Pharyngula

True, just ask Woody Allen.

Posted by: danley | March 11, 2008 8:59 AM

Nice; I love his candor and honesty.

Maybe it is more so for Judaism, but it seems to me that religion in general is primarily about culture and is only secondarily (at most) about actual god-belief.

If only more religionists could be so open about their agnosticism/atheism, religion might not be so destructive.

Posted by: Shaggy Maniac | March 11, 2008 9:14 AM

This is bright kid, but his speech is only shocking to non-Jews, as evidenced by the light-hearted reaction from the audience. Non-orthodox Judaism is really more of a culture than a religion, and questioning god is very acceptable.

Posted by: michael | March 11, 2008 9:30 AM

I did something akin to this at my (Jewish) confirmation. Only I was far less diplomatic. He does a great job of reconciling the cultural aspects and the religious aspects of Judiasm.

I'm not sure if I can give him enough high-fives.

Posted by: Sparky | March 11, 2008 9:46 AM

I went to a temple once, to see what sorts of mysterious goings on happen. A kid had his Bar Mitzvah that day, and in his speech, he brought up the story of creation, and how there was no way it was literal, but dove into the excuse that "who knows how long a day is to God?" From that one service, I got a sense of the questioning nature I've seen from Jewish friends. It was refreshing to hear speculation about stories, like Adam and Eve, to try to determine the meaning behind the stories. It was refreshing to hear different interpretations, but it felt shallow, in that these alternatives were showcased to be put down by the real interpretation, the real meaning of the passage. It still seemed better then my Lutheran services which consisted of some personal story from the pastor which never happened, had no basis in scripture, were totally irrelevant to anything talked about that day and could usually be boiled down to, love one another, don't sweat the small stuff, and try to give more money to the church.

Posted by: Bjorn Watland | March 11, 2008 9:55 AM

The religious would scare me far less if they adopted an attitude closer to the Jewish community. Most are not interested in converting you or forcing their beliefs into public schools.

Christians and Muslims could learn a lot from their Jewish roots.

-OEJ

Posted by: One Eyed Jack | March 11, 2008 10:07 AM

"atheist Xian."

John Shelby Spong. May he start a movement that completely changes the face of Christianity.

Posted by: writerdd | March 11, 2008 10:13 AM

I questioned my atheist indoctrination and came to the conclusion that atheism is wrong. Is that okay, or is questioning only acceptable when someone comes to the conclusion that there is no God?

Posted by: dsmvwld | March 11, 2008 10:27 AM

Re: dsmvwld

The unexamined life is not worth living.

SG

Posted by: Science Goddess | March 11, 2008 10:34 AM

I questioned my atheist indoctrination and came to the conclusion that atheism is wrong.

How can one be indoctrinated by something in which indoctrination is impossible? There is no creed or belief system to indoctrinate one into.

Posted by: JimC | March 11, 2008 10:35 AM

I questioned my atheist indoctrination and came to the conclusion that atheism is wrong. Is that okay, or is questioning only acceptable when someone comes to the conclusion that there is no God?

Well, it's better you came to that conclusion on your own, as opposed to being brainwashed into it.

But there's really no such thing as atheist indoctrination. It's just proper critical thinking skills, really.

Posted by: Abbie | March 11, 2008 10:37 AM

That just provides more proof that, on average, Jews are smarter then the Gentiles, eh. Nicer, too, but that could be cultural.

Posted by: Richard Harris | March 11, 2008 10:38 AM

Reminds me of a story a friend told me once.

He grew up Jewish and was marrying a Protestant. They didn't want to have the whole Jewish wedding thing and his father was pissed off about it. In the middle of their impassioned argument my friend said "Look Dad, I don't even believe in god." To which his father said "Well, hell. Neither do I, but that doesn't mean we can have the wedding on a Saturday!"

Laughed my ass off the first time he told me that.

Posted by: Dahan | March 11, 2008 10:45 AM

dsmvwld,

this kid isn't making incredible statements, and neither do deniers of any gods. You want to make an incredible statement (i.e. there is some form of a deity somewhere, doing something), and that requires some evidence. Otherwise, I can make up any remark and insist on it's legitimacy, without evidence. Like "the universe was created by an invisible pink unicorn", and we don't want to go there.

Posted by: True Bob | March 11, 2008 10:57 AM

Don't see that expectation placed on this kid or any other atheist. Imagine that.

Are you kidding? Then you're not paying attention. Imagine that.

