Atheists Go to church for their kids
poisongirl6485
Posts: 1,487 Member
http://news.yahoo.com/atheists-church-doing-children-225034079.html
He probably won't get down on his knees, but that fellow sitting near you during the Sunday church service just may be an atheist. And a scientist.
A new study out of Rice University has found that 17 percent -- about one out of five scientists who describe themselves as either atheists or agnostics -- actually go to church, although not too often, and not because they feel a spiritual yearning to join the faithful.
More likely, it's because of the kids.
What? Why would somebody who doesn't believe there's a god want his own offspring wasting their time in an enterprise he believes has no foundation in fact? Especially a scientist.
The study, by sociologists Elaine Howard Ecklund of Rice and Kristen Schultz Lee of the University at Buffalo, found that many atheists want their children exposed to religion so that they can make up their own minds on what to believe. In addition, church may provide a better understanding of morality and ethics, and occasionally attending services may ease the conflict between spouses who disagree over the value of religion to their children, the study contends.
The research, published in the December issue of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, was based on in-depth interviews with 275 scientists at 21 "elite" research universities in the United States. Sixty-one percent of the participants described themselves as either atheists or agnostics, and 17 percent of the non-believers had attended church more than once in the past year.
In general, their church affiliation followed a similar pattern -- most were raised in a family that was not deeply involved in religion, and they did not attend church during early adulthood but established a relationship with a church when they had children of their own. After the children had grown, they attended church less and less, if at all.
But why would someone who believes there is no god want his children exposed to doctrines that he clearly believes to be false?
"Some actually see it as part of their scientific identity," Ecklund said in a telephone interview. "They want to teach their children to be free thinkers, to give them religious choices, and so they take their children to religious organizations just to give them exposure to religion."
Let the kids make up their own minds, many of the participants told Ecklund.
Still, it may seem a bit odd for some atheists to perceive church as a desired "community" at a time when many leading atheists are calling on their colleagues to come out of the closet and take a public stand against religion. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, physicist Victor Stenger and others see religion as a source of evil in the world.
They contend that science has moved beyond a belief in the supernatural, partly because science has answered some questions that were previously left up to clerics. Evolution, for example, provides a naturalist explanation for how we got here.
True believers, by contrast, regard atheists as "among the least trusted people" on the planet, according to researchers at the University of British Columbia. These scientists emphasized last month that the right word is "distrust," not "dislike."
But however you put it, atheists do have a bit of an image problem. If they feel uncomfortable attending church, that's nothing compared to entering some aspects of public service. They usually find themselves on the outside looking in.
Atheists Who Go to Church
Columnist Michael Kinsley confessed to being a "nonbeliever" in the Los Angeles Times last month. In an op-ed piece he conceded, "That puts me in the only religious grouping in America whose members are effectively barred from any hope of becoming president, due to widespread public prejudice against them. There will be a Mormon president, a Jewish president, an openly gay president before there will be a president who says publicly that he doesn't believe in God."
He contrasted that with the current run for the White House in which "four of this year's Republican candidates were personally recruited by God to run for president." That number has since dropped to three.
Ecklund, who has conducted several studies of science and religion, said in the interview that it's possible for an atheist to become a member of a religious community without feeling like a phony.
"I don't think they see it as a conflict," she said. That's partly because they've been out of the mainstream for nearly their entire lives.
"There's a good deal of difference between the science community and the general public," she said. "Scientists are less likely to have been raised in religious homes." When they were, she added, "they were generally raised in homes where religion was not practiced strongly. It was not part of the fabric of life."
So perhaps a scientist who happens to be an agnostic or an atheist sees no problem with turning to religion, if only for awhile, because it could open new avenues of thought for the children. After all, isn't that the heart of science?
"The children can decide for themselves what to believe," Ecklund said.
He probably won't get down on his knees, but that fellow sitting near you during the Sunday church service just may be an atheist. And a scientist.
A new study out of Rice University has found that 17 percent -- about one out of five scientists who describe themselves as either atheists or agnostics -- actually go to church, although not too often, and not because they feel a spiritual yearning to join the faithful.
More likely, it's because of the kids.
What? Why would somebody who doesn't believe there's a god want his own offspring wasting their time in an enterprise he believes has no foundation in fact? Especially a scientist.
