Filed under: God Delusion | Tags: atheism, children, Dawkins, God, God Delusion, parenting, philosophy
One of the areas that Dawkins gets quite emphatic on is his assertion that “there is no such thing as a Christian child; only the child of Christian parents.”
There are four basic errors in this statement. These errors are perhaps natural enough for an atheist to make, and concerns the nature of a religion. Dawkins in his statement is assuming that faith is a matter of reason and logic. These are important parts, but not sufficient.
Firstly faith is a community activity and the social element of faith is significant. Christianity at least, if not other religions as well, is about relationships and part of that is an identifying oneself with a community of faith.
Alongside that faith is also about recognising a set of traditions and rituals. Children love the repeating of things and ritual can give a lot of security in a young life. Elsewhere Dawkins says he is not about doing away with traditions such as celebrating Christmas.
My young children where in every respect part of a Christian community, enjoying its traditions and rituals. In these respects they were definitely Christian.
But perhaps the most important aspect of any faith is the spiritual element. Now while Dawkins might not recognise there is such a thing he must for the sake of argument recognise the other’s point of view and show his problem with it, not just dismiss it out of hand. Our praying together was a key part of the day, helping my children to deal with things that had gone wrong or anxieties they had as well as celebrating the joys fo the day. I have also recognised that my children had spiritual experiences at very young ages.
So in their spiritual lives my children were definitely Christian.
To look at if from a parenting/child development point of view, we need to consider what a parents role is in bringing up a child. The parent has not only to feed and clean a child, they need also to develop the child’s thinking and social skills. They need to feed in a set of norms about how you interact with other people, a task that can be quite laborious at times if you have children that tend to quarrel and fight. Young children only gradually develop their own separate sense of identity. Belonging is important for a young child and they do this by copying and and playing at being mum or dad. It is later when adolescence hits that they in earnest develop their own sense of separateness.
So in this child development view my children were Christian children.
At this young age children have neither developed the mental apparatus or the knowledge of the world to enable them to really think through issues of whether they agree with their parents. Later they will have to question whether and what aspects of their parents faith that accept or reject and make up their own minds, but they will be so much more equipped to do that if they have seen from the inside the workings of a coherent paradigm.
How is it that you come to believe what you do? One of the most important roles that a parent has is to help their offspring to understand this by being open with the processes in their own thinking, their reasonings, their doubts, their ways of dealing with these things and with other peoples points of view. A young child can learn what it is to have a world view by taking on their parents views, which they naturally do and seeing how well they feel it fits.
So I can not say that my children had thought it all through for themselves at a young age, but they certainly took on the paradigm and had a look at it from the inside. In that sense they were definitely Christian.
Now I always encouraged my children to think for themselves and accept them whatever the outcome of their thinking, so the fact that one of my children does not really call themselves a Christian now that they have grown to adulthood is not a problem in our relationship. Even though he has turned away from that faith I think he benefited from being part of a faith community and seeing faith from the inside
9 Comments so far
Leave a comment
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
There are four basic errors in this statement.
Comment by Isaac Gouy March 8, 2008 @ 7:21 pmAs far as I can tell you’ve demonstrated Dawkins point that babies do not arrive labelled with a religion – children are labelled with a religion by others long before they ever have a chance to comprehend what that may mean.
But every family is has a culture – they have a community identity, philosphical stance, spiritual position and paradigm. I think to try to bring up a child with no knowledge of that is to rob them of any real upbringing. They don’t get to choose their upbringing, only what they do with it. And as I tried to point out religion is not primarily about intelectual comprehension.
Comment by Gordon March 10, 2008 @ 11:29 pmBut …
Does that mean that you agree with – children are labelled with a religion by others long before they ever have a chance to comprehend what that may mean – as a brute fact, and your objection is that this is just the same as any other aspect of acculturation?
(I find it helps if we’re clear about what’s agreed and what’s not agreed.)
Comment by Isaac Gouy March 11, 2008 @ 4:26 pmI would say that’s a definitive “in bits”. I don’t think that the children are “labelled” so much as experience elements of the faith. I don’t think any religious person gets a chance to “comprehend in full” the faith they choose, partly it is only something that you can grow into and partly it is not about intelectual comprehension but personal experience. I see nothing “brute” in cultivation. Children also get to choose to what extent that go with that faith as young children, and then to choose what they do with that faith as they grow into independance. But yes I do agree that there is a large element of cultivation as with so many other values and practices that childrens gain in their upbringing.
I am sure that Dawkins own religious upbringing informs much of his current position, though it is radically different from his upbringing.
To put it succinctly, I radically disagee with Dawkins’ statement that there is no such thing as a Christian child, but would agree that much of the faith is one they are given rather than choose initially, the choosing comes later.