The topic of deconversion is discussed rather frequently, and in great detail, right here on this board.

Posted by: Kseniya | March 11, 2008 11:00 AM

dsm-

I assure you that I was very much indoctrinated into atheism. There's nothing impossible about it. And if you think atheists don't have beliefs or creeds, you're deluding yourselves. Just because they're not religious beliefs or creeds doesn't mean they're not beliefs or creeds.

"Show your work."

Don't see that expectation placed on this kid or any other atheist. Imagine that

You conflate indoctrination with someone asking you to back up what your saying?

Again the point stands you can't be indoctrinated into something with no creed. You are being intentionally clueless.

Posted by: JimC | March 11, 2008 11:01 AM

In my experience most of the atheist indoctrination stories come from households wherein the family was once religious or was generationally religous. The generation in question would then stray from the flock so to speak. When a member of the family returned to the flock, this was seen as returning to theism from a "morally devoid" atheistic lifestyle.

Also, the kid did show his work. He laid out a philosophically logical viewpoint in his words. To me that's doing the long division.

Finally, shedding one belief system through a consistent and logical process of analysis does not constitute taking on a brand new belief system. Contrary to most people's opinion, a lack of belief is not a belief. Hence the use of the word "lack".

Posted by: Monsignor Henry Clay | March 11, 2008 11:04 AM

dsmvwld,

What you are describing is exactly what most of us are trying to avoid happening. Atheism propagated as a belief system does nothing to change the world. It's just the same old same old. If atheism were to become dogma, with authority figures and tenets to be followed then people will be no more free than they are now, and the "sheep" mentality will continue.

It is rational, critical thinking that needs to be embraced, the love of truth over belief. Pure observation and investigation over dogma and mind-numbing rituals.

It is possible to make "no belief" a dogma, but that is the opposite of what we are trying to achieve.

Posted by: RamblinDude | March 11, 2008 11:09 AM

(.)(.)

Posted by: wÒÓ† | March 11, 2008 11:18 AM

Oh, no. I assure you that I was very much indoctrinated into atheism. There's nothing impossible about it.

Evidence, please?

Define "indoctrination." Were you threatened with eternal torture unless you were skeptical? Were you told "there is no god, and you'd better not question that" by an authority figure once a week at a big meeting? Did you have to memorize "God isn't real. I have no god(s). There's no such thing as god(s). May the invisible Pink Unicorn save me from God(s)"? Did you learn an anti-believer catechism?

Tell us all about this indoctrination. I've never heard of such a thing (which I assure you dosn't mean it can't exist, it just means I'm skeptical in regards to it's existence).

I am very, very curious about this atheist indoctrination - I might want to apply it to my children, whom my wife seems hell bent on turning into bloody Catholics. So far I'm content with being open about my disbelief, and helping them to question everything they see, hear and read; to find multiple sources and think. But golly, if I can indoctrinate them into atheism it will be so much easier. So please, let's hear all about this atheist indoctrination.

If after your "indoctrination" into atheism, you were able to break free of it and find god, I'd have to say you are not so bright. Or just a rebel without a clue. "I'll show those damned indoctrinating atheist swine! I'm going to IGNORE them and BELIEVE in GOD!"

What a maroon.

Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | March 11, 2008 11:27 AM

I'd give the guy a break re: atheist indoctrination. I can easily imagine a family which inculcated ideas like there is no god, there is no afterlife, there is no soul, there is no greater meaning to the universe, without encouraging a critical examination of these ideas or brooking a debate about it. In that way one could call it atheist indoctrination.

Posted by: cm | March 11, 2008 11:46 AM

Julia Sweeney talks about being a "cultural Catholic" -- going to church, performing the rituals, and celebrating the holidays as community traditions involving friends and family, without any underlying religious belief. This is similar to what is going on with Humanistic Judaism. I suspect that any time you get a close-knit community bound together by faith, the faith tends shift towards those who are loved and how you live together, instead of the doctrine. There is even a branch of Mormonism which admits and agrees that the Book of Mormon is a pseudohistorical mess invented by Joseph Smith -- but there's real value in being Mormon anyway. That's the price religions pay for trying to make themselves reasonable and relevant and helpful.

Atheists come in all types -- I don't find someone claiming they were raised by one of the raging "Don't mention God in THIS house!" hardliners to be an incredible or impossible claim. Madelyn Murray O'Hare once publicly stated that "if one of my children said they believed in God, I'd kick them out!" -- and apparently followed through. Atheism can be as dogmatic as religion, just like democracy can be imposed on people by threat of force. The theory may be consistently against that, but people aren't necessarily consistent.