The study, by sociologists Elaine Howard Ecklund of Rice and Kristen Schultz Lee of the University at Buffalo, found that many atheists want their children exposed to religion so that they can make up their own minds on what to believe. In addition, church may provide a better understanding of morality and ethics, and occasionally attending services may ease the conflict between spouses who disagree over the value of religion to their children, the study contends.
The research, published in the December issue of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, was based on in-depth interviews with 275 scientists at 21 "elite" research universities in the United States. Sixty-one percent of the participants described themselves as either atheists or agnostics, and 17 percent of the non-believers had attended church more than once in the past year.
In general, their church affiliation followed a similar pattern -- most were raised in a family that was not deeply involved in religion, and they did not attend church during early adulthood but established a relationship with a church when they had children of their own. After the children had grown, they attended church less and less, if at all.
But why would someone who believes there is no god want his children exposed to doctrines that he clearly believes to be false?
"Some actually see it as part of their scientific identity," Ecklund said in a telephone interview. "They want to teach their children to be free thinkers, to give them religious choices, and so they take their children to religious organizations just to give them exposure to religion."
Let the kids make up their own minds, many of the participants told Ecklund.
Still, it may seem a bit odd for some atheists to perceive church as a desired "community" at a time when many leading atheists are calling on their colleagues to come out of the closet and take a public stand against religion. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, physicist Victor Stenger and others see religion as a source of evil in the world.
They contend that science has moved beyond a belief in the supernatural, partly because science has answered some questions that were previously left up to clerics. Evolution, for example, provides a naturalist explanation for how we got here.
True believers, by contrast, regard atheists as "among the least trusted people" on the planet, according to researchers at the University of British Columbia. These scientists emphasized last month that the right word is "distrust," not "dislike."
But however you put it, atheists do have a bit of an image problem. If they feel uncomfortable attending church, that's nothing compared to entering some aspects of public service. They usually find themselves on the outside looking in.
Atheists Who Go to Church
Columnist Michael Kinsley confessed to being a "nonbeliever" in the Los Angeles Times last month. In an op-ed piece he conceded, "That puts me in the only religious grouping in America whose members are effectively barred from any hope of becoming president, due to widespread public prejudice against them. There will be a Mormon president, a Jewish president, an openly gay president before there will be a president who says publicly that he doesn't believe in God."
He contrasted that with the current run for the White House in which "four of this year's Republican candidates were personally recruited by God to run for president." That number has since dropped to three.
Ecklund, who has conducted several studies of science and religion, said in the interview that it's possible for an atheist to become a member of a religious community without feeling like a phony.
"I don't think they see it as a conflict," she said. That's partly because they've been out of the mainstream for nearly their entire lives.
"There's a good deal of difference between the science community and the general public," she said. "Scientists are less likely to have been raised in religious homes." When they were, she added, "they were generally raised in homes where religion was not practiced strongly. It was not part of the fabric of life."
So perhaps a scientist who happens to be an agnostic or an atheist sees no problem with turning to religion, if only for awhile, because it could open new avenues of thought for the children. After all, isn't that the heart of science?
"The children can decide for themselves what to believe," Ecklund said.
0
Replies
-
I attended church with my wife on a somewhat regular basis until I decided that I didn't want to be in a catholic church anymore due to my personal reasons. She goes when she can depending on work schedule and is free to take the children with her and does with no argument from me. This is their life, and I provide guidance where I can, but if they decide that their happiness and beliefs conincide with church or Christianity or any belief system, I support it. That is not saying that I won't state my opinion if not asked. But I think questions of the spirit, soul, and existance of god is best left to the individual in their own quest for knowledge. The only restrictions I has was no bible camp for my sons, and not being an altar boy.0
-
Interesting. Clearly those atheists who take their kids to church because they want them to “make up their own mind” do not think religion is “evil.” Surely they wouldn’t want their kids to “choose” something that is intrinsically bad for them. We don’t put our kids in a situation where they will harm themselves just so they can have choices, do we? Atheists who take their kids to church and want them to have a legitimate basis of making a decision about religion seem to betray, perhaps, a deeper unsettledness on the matter. Maybe also these atheists see how impoverishing the atheist world-view really is. Since religion addresses such matters that atheists cannot, it makes sense to me that loving parents, even if they have trouble believing, secretly hope their kids will find something that will give them a more fulfilled life than their own. It is interesting how parents who adopt atheism (or other “protest” type movements) have a hard time transmitting the same kind of atheism to their children. Children often see through the inconsistencies and inadequacies of their parents’ ideological choices.0
-
If anything, its the much smarter choice. Why force your kids to believing science is the only answer? Does that not make you equal to the religious who do not wish for children to be taught science? That's nonsense. Especially when many scientists can and will not disprove any potential for a "higher" power. The intellectual need to be exposed to both sides, see both arguments presented in a non-biased manner to make a decision. If you're going to say you do not believe in religion, you better have an extensive knowledge of the many varying religions. You should CHOOSE which you believe in, science was shunned for many years because of religion, why would scientists do the same?
