Influence without indoctrination (Parenting Beyond Belief #4)

[eastariel]

It's a parent's responsibility to help make the homeland safe by maintaining the best of old traditions (such as America's family farms), dissipating prejudice, protecting human rights, and supporting freedom.

[ZombieCobain]

I liked the book. Nice essays from Julia Sweeney, Richard Dawkins, etc.

[artzishlomo]

Telling the child to compare Grandma's view on Jesus with your own is unbalanced because while you qualify your statement as personal opinion, Grandma will not. You have to also preface wit with a discreditation of Grandma (problematic) and say that even if she tells you something is truth, it may not be (you see the problem).

[ahronzombi]

Dude i love you, great videos, i wish you were my parent :)

[5curiously]

Relativism: Belief in changeable standards. Right & wrong, truth and falsehood are not absolute.

Dale says: "BUT, ...It is possible to believe some outcomes are better than others and to STILL advocate freedom of conscience. "

Dale is still saying that his kids are free to choose and re-choose their own truth, whether he agrees with them or not. And he does not use "wrong, incorrect, or false" to describe alternate views, just "less desirable" or "better".

[PBBChannel]

Great exchange here! It really is hard to drop our screens sometimes and hear what's being said.

For the record, I do not think all views are equally valid and do not find all outcomes equally desirable. (See other videos and blog for context.) But I do trust my kids to think for themselves and will defend to the death (well, maybe to the pain) their right to do so.

It is possible to believe some outcomes are better than others and to STILL advocate freedom of conscience for my kids.

[5curiously]

I do not see any reply here to deny an advocacy of relativism.

[indianahoward]

5curiously: Since you don't mention it, I'm assuming you haven't followed the advice of several of us -- going to Dale's blog and other videos for context. Here's an excerpt (in 3 parts, to fit):

"I think some points of view are excellent, some are neutral, some are utter nonsense, and some are outrageously stupid and dangerous. Ive come to these conclusions not because my parents fed them to me, but by using the tools and values they gave me and then sorting it out on my own." (cont.)

[indianahoward]

Part 2: "By thinking hard, paying attention, and caring about getting the right answer, Ive come to the conclusion that evolution by natural selection is true and intelligent design is both false and much less interesting. I think Catholic doctrine is one of the most grotesque collections of dehumanizing stuff weve ever come up with as a species, and that many of the Catholics I know are nonetheless among the best people I know..." (cont.)

[indianahoward]

Part 3: "I think Mormon doctrine is incredibly strange, liberal Quakerism is a beautiful expression of the religious impulse, and Pat Robertson is a pig. If youd like to know how Ive come to any one of these opinions, I can walk you through the entire process because I was there. My parents declined to force-feed me their opinions, though I knew what they were & was surely influenced by them. Instead, my parents taught me to think hard, pay attention, & care about getting the right answer."

[wangrachel1]

Relativism: The belief that all points of view are equally valid.

Dale says: "I do not think all views are equally valid and do not find all outcomes equally desirable."

5curiously says: "I do not see any reply here to deny an advocacy of relativism."

Wangrachel realizes at last that she's been feeding a troll, thumps self on head..

[5curiously]

Perhaps it would have been clearer to say that he refuses to condone existence of absolutes. It's either/or logic. Either absolutes exist or they don't.

[TXatheist]

Imo, the distinction is a theist parent does not want a discussion on did jesus rise from the dead. It's in the bible so there is no need for a discussion in their minds(for the most part). I do like " I knoooow, I'm supposed to make up my own mind".

[5curiously]

Why do atheist assume that "theists" don't allow their beliefs to be questioned? This is absurd and insulting. It's the same twisted logic that thinks that creationist only keep their noses in the Bible. Most creationists know more about evolution than evolutionists. They have to know it inside & out in order to logically contradict it. Those convinced of the truth have no fear of questions because truth stands against all tests.

[TXatheist]

5curious, after 100's of conversations and people still think jesus rose from the dead I have learned most theists don't question such ideas. Some do, like thomas jefferson and john spong. Creationists can also use the koran but it's rare to hear of anyone but a xian/muslims that thinks the earth is 6000 years old. Most creationists have false ideas about evolution and next to none no more about evolution. Truth? You think you know the "truth". Sorry, that's absurd and insulting.