Dan Barker, a former fundamentalist, said that when he lost his faith and became an atheist, virtually none of his former apologist Christian friends -- who spent their lives giving 'reasons to believe' -- were interested in the specific arguments for why he no longer believed in God. Every time he tried to tell them, they would switch topics to personal issues like "why are you so unhappy" or "what horrible thing must have gone wrong in your life for you to leave God?"

Atheists, on the contrary, are usually very interested in the apologetics and rational reasons. Oh, so you used to be an atheist and now you are 'convinced' that God exists? What's the argument? Trot it out, lay it out -- in numbered form if possible. We're going to analyse and scrutinize and take it apart like a science theory. See if it stands up. We don't give a crap how your belief is "working" in your life. Very nice. Not the point.

None of this "you rejected atheism? Oh, you poor baby -- something must have hurt you so much...We're going to be nice to you so you come back." I actually like that. I think it shows a kind of pure integrity that can be just as hard to find as the "supportive community."

Posted by: Sastra | March 11, 2008 11:52 AM

Sastra: Atheists, on the contrary, are usually very interested in the apologetics and rational reasons.

Which brings us back again to the topic on an earlier thread: are we mutants? LOL!

Because, seriously, most people are not interested in whether something is true or not; they're interested in believing that something is true or not.

Posted by: RamblinDude | March 11, 2008 12:01 PM

Because, seriously, most people are not interested in whether something is true or not; they're interested in believing that something is true or not.

Maybe it was presumptuous to say "most", but certainly "a large number."

Posted by: RamblinDude | March 11, 2008 12:14 PM

I applaud the kid for speaking his mind, but he really needs to work on his presentation. Is it just me, or does he sound like a young Stephen Hawking?

Posted by: Bruce | March 11, 2008 12:51 PM

Oooh, story time!

Those of you who read far enough down in the comments to get to my 2 cents (I tend to comment quite late), have heard me refer to myself as a "third generation atheist" a few times.

However, I did not know I was an atheist until about seventeen, didn't know I was a second generation atheist until twenty, and didn't know I was a third generation atheist until twenty-five.

You see, my parents were very anti-indoctrination, and taught me critical thinking skills, and scientific methodology only (my mom was a teacher), and sent me out into the world.

So, it wasn't until I was confronted head-on with the strangeness of being treated differently by my peers (and their parents) for not believing in an invisible sky-man that I really came to understand myself as an atheist (well, agnostic at first, but it is more a matter of definition when you understand the (lack of) evidence and the burden of proof in regards the existence of any particular god), and I had to ask my mother, father, and grandfather directly to get their views (they almost seemed to have a secret-ballot philosophy about religion).

Anyway, all's well and good right? Well, on the other hand, my sister who was not as naturally inquisitive, who didn't try to understand the nature of the universe, and who socialized heavily with the regular religious kids in school, wound up adopting those beliefs as her own.

She is, at least, a "meh"-Christian, rather than a fundamentalist, but because of this I seek some middle ground between basically passive parenting on this topic (and thus leaving your children open to social pressures, not to mention anyone else's evangelical urges) and a kind of "atheist indoctrination", the idea of which I am clearly not alone in abhorring.

Thoughts, anyone? How do you ensure that critical thinking "takes" in every one of your children, so that you can inoculate without having to indoctrinate?

Posted by: Jason Failes | March 11, 2008 1:02 PM

How do you ensure that critical thinking "takes" in every one of your children, so that you can inoculate without having to indoctrinate?

I think the short answer is "you can't." All you can do is your best at giving them the tools they need to think well and clearly. If they choose not to use them, what can you do? Not much. Keep trying. Stay calm. Love them anyway.

Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | March 11, 2008 1:11 PM

I think it all comes down to how you approach the unknown. If you approach it with fear and trepidation at what you might find, you might be more apt to cling to comforting conclusions no matter your intellect. If you approach it with curiosity, there is less likelihood that you'll accept at face value a comforting but incomplete explanation.

Death is the ultimate unknown, and I don't think I'm alone in saying I'm a bit fearful of it approaching middle age. But I have yet to let it get me to cling to another fantasy. It can be depressing to realize that your memories and thoughts and just about everything of who and what you are will just go away. But it makes everyone I know that much more precious rather than giving me some kind of immoral licensure. It makes me much more cognizant that what I do here will be all that remains, however brief. It makes me much less apt to waste what time I do have.

