Teaching Your Children the Faith Doesn’t Mean Indoctrinating Them

Last updated on: January 9, 2017 at 11:49 pm by Kyle Cupp

Teaching Your Children the Faith Doesn’t Mean Indoctrinating Them 2017-01-09T23:49:01-05:00 Kyle Cupp

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Michael Brendan Dougherty corrects Richard Dawkins on the noted atheist’s scanty understanding of religious instruction and his stupid, supercilious charge that raising children religious is psychological child abuse, explaining that passing on the faith to one’s children can and should involve teaching the children to think for themselves, ask their own questions, and hear the opposition.

This section in particular warmed the cockles of my hermeneutic heart:

Notice the language he uses: force, indoctrinate. And the implication that religious kids cannot think for themselves. Of course, I don’t intend to force religious convictions on my children or indoctrinate them any more than I intend to force on them good manners, or indoctrinate them in the conviction that “might does not make right.” I simply intend to teach, guide, instruct, and correct. Rarely will that even involve formal lessons. Most of it will simply be implied.

[…]

The little expressions, eye rolls, and groans that parents attach to ideas, people, dress, or even dinner plates pass on good or harmful lessons without ever presenting themselves as “indoctrination.” So, too, do the books on the shelves, and the books that come off the shelves more frequently than others. These are the very things that teach children how to situate themselves in the home, in the world, in their social class — how to value themselves or others.

Han-Georg Gadamer would be proud. Richard Dawkins himself cannot escape some religious instruction because he’s situated in a society formed by multiple religious traditions. He rejects these traditions and the teachings and practices they bear, but he can’t separate himself from them. They inform his world, his worldview, and his thinking. It’s in this context that Dawkins has learned to situate himself against the forces of religion. Religion is part of his being-in-the-world.

Dawkins doesn’t want “un-evidenced opinions about the nature of life or the cosmos” forced on children. Great. I agree. But you seldom need to force these things. They come with living in any society. An atheist society too would have its traditions and their accompanying prejudices, assumptions, and un-evidenced opinions about the nature of life or the cosmos. No one lives on evidence alone.

Admittedly, I teach my children to take more after Michael Brendan Dougherty than Richard Dawkins. Like a lot more.

Follow Kyle on Facebook and Twitter.

Michael Brendan Dougherty

Religion

Richard Dawkins

Previous Post

February 24, 2015

Destroying ObamaCare, Whatever the Consequences

Next Post

February 26, 2015 Mistborn LEGO Minifigures

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Book Reviews Confessions Culture Current Events Family Life Hermeneutics Humor LEGO Sets Mindless Monday Question Personal Philosophy Policy Politics and Society Quotes Religion in Pop Culture Series Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month April 2016 December 2015 August 2015 July 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does Paul tell Titus that God's grace teaches us to deny?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Ungodliness and worldly passions Our sinful nature The flesh The devil