[5curiously]

Mr. Atheist, you began this by accusing "theists" of being close-minded -- ("doesn't want discussion"). If you are a follower of Dale, than surely you see how judgemental you are being with someone who has a different point of view. There do exist brilliant, logical people who both believe in the existence of God and can fill the evolutionary model so full of holes it will sink like a rock. My point is not to argue evol. but to counter the idea that theists don't think or question. That's insult

[TXatheist]

5curiously, there are not brilliant people that can use logic or reason or science to make evolution appear full of holes. There are unknowns in every science. It's insulting that 45% of the US thinks god made the earth less than 10000 years ago.

[5curiously]

You're insulted that people disagree with your opinion???

[TXatheist]

No, I'm not talking about my opinion. I'm talking about 45% misinformed about the age of the earth.

[5curiously]

Oh, I see. You must have indisputable evidence --- I think not. Unless you were there at the beginning as a witness.

[TXatheist]

Yes, you think science such as the doppler effect, red shift and measuring the rate of universe expansion requires me to be there when the big bang happened? There is evidence for that unlike god which there is none.

[5curiously]

Gellar & Huchra were two astronomers who, like you, assumed that red shift (attributed to the Doppler effect - another subject for later) supported the Big Bang. They set out to further prove it by compiling large star maps. If the universe came from a Big Bang, then matter would be evenly distributed. The more they mapped, they came to see that distant galaxies are instead clustered beyond nearly empty reaches of space -- not evenly distributed.

[5curiously]

In addition, the visible galaxies dont even contain enough mass to explain their existence and distribution.

The rate of universe expansion is also questionable with the Hubble constant varying greatly. There is still no consensus on its value today., severely limiting understanding of galaxy distance, universe age and size.

Your evidence for the Big Bang just isnt there.

[TXatheist]

Mildly varying expansion rate is why it's close to a 14 B year old universe and 4.5 B year old earth. Not knowing everything in cosmology doesnt make god true, just that humans still have much to learn. The known and witnessed expanding universe combined with beginning and endings of stars is evidence for the big bang.

[5curiously]

There are too many instances when observations contradict the Big Bang., yet these are simply ignored by those who refuse to question their holy grail. As youve accused theists of being unwilling to question (not true), I hope you would be willing to openly look at these scientific contradictions.

As space (no pun intended) is extremely limited here and if you are truly not afraid of questions, then might I suggest you get the book by Dr. Jason Lisle, Taking Back Astronomy.

[TXatheist]

contradict the big bang? Explain. Why read Lisle? I need to know why because too many times theists insist I read their stuff but they refuse to read from my side.

[5curiously]

Public schools have been indoctrinating kids into belief in evolution for decades. Perhaps people don't feel a need to read more crap when its been shoved down their throats for so long. Those who have the ability to move beyond the indoctrination have sought out the other possibilities. It's like everyone swimming in this indoc. pool. Some have climbed out and try to tell the others what it's like outside the pool and those in the pool say, but you refuse to see what it's like in the pool.

[TXatheist]

Evolution is a fact just like gravity so we teach it in science and actually it's still a challenge in schools to teach it as fact because of the xians. If people wanted to stop being fed crap they'd throw out their bible/koran.

[TXatheist]

And Geller and Huchra have since been corrected.

[5curiously]

Of course weve just talked cosmology. There are numerous other avenues to explore creation from fossil records to DNA to origins. But for your assertion that no evidence for God exists and since looking out your window doesnt convince you, then consider Shattered Visage by Ravi Zacharias. In the meantime, I will research your claim that Gellar & Huchra corrections dispute clustering.

[TXatheist]

I'm aware of Ravi and he's no better than any other xian. It's not an assertion that there is no evidence for god, it's your claim there is evidence and I'm asking for this evidence that shows god did some creation. First evidence for god, then how god created.

[5curiously]

I don't know what slurr you mean by saying "he's no better than any other christian." Have you read "Shattered Visage," or do you simply dismiss him without hearing him out?

[TXatheist]

i've read his works, heard him and can read more but as you claim you've cleared the swimming pool with reading crap I ain't gonna read your crap either. it's not me that has the imaginary friend.

[5curiously]

So we've come full circle. If you agree with Dale, you would have to allow a kid of yours to 'make up his own mind' even if it contradicted you. Somehow I don't think you'd allow that.

[TXatheist]

5curious, well, someone told my son that god was not a real person like buddha and I didn't argue. I would have told my son god is not like buddha but like santa...and I didn't.

[5curiously]

Yes, but you didn't answer the question. Would you allow your son to "make up his own mind" even if he decided God was real?