Posted by: Pat | March 11, 2008 1:44 PM

Here's a sensible thought from National Review:

The truth is that secularists have nothing to complain about when it comes to political power. Their representation in American liberal political activity is disproportionately high, it is increasing, and it utterly dominates the political scene in many places. What secularists might legitimately complain about is the fact that liberal political leaders rarely acknowledge their contribution. To my knowledge, for example, Senator Hillary Clinton has never thanked the atheist community for what will no doubt prove to be energetic support for her presidential candidacy. Why is this? Nonbelievers might justifiably ask Mrs. Clinton and other Democratic leaders for the credit they truly deserve.

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/30/opinion/main3559387.shtml?source=RSSattr=Opinion_3559387

It might be better to ask Obama, now (this was published c. Dec. 2), but I think Arthur C. Brooks does well to ask the same questions that PZ, Dawkins, Hitchens, and others have asked.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: Glen Davidson | March 11, 2008 1:52 PM

How do you ensure that critical thinking "takes" in every one of your children, so that you can inoculate without having to indoctrinate?

I've always answered whatever questions they've asked and nurtured the questioning process. I think all kids are inquisitive until their parents beat it out of them.

Posted by: No One of Consequence | March 11, 2008 2:01 PM

Ha, that was an awfully stiff-looking rabbi at the end. It's good to see that modern education is just decimating the efforts of the religious to indoctrinating kids.

Posted by: Santiago | March 11, 2008 3:13 PM

Did you read the comments to the video? A lot of pissed-off Jews saying that the rabbi should lose his station and that his parents should be ashamed of themselves.

I'm not entirely convinced that those pissed-off people are actually jewish. "WeatherHatFox" in the comments appears to me to be particularly vocal example and includes this comment:

However, he should not be able to go through with his Bar Mitzvah if he has not resolved these questions and become a completely committed Jew.

As I understand it, the Bar Mitzvah is simply the coming of age in Jewish society, much like 'Seijin no hi' (coming of age) in Japan. You come of age, you have a bar mitzvah; no religious connotations are necessary. If I'm right, then I'm going to assume that either WeatherHatFox is an extremist, or a racist. But I don't think he's a representative Jew.

Posted by: Armchair Dissident | March 11, 2008 5:02 PM

Thoughts, anyone? How do you ensure that critical thinking "takes" in every one of your children, so that you can inoculate without having to indoctrinate?

your folks had it right, AFAICT.

teach critical thinking skills, and demonstrate the value and efficacy of evidence based logic.

past that, there is always a balance between what we know to be accurate, and what we are willing to compromise in order to interact socially.

you chose to set a different balance than your sister did.

the way to "fix" this early on is not to do anything different than your folks did from a teaching standpoint, bur rather to make sure that whatever your choices, you have access to peers that share them. However, I would also add a knowledge of how humans social bond to one another, so that my kids have some idea of the kinds of resistance they are going to run into, and be able to make informed decisions about how to balance their viewpoints with their wish to form relationships with others.

If all your peers are christiotards, it's a hard thing to function in society and build healthy relationships if you insist on principled atheism, whether correct or not.

The hope is, eventually, that encouraging critical thinking and evidence-based logic will result in an ever growing body of like-minded peers, but we're still quite a ways from that in this country.

It's a tough thing to adjust one's own life in order to make sure one's kids have contact with peers that share their own viewpoints. The fact that your folks at least got one kid to abandon religiosity actually implies whatever they taught you was pretty damn successful, considering that ~90% of americans identify themselves as religious in one form or another.

So, to more briefly answer your question... there is no way to "ensure" anything you teach your kids will "take", no matter what you do. You can only act to try and increase the level of probability. From my experience, to maximize those you have to not only expose your kids to critical thinking, you have to make sure they have access to friends/mates that also share similar mindsets.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 11, 2008 6:01 PM

A lot of good suggestions on children and religion (discussions and education) -- and I'll point out one positive which comes automatically to atheists who raise their children without religion, or who expose them to nontheistic alternatives.

No matter what your child later decides, there is little possibility that they will ever find "believing in God" to be as natural and normal as "breathing," and as clear and obvious as the existence of the sun. They will not consider atheism to be "unthinkable" -- literally beyond their ability to imagine. Even if they choose to become religious, it will be a choice. They will always be able to understand the other side. They will understand the difference between believing that there is a God, and deciding that they want to follow what they believe God wants. They'll know not to confuse those who reject the first as really just rejecting the second.

