This is your brain, and this is your brain on indoctrination…

A short while back, I blogged about being an atheist role-model for a young pre-theist teen.

I say pre-theist, because the kid hasn’t really got much in the way of an idea of God, and to be honest he’s never actually predicated his assertions upon the existence of a God. Rather, there is usually just the conventional appeal to authority, Kohlberg stage 3, “I’m a Christian and scripture/church says.”

As stated before, his Christianity is more about identity than about God. About belonging to an in-group.

My beef isn’t about him being a Christian. Anyone who could read and comprehended what I wrote would see that.

My problem is with the unanswered questions. Why does neither the kid nor the parent know the theology of the church? Does the church know it’s theology? Will the kid have the mental tools to address legitimate questions posed by atheist and theist alike? Will his need for in-group acceptance (a big issue for the kid – problematically so) be exploited by a group seeking in-group conformity of thinking?

Not all churches pose a risk. If he was going to Neil’s church, from the sounds of things I wouldn’t worry a bit. Same for some other churches I’m familiar with.

At no point did I suggest a de-conversion to atheism (not that he’s fully inculcated in what it is to be Christian – even I can see that.)

But apparently my asking these questions, not just the approach but the questioning itself, is a bad thing. At least according to a certain Jackie Bruchi from a conservative Anglican sect in the US.

Apparently, what I’m doing can be called a “pounding” that I will “force him to endure.” Apparently, the kid is subjected to this “pounding” because “at 14 he is unable to provide the prerequisite responses his non-Christian friend has deemed to be proper.”

I’m wondering, would Jackie Bruchi consider doing arithmetic a “pounding”? Primary reasoning skills, being able to navigate your way around a syllogism and think critically are basic, essential skills. No less necessary than being able to count, add, subtract, mulitply or divide. To stunt this capacity in a youngster is no better than using small shoes to stunt the growth of their feet. It’s child abuse.

As for me not deeming his responses proper being the motive for challenging the kid – Jackie is being disingenous. Either that or she can’t read.

None of the problems I challenged him with, as I stated before, are problems that haven’t been regularly brought up in studies of theology. The problem of Hell – see Spong (whom I have a preference for) or the squizillion. What is Calvinism if not a response to the Euthyphro dilemma?

Apparently, the challenges addressed (if unsucessfully) by hundreds of years of Christian theology are unfit for a Christian to consider (stupidity). Or at any rate, if an atheist raises them (bigotry).

Perhaps I should give Jackie another example of what I mean when I talk about in-group biases and a lack of critical thinking.

The kid constantly makes generalisms about how American Christians are idiots. Well, I say constantly, but it’s starting to abate. Now he just thinks two groups: all American conservative Christians and Bible Belt Christians, are idiots. He’s really quick to pass judgement on people in these groups, even without getting to know them.

Kind of like Jackie when she says “…despite having parents who are atheists.” Parents she knows far too little about to make such an assessment.

The kid has these out-group biases because it’s all about identity and all about belonging to a group. Scripture is a ritual for belonging to the group, like hair product for emos.

These biases are abating, though not through any pastoral care from the church, but rather through the modelling of critical thinking by the atheists in his social circle. The kid’s outgroup bias against American Christians, challenged by non-Christians.

Remember when I said critical thinking skills were essential? I, and a couple of atheist cousins, put a good effort in on boxing day challenging his generalisations about Americans, giving him counter examples and asking him to think, because we value critical thinking and we value his welfare.

Now, should we abstain from this “pounding”? Should we neglect his primary reasoning skills? Or should the kid be resolute and stand firm, resillient to the challenges proposed by his atheist peers, resillient to logic, resillient to evidence, and maintain his faith that American Christians are idiots?

Sadly, like many Christians who have something to say about atheists, especially on the attribution of motives, Jackie throws the ninth commandment right out the window.

I may not recognise the authority of the ten commandments, but I value honesty all the same. It’s either that, or Jackie has just unintentionally gone and made a complete fool of herself by being so presumptuous about a family she doesn’t even know. Entirely deserving of ridicule in either case.

When I point out the irony of the kid’s exposure through the scouts contra his relationship with a gay aunty, Jackie says “Let’s hope this young man looks him firmly in the eye and as lovingly as is possible explains how one does not need to condone the behavior to love the person. Ah, but that is just one of the many misconceptions the obviously bright, but misled. (sic) author has about Christians..”

I made a comment about irony because it was ironic. It wasn’t a comment about “hate the sin, not the sinner.”

My comment about “loving the sinner” was made when I said “He identifies as a tolerant Christian, and states that he doesn’t hate gays, just that Christians shouldn’t be gay (as if gay Christians have a choice).” Clearly I can recognise the Christian belief that “one does not need to condone the behavior to love the person.”

Ah, but that is just one of the many misconceptions the obviously confused, and misleading author disembles about what I wrote.

The comments that follow Jackie’s rather dishonest post follow form for the most part, or veer off on a tangent I don’t wish or need to follow.

“Our prayers go out for “said kid” and all of those like him, that they may be led to see Your face. Pray also for those who stand in “said kid’s” way, that they may yield to Your authority and remember to not “put a stumbling-block before one of these little ones…” – Undergroundpewster.

He sees my face each time I visit him. If anyone does put a stumbling block before his cognitive and social development I suspect that prayer won’t help them if and when I choose to do something about it.

“One of the things I look for in a church is not simply an emphasis on “soul winning” or “evangelism” but also in what is popularly called “formation” or “discipleship.” I do believe that a church is only as fruitful as its ability to form Christians, not simply get them “fire-insured.” And a part of formation and discipleship is helping Christians to form a Christian worldview and be able to address and combat the assertions and arguments of the pagans—like this child’s “mentor.”” – Sarah Hey.

I agree. I’d like his Christianity (if that is what he really chooses) to be an informed Christianity. As for assertions and arguments – all made by Christians before me, and actually for the most part they are questions and problems, not assertions or arguments as such. And are you sure that you want him to be able to combat the notion that American Christians are idiots? Also, If you could point out this “pagan” mentor to me, I’d like to know.

Neither I nor his parents are aware of a pagan influence and not that it would be less welcome than a Christian one (I mean heck, look at the pagan influence in Christian culture for crying out loud – same difference), we’d like to make sure he isn’t being manipulated. We wouldn’t want him joining a cult or anything!

Seriously though, why people would want to stunt their child’s development, to shelter them from having to think. It’s disgusting.

~ Bruce