Hi again Chair,
Originally posted by Chairboy
Do I get the same free pass with indoctrinating them that religious families do? Or do I play dumb and tell them "I don't know if there's a god" even though that goes against my beliefs?
Actually philosophically, you raise an interesting point here.
Is there, or should there be, a one to one correlation between Christians teaching their children that there is a God, and those who profess atheism teaching their children there isn't a God?Well first why do Christians teach their children there is a God? Some would say this is all a matter of presenting what they "feel to be the case" as a fact. There is of course a kernel of truth to that. The Bible teaches that all men inherently know that there is a God both through his works in creation and via an inner conviction, but that many choose to suppress what they know:
"...what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead..." So to a certain extent when one teaches one's children that there is a God, and that he is the Creator, one is simply laying before them what theologians call the teaching of "natural revelation."
Of course not even Christians would say that one can move from the data in natural revelation to the Christian faith, or any of the more complex doctrines taught in the bible, or even that which is necessary to be known in order to saved. Nature teaches us almost nothing of theology. For that, some other form of revelation from God is necessary, which only makes sense. If we are to have any knowledge of God or His will, he must reveal it to us. As Geerhardus Vos explains:
"From the definition of Theology as the science concerning God follows the necessity of its being based on revelation. In scientifically dealing with impersonal objects we ourselves take the first step; they are passive, we are active; we handle them, examine them, experiment with them. But in regard to a spiritual, personal being this is different. Only in so far as such a being chooses to open up itself can we come to know it. All spiritual life is by its very nature a hidden life, a life shut up in itself. Such a life we can know only through revelation. If this be true as between man and man, how much more must it be so as between God and man. The principle involved has been strikingly formulated by Paul: “For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.” [1 Cor. 2:11]. The inward hidden content of God’s mind can become the possession of man only through a voluntary disclosure on God’s part. God must come to us before we can go to Him. But God is not a personal spiritual being in general. He is a Being infinitely exalted above our highest conception. Suppose it were possible for one human spirit to penetrate directly into another human spirit: it would still be impossible for the spirit of man to penetrate into the Spirit of God. This emphasizes the necessity of God's opening up to us the mystery of His nature before we can acquire any knowledge concerning Him. Indeed, we can go one step farther still. In all-scientific study we exist alongside of the objects which we investigate, But in Theology the relation is reversed. Originally God alone existed. He was known to Himself alone, and had first to call into being a creature before any extraneous knowledge with regard to Him became possible. Creation therefore was the first step in the production of extra-divine knowledge." [Geerhardus Vos,
Biblical Theology, p.3-4]
Of course, while the atheist might be willing to accept the logic in the above statement - that if God exists he must reveal himself to us - they would posit that the existance of some revelation doesn't naturally prove that there is a God. Merely that
if God existed, He would have to reveal Himself.
Christians of course, believe that both natural and special (i.e. the Bible) revelation are in fact God's manner of revealing himself to us (obviously atheists dispute the source of the revelation and always will) and so in teaching their children about God, Christians teach them from His revelation.
But what of the atheist and his children? Should he teach them, "there is no God!" and on what basis can he do so? He has no inspired revelation that is conclusive on the subject, and in order for him to conclusively know that there is no God in all the universe, he would need to be God himself. The most he can truthfully posit is, " I don't believe there is a God " and then lay out the factors that have inclined him to that decision.
So
should there be absolutely parity between the two positions? I don't personally think there can be.
Of course regardless of what he does or doesn't teach his children regarding God, his practice will indicate what he actually believes to them. This works the other way as well, a parent may profess to believe in God to their children, and then disclose by their actions that they are in fact practical atheists.
So Chair, you may not sit your children down tell them there is no God and then read at length from Bertrand Russel, but you will end up inevitably "teaching them" what you believe. So whether or not you get a pass, you'll show them what's in your heart, they're around you 24 by 7 and in constant "record" mode. A good rule of thumb is that you can con co-workers, neighbors, and even girl-friends, but kids? Nah... They know us better than we know ourselves.
- SEAGOON