Comment by Gordon March 11, 2008 @ 8:13 pmI’ll try and bring this into sharper focus – is a 2 year old child christian in any sense other than being “labelled” christian by others?
Comment by Isaac Gouy March 11, 2008 @ 8:32 pmOk, a two year old. Let me just talk about the context of my own Church and experience, to try and make it more general would get rather complex. There are many aspects that may be present in a healthy Church, but different children will respond to different aspects.
At two children will hopefully have developped a series of trusting relationship at Church, and the sense that Church is a place where people have time for them, where they are secure and valued. As people practically belonging to the Church then they are Christians.
The patterns and rituals of Church life will be beginning to form a structure of the expected in life. Such young infants love repetition and these rituals will be forming that sense of security in them. In the sense of loving the rituals of Church they may be Christians.
These relationships and rituals will lead to a sense of belonging. And that Church relationship will have begun to be recognised as to do with God and Jesus. This will be beginning to create a sense of us, or emerging identity. So in the sense that they have a sense of belonging in God’s people they are Christian.
Mum and dad will definitely have been bringing their youngster up in the moral values of Christianity. Many will have really taken on board such things as the need to be kind. Such values may overlap with many other people’s values but will have distinctive elements such as the need to forgive others and ask forgiveness. These values will also be expressed in terms of the scriptural authority behind them. In the sense of accepting Christian moral values and scriptural authority they will be Christians.
Most two year olds will be having stories read to them, and in a Christian family a proportion of these will be bible stories. In the sense of loving scripture these children will be Christian.
Many two year olds will have begun to pray with mum and dad. These prayers are often delightful, though sometimes missing the point, still very immature. But the prayers of infants are powerful and they will often have seen answers to prayer that will impress them. They will also know times when God has helped them deal with difficult feelings and have seen God at work in that way. So in the sense of having and active prayer life and in the sense of having a growing faith they will definitely be Christians.
As these young people speak to God they may well hear Him speak to them in visions or understandings. So in the sense of supernatural experience they will be Christians.
And for a significant few they will also have expressed to God and people a definite sense of choice. A choice to do the same thing as mum and dad and to “invite Jesus into their heart” (not, I think, a very accurate theological expression but convieniently simple). This decision will need to be one that is affirmed as they develop as people and have more areas of their life that they need to line up with God, but it is none the less significant for its provisional nature. In this highest expression they are very definitely emerging Christians.
Now accepted that these two year olds may not have had many of these oppotunities if they were not brought up in a Christian home, but none the less that are real parts of who they are, accepted or rejected in measure by different children. For those really accepting what they are receiving I think you can see that:
relationship, trust of Church, belonging, identity, loving rituals, moral values, accepting and knowing scripture, praying, faith, experience and commitment
are all things that would make such a young child a Christian in reality and not just by label. And there would be only few such children that would not fit in in some of these areas.
Comment by Gordon March 12, 2008 @ 9:59 pmShould we talk about tooth-fairy children and santa-claus children?
Comment by Isaac Gouy March 14, 2008 @ 3:50 pmWell my children certainly didn’t grow up believing in either. I certainly think need to consider the problems of children growing up with no coherent world view but simply living in today’s hedonism.
Comment by Gordon March 14, 2008 @ 5:51 pmIsaac – let me reply further to your last comment. It is not really a reply that deserves an answer in that it just tries to associate a serious point with a totally absurd one. It might be designed to annoy, but I am not so easily annoyed, but rather dissapointed that, what I thought was a quite full and serious answer to your specific question gets such a trivial response.
I don’t think that any right minded person could consider tooth-fairism or santa-clausism as a rounded religion with social context, philosphical grounding, moral paradigm and spiritual life.
But let me interpret your point more generously and ask the question you should have for you: If you favour bringing up children in your faith do you also defend the right of others to bring up their children in faiths that you think are wrong, or in no faith at all.
Obviously I think that it is a handicap for children to be brought up in a faith/athism that is wrong. But I see this as infinitely preferable to not bringing up children, to leave them devoid of culture, identity, moral framework the concept of world view or perspective on the spiritual.
This state of affairs is, I’m afraid, what too many young people are experiencing today. Even a thoughtful athism is better than no unbringing. Atheism is, as Dawkins himself has observed, rather limited in any sense on community, but at least it gives a sense of identity and a view on spiritual matters. Having said that there is communist atheism that has a strong sense of camaraderie.
So yes, better bring up a child, even with errors, rather than let then sink or swim in a sea of competing ideas. A few might have swum, but what about all those who will sink. At least give them arm bands – they might get in the way of proper swimming, but they might not drown.
If you think that children are quite capable of swimming in the sea of ideas without help, I will gladly discuss the error of that idea.
Comment by Gordon March 15, 2008 @ 9:40 am