[TXatheist]

Yes, if my son says a god is real I will simply have a discussion about it if he wishes. It will help him understand both sides.

[5curiously]

Put more simply, he insists that the ONLY valid view is that all views are valid.

[indianahoward]

I'm sorry, but that's careless listening, 5curiously. He never said any such thing, and I challenge you to name the exact time in the video when you think he did.

He teaches his kids to think well, then trusts them to sort out the valid from the invalid for themselves. Are you really saying that the only way to distinguish between valid and invalid is to have mom and dad do it for you?

[5curiously]

OK, let's see. Careless listening? Quite the contrary. The implication is quite clear just before and after the 8 minute mark. His example is that his belief may be such & such, but so&so believes something else. Check out all the ideas, make up your mind, change your mind a hundred times-- The very directive that he gives in these examples is that all ideas have equal merit, and it's OK to choose any idea you like. He never mentions that any idea could be invalid (as you do).

[5curiously]

And speaking of careless, I never mentioned or implied that "Mom & dad do it for you."

The validity issue is key. His emphasis is on each person choosing his own truth -- this makes truth relative. Hence, my point earlier.

[wangrachel1]

@5c: So unless he forces his opinions on them, he's a relativist? (I get it, I used to hear this the same way.)

Giving kids permission to think for themselves is NOT the same as saying "all ideas are valid." It's a question of trusting them to think for themselves.

I recommend his other videos (and blog, and books) to you for a fuller picture. Dale is critical of many ideas and practices, but also determined that the influence he has on his kids doesn't cross over into indoctrination.

[5curiously]

My, people are touchy about this. Both responders assume I'm advocating the "forcing" of parental opinions. I have not said that. Allowing kids to "think for themselves" should not, however, mean that we must accept their conclusions as valid. Dale clearly implies the opposite. By telling kids "make up your own mind," (which is an axiom, since they will anyway) he implies that whatever conclusion they come to is acceptable. (Relative thinking)

[5curiously]

Critical thinking is a skill that is taught. One cannot teach it by witholding judgement on the thought process and analysis. This is not indoctrination. One cannot teach critical thinking without exploring different views. Dale himself says indoctrination is the teaching of only one point of view.

[wangrachel1]

I really do understand where you are coming from, 5c, because as I said, I once heard this the same way. But I eventually realized that statements like "Encouraging kids to explore multiple points of view is itself a single point of view, and therefore self-contradictory" is a tautology and a word game, nothing more.

I'm done, bye bye!

[5curiously]

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you're only deluding yourself and again misreading me. The exploring of different points of view is fine, it's the parental acceptance of ANY point of view the child chooses that is the problem. This is allowing the child to create his own "truth." (ie. truth is relative) This isn't a tautology. It does promote relativism. Again, it's not the exploration of ideas that is the problem, but the belief that the validity of an idea is dependent on the individual not truth.

[nonplus99]

This video is about the difference between parental influence (exposing your child to your views without insisting on your views being adopted) and parental indoctrination (requiring your child to adopt your view).

[nonplus99]

As Dale explains in the video, it doesnt matter what the parents views are the parent could be religious, an atheist or, for that manner, a moral relativist. What matters is whether the parent requires the children to adopt the parents religion or atheism or moral relativism (though Id think that indoctrinating moral relativism would be rather hypocritical).

[nonplus99]

As far as parental acceptance is concerned, Dale does not advocate that the parent accept the childs point of view. If one of Dales kids became a fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist, it wouldnt affect how Dale views fire-and-brimstone fundamentalism. It simply means that Dale wouldnt reject his children because their choice of faith differs from his.

[5curiously]

Ah, I see your line of reasoning, and I see that I was not clear in my explanation. I didn't mean to say that (using your example here) Dale would adopt the viewpoint that his kid had chosen. Rather, Dale would accept/allow his kid to hold that view. This is where the relativism comes in. If the kid's position is invalid and Dale witholds his judgement, he is essentially validating that point of view. But it would not be a rejection of the child for a parent to point out flaws of invalid view.

[wangrachel1]

I assume by "allow", you mean to leave a view completely unchallenged, which is something Dale does NOT suggest. He says repeatedly in other places that a constant conversation goes on between parent and child around these things, and that the parent is always free to argue and influence -- in fact must do so to be honest about her/his own position. He does not advocate a shrug, which is what you seem worried about. So that should put you at ease, yes?

