Talk:Religion and children

Point of View

This really one sided. The majority of it sounds like it was written by some guy what has sexual dreams about Dawkins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.216.218 (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit, this article is so brazenly one sided that I can't believe the author wasn't blushing when he wrote it. 99.240.237.9 (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the criticism section is in desperate need of some balancing. I added the POV label. Darth Viller (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's simply in need of expansion. It's not like anything is being suppressed here. Richard001 (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right at that one and it does not merit removal, though it is a tad indiscreet of the author to simply leave it that. Anyway, no use dwelling on that, I've just did a quick search for information:

Factual (sort of):

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/digital-children/200806/origins-religion-in-the-child-5

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Stages_of_faith_development (Blind citing from other Wikis doesn't sound like the brightest idea, though)

Opinion:

http://www.beliefnet.com/Love-Family/Parenting/2004/02/Do-Children-Need-Religion.aspx

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3184

I am aware that what I listed beneath "factual" is not technically factual, however those seem to take a more nutral stance.

I also found this one, I'm not sure whether it is worth including:

http://news.psydir.com/Psychology-Articles/religious-teens-start-drinking-later-but-not-because-theyre-religious/

http://primal-page.com/fatherless.htm (seems debatable to me)

Darth Viller (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot understand why anyone should dispute this article, or question its neutrality. It appears to voice nothing but actual facts. Some readers may not like what it is kind of implying, but surely that is a personal problem? 212.139.248.18 (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Can't or won't? No one is denying Dawkins said these things, only that since no counterpoint in provided the article is one sided. For instance, several studies have shown that children brought up without religious teaching are at risk for higher depression in their twenties. No mention of stuff like that, only rantings by Dawkins. I don't have time to add in the info now, but will come back to it. For now I pointed out Dawkins had written a children's book with the express purpose of destroying religious belief in children, which is him trying to indoctrinate them, which he condemns in their parents. In reality, he doesn't object to indoctrination, only indoctrination in stuff he doesn't believe in. And he's trying to indoctrinate other people's kids, not just his own. So he says trying to teach your kids your beliefs is like child abuse but trying to teach every kid in the world his beliefs isn't. 71.33.194.249 (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't know what indoctrination is. It's distinguished from education when the indoctrinatee is taught "not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned." Teaching children to question or critically examine the doctrines of religion is definitionally not indoctrination.

He encourages questions, he does not stifle them. As soon as he says "be an atheist, because I say so (or because you'll be burned in hell if you don't)" then he'll be indoctrinating. However, he has never, and I doubt he will ever say such a thing. If he doesn't have an answer, he will say something along the lines of "I don't know", which is the only correct response in such a situation. 74.14.62.115 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I laughed out loud when I read "I cannot understand why anyone should dispute this article, or question its neutrality" Never mind the fact that this section is a flat-out copy of a section from 'Criticism of Religion', though I notice they managed to leave out the meagre responses section, this article is pretty-much entirely one-sided from 'Indoctrination' downward.

Ion Zone (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit by 71.33.194.249

Your recent edit of this article has several problems.

• The phrase "indoctrinate them into his worldview" is obvious POV.
• It is your interpretation of a Primary source, ie Original research.
• The terms "fallacy of various religious teachings' and "thus trying to indoctrinate them into his worldview" do not occur in the video presented as a reference.
• When your edit was reverted, instead of discussing your edit on the talk page (per WP:BRD) you reinstated it.
• When it was reverted again, you again reinstated it, thus starting to engage in an Editwar. Editor2020 (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

ps I see that you in fact did post on the talk page, I missed it because you replied to an old conversation. Editor2020 (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I reinstated it because it was labeled as vandalism of all things and POV. I suppose I can cite someone pointing out that's indoctrination itself if you wish, but since the page was filling up with Dawkins says this and that and he's just one biology prof. who also advocates for atheism he needs to be pared down or balanced. We can put in tons of random opinions condemning "indoctrination" but shouldn't we then have pro teaching of religion to the young opinions, or would that be getting out of hand. Maybe we should just stick to actual experts on the effects of religion on kids. I put in an actual psychological study on religious participation and belief of children and their health effects. It's a start. Roy Brumback (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have added a pile of evidence contradicting the worldview that Dawkins holds.

Ion Zone (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Khazar2, But, it is not yet neutral. It either talks about Chriatianity or Muslims. It doesn't address other religions. So, I'm re-adding it. I came here to edit to the lead. But, when the article is not itself okay, what should the lead summarize about? Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 12:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Study Interpretation Involves Tacit Assumptions

The association alluded to in the Health Effects section is supported by one source, a paper by Chiswick and Mirtcheva, which certainly meets any standards of reliability and certainly goes to show that there is a positive correlation between health and religiosity. But, as is said in the final paragraph of the article, such data cannot possibly establish causality but rather only that there is something about religious groups that makes their members tend to have better health than non-religious people. Nevertheless, in other parts of the paper, the association is sloppily called an effect without anything (as far as I could tell, at any rate) being provided to show that the association indicates a cause/effect relationship in that direction (religion to health, that is). Perhaps there is one, but this article's last paragraph makes it clear that it shouldn't actually be used to demonstrate such a causal relationship. Perhaps the relationship actually goes in the other direction: rather than non-religious people tending to be less healthy, perhaps it is that less healthy people tend to think of the world as a rotten place that probably isn't run by anything omnibenevolent, whereas energetic, healthy, exuberant people see the world as a wonderful place which certainly could all have been created by a god. Thus people might be religious because they're healthy rather than healthy because they're religious. By analogy, consider the positive association probably existing between frequent roller coaster-ing and general health. This would exist because sickly people are probably not going to want to go out to an amusement park and throw their bodies left and right for two hours. Yet there are no known positive health effects of going to an amusement park, at least not to me, at any rate. Similarly, it is entirely possible that sickly people tend not to want to go to church and be religious because they don't have the energy and time to do so, while healthy people tend to be more so inclined. Thus, without any actual evidence as to which way the correlation goes, or to whether there's some lurking variable, I move to strike any reference to cause/effect from that section as purely speculative (your honor :)), unless simply to state that no causal relationship can be inferred from these data alone. David815 (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Religion and children. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091007235352/http://www.seyaj.org:80/en/ to http://seyaj.org/en/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080924175937/http://www.goarch.org:80/en/ourfaith/articles/article7079.asp to http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7079.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Popular culture vs experts

Much of the article focuses on authors like Dawkins (who would be more adequately used for topics like biology and atheism) rather than on the work of psychologists. His views may by due, but some psychologists have written on the topic. —PaleoNeonate – 11:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Re-adding the POV tag and removing the tag to improve lead

I saw the POV tag was added in 2009, but removed in 2013 without addressing the issue. Even now it either talks about Christianity or Muslims, but not other religions. It has the tag to improve lead, but when the article is not complete, what should the lead summarize about? Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 12:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)