To me, this is very important. I've spoken to people who were raised in religion who assure me, proudly, that they cannot envision the world without God. They can't wrap their minds around it. "Might you be wrong?" I ask. "Is it possible, at least in theory, that there is no God, and the universe wasn't set up as part of a plan, but just runs on, natural? Could atheists be right?"

And they laugh, blink, screw up their face, and go "No! I mean -- well, yes, I might be wrong about anything, I guess, but -- oh! No! I can't IMAGINE being wrong about God! What if God doesn't exist? That's like asking me if I could be wrong about my own existence! 'What if I don't exist!' See how silly that sounds? That's what it sounds like to me. That's how sure I am about God."

And then they wait for me to express admiration, or envy, or something. And I am quietly appalled.

I can imagine being wrong. I can run through options, wrap my mind around the idea that some form of God exists, and think "ok, I can imagine that well enough." And so I can respect the other side. I can see how a sensible person can believe something other than what I believe.

But how the hell would I feel about someone who holds a view I literally consider unthinkable? Rationally indefensible on any level whatsoever? And what would it say about someone who was incapable of thinking what it would be like to be a woman, or a black person, or gay, or a Republican, or from another country -- not even as a thought experiment? It's not just a failure of the imagination or intellect -- it's also a failure of empathy. It's the foundation of bigotry.

Bigotry doesn't just come from thinking the other side is "wrong." It comes from thinking the other side is so obviously, clearly wrong, that no case needs be made against them. Their position can be dismissed as beneath consideration, for nobody reasonable could ever hold it. That is what makes an outsider. You cannot put yourself in their shoes, because you don't think they have any. They don't even have feet.

I am amazed that this is apparently what a lot of religious folks want for their children. They want them to be so soaked in God-belief from birth that not believing is never an option, even in the imagination. People who don't believe as they do -- atheists -- should be incomprehensible. I find that chilling.

I did not want that for my children. If they ever decide to follow a religion, I want it to be an intellectual process. Not "what else is there? Hehehehe."

Posted by: Sastra | March 11, 2008 7:39 PM

Sastra wrote:

I am amazed that this is apparently what a lot of religious folks want for their children. They want them to be so soaked in God-belief from birth that not believing is never an option, even in the imagination.

Posted by: H. Humbert | March 11, 2008 7:59 PM

They are tiny, frightened minds. They fear knowledge because it leads to doubt, and doubt leads one away from God. For them, ignorance is the same as salvation, and they intend to fight to keep it.

just so; and I guess it's upon all who have abandoned ignorance and fear to be responsible for those who have not.

much as it seems like a waste of time, most days.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 11, 2008 8:32 PM

Whenever I think about religious indoctrination, especially the Xian version, I can't help but think of it as a variation on the Stockholm Syndrome. "If you don't obey me, I will torture you" shouldn't make anyone love the speaker, but somehow this works in churches. Just because a mugger only asks for 10% of your money every week doesn't make it any less robbery. Muggers also don't get taxed on their swag, you'll note.

I'm really glad that my dad's minister tried to get a two-for-one deal on my baptism. He said he wouldn't baptize me if he couldn't do my dad at the same time, since he'd not been baptized as a child. Dad had finally had enough and left the church forever. So he told me, anyway. Whether it is true or not, he's the one who instilled critical thinking and a love for science in me.

I've had brushes with all types of woo in my childhood and adolescence, but none of it ever was very satisfying, and all too often I'd find myself rolling my eyes or giggling over how ridiculous it all seemed.

Posted by: MandyDax | March 11, 2008 9:13 PM

The thing I find a little confusing is that atheists want empirical proof from theists

well, let me help you with that.

atheists don't care, but if you provide evidence of such, we'll certainly take a look at it. I think you might be overextending the argument, as it is entirely a reactionary one on the part of atheists when confronted with:

"You can't prove God doesn't exist!"

which of course, is a silly postulate to begin with, and demands the correct response that the burden does not lie with the negative proposition.

For me, belief is more a matter of hope-- of holding on to faith *despite* the lack of evidence.

it's a fine line to say you maintain *faith* despite no evidence in support, vs. saying you are maintaining a delusion, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

ask yourself:

do you NEED your *faith*?

why?

Is it a comfortable blanket, carried since youth like Linus in "Peanuts"?

why do you maintain your faith?

hope?

in what?