[5curiously]

"parent is free to influence...to be honest..." Yes, I agree completely with that section you wrote. However I did not get that from the videoclip in question and it should have been clarified there if that is what Dale believes. I am beginning to sense that people walk away from these videos cherry-picking and hearing what they want to hear. Reading the channel's response below seems to confirm my misgivings. Your position was logical though I don't think it matches Dale's.

[indianahoward]

My strong feeling is that you and Dale are actually in agreement, and we're going round in circles over a misreading of his position. I've been following his line of thought for two years now and can tell you for certain that he does not think all conclusions are equally valid. At the same time, he thinks self-discovery is the firmest foundation for sorting the good from the bad and prefers to build those sorting skills rather than guide kids by the nose. That's all.

[5curiously]

(continued) You see, in insisting that all views are equally valid, he contradicts himself by denying the idea that the belief in absolutes is itself valid. He tries to be freethinking but such a view is in itself self-contradictory.

[5curiously]

There's a major flaw in this presentation. He correctly states that indoctrination is only presenting one point of view to the exclusion of others. However, he himself is indoctrinating into the belief that all views are equally valid. In trying to be "freethinking" he is discarding the idea of absolute truth and only allowing for the idea that truth is relative to each individual.

[superwazn]

i dont think i'll be having kids for another few years but, this topic was something i had thought about and wasnt too determined on how i was going to handle it. im so glad i came across your video because it made me feel more confident about some of my ideas and also introduced some other good points to think about. thanks!

[99minerkc]

Yes, it would be GREAT if parents and relatives would influence without indoctrinating! However, it will NEVER happen as a general rule! My father-in-law is TERRIBLE in that area-he constantly is indoctrinating both of my boys who are now teens! : (

[librehombre10]

Congratulations on establishing a YouTube channel for your videos. I very much appreciated the one on influencing vs. indoctrination. This has been a difficult point to overcome with parents and I think you handled it very adroitly. Many parents, even religious parents, are sincere about not indoctrinating their children but don't see how to navigate this issue.

[teacherninja1]

Great, as always. Just got "Raising Freethinkers" from my Gwinnett library. There were two copies! Faced out! I couldn't believe it. I went back the next day and the other one was checked out as well. You could have knocked me over with a feather.

[sktcruz]

Thanks Dale! As always, your answers and videos seem to be right on target with what we as a family are going through. Right now, all the backyard vacation bible clubs in our neighborhood is the topic. I have been given the "bad mommy" award for not letting my daughter attend. But that is over quickly after she does get to join her friends for snack! Excellent information!

[ChameleonDave]

Nauseatingly politically correct.

[myintellectualjourny]

Thanks Dale! Great stuff! :)

[blotzphoto]

Excellent as always Dale...

[PBBChannel]

Aack! Someone asked a great question about broken families, and I meant to hit REPLY but hit REMOVE instead! I'm sorry, please resubmit that.

[macronencer]

Hi Dale - that was me! Don't worry, I've often hit the wrong button too.

I think I was just asking whether you plan to cover broken families, and in particular, "remote parenting". This affects me personally, as I'm a "remote" father to my son, who after a divorce thankfully has a happy family life with moderately religious parents, and I'm not religious, so I have to be very aware of certain issues, if you see what I mean.

Thanks!

[PBBChannel]

Thanks for re-posting. I get similar questions all the time. It's the most important nonreligious parenting issue on which I don't say much, both because I have no experience with it myself & because sooo many variables come into play.

In talking to other nonreligious parents about this, it seems to me the best advice is similar to the mixed marriage (upcoming vid): If the split is amicable, sit down w/ex-spouse & negotiate a point-by-point agreement. (Out of chars, more later!)

[AlwaysReadTheLabel]

Dale, do you agree that as well as teaching children to make up their own minds, we should be teaching them that evidence is the best basis on which to form those opinions?

[PBBChannel]

Yes -- and this develops naturally over time through low-key follow-up questions. When a child says (to cite a recent example), "Michael Jackson's ghost appeared in his house!", simply follow up with, "Oh, why do you think that?" Don't overcorrect. Let them be wrong along the way. The thirst for right answers rather than preferred ones develops over time if the atmosphere of inquiry is there. By posing the "why" question each time, you show that the reasons for believing are worth examining.

[untsmurf]

All the videos have been wonderful and I can't wait to see more!

[oochygoochygoo]

I'm truly grateful for these - thanks again.

[disturbed119]

curse you and that catchy intro, stuck in my head

[jordisanchis]

always looking forward to your videos Dale! Good job, thanks and congratulations!