions are provoked by the new poster sponsored by the British Humanist Association. Two gloriously happy …