I went to church as a child, I understand religion and still have all the prayers memorized. However, that did not stop me from attending one of the most prestigious universities in my country for science. I feel many students(that I've encountered) who were "raised" atheist have a much harsher and ignorant view of the world as well as the overall behaviours of humanity.0 -
This is very interesting. I was raised Catholic and now consider myself to be agnostic. My boyfriend is atheist and we haven't really decided if we'll expose our future children to religion at all. I'll have to show him this article!
Kudos to those parents for being open-minded. Atheists can be just as closed-minded as religious folks, IMO.0 -
Interesting. Clearly those atheists who take their kids to church because they want them to “make up their own mind” do not think religion is “evil.” Surely they wouldn’t want their kids to “choose” something that is intrinsically bad for them. We don’t put our kids in a situation where they will harm themselves just so they can have choices, do we? Atheists who take their kids to church and want them to have a legitimate basis of making a decision about religion seem to betray, perhaps, a deeper unsettledness on the matter. Maybe also these atheists see how impoverishing the atheist world-view really is. Since religion addresses such matters that atheists cannot, it makes sense to me that loving parents, even if they have trouble believing, secretly hope their kids will find something that will give them a more fulfilled life than their own. It is interesting how parents who adopt atheism (or other “protest” type movements) have a hard time transmitting the same kind of atheism to their children. Children often see through the inconsistencies and inadequacies of their parents’ ideological choices.
I think that the holocaust was evil as well, but I still think children should be taught about it. Like I said, I don't mind if my kids go to church because I guess I'm being selfish, and I know if they actually sit down and read the bible and think about it they'll end up being atheist or at the very least, agnostic. And like I said, there are restictions, no way I'm ever letting my child in a church alone that is notorious for the rape of small children and then covering it up.0 -
We rarely speak of religion in my home. My wife believes in God, but not Organized Religion. I don't believe in God.
As far as my kids are concerned, they have had occasion to go to Church with Grandma and families of Friends. They can make up their own mind and I support thier right to whatever beliefs they develop. I am not even sure what they believe. On those rare occasions that religion comes up, it is very abstract.
I do not attend services of any kind. It would be hypocritical.
If someone I care for invites me to a Christening or a wedding or a funeral and it takes place in a Church, I attend and I keep my opinions to myself.0 -
If anything, its the much smarter choice. Why force your kids to believing science is the only answer? Does that not make you equal to the religious who do not wish for children to be taught science? That's nonsense. Especially when many scientists can and will not disprove any potential for a "higher" power. The intellectual need to be exposed to both sides, see both arguments presented in a non-biased manner to make a decision. If you're going to say you do not believe in religion, you better have an extensive knowledge of the many varying religions. You should CHOOSE which you believe in, science was shunned for many years because of religion, why would scientists do the same?
I went to church as a child, I understand religion and still have all the prayers memorized. However, that did not stop me from attending one of the most prestigious universities in my country for science. I feel many students(that I've encountered) who were "raised" atheist have a much harsher and ignorant view of the world as well as the overall behaviours of humanity.
On the flip side, I wholeheartedly disagree with believers forcing religion down their kids throats and not letting them explore on their own. It goes both ways. Yet many believers tend to push the whole "This is the only truth, and if you don't believe you'll go to hell when you die" dogmas on their kids and discourage exploration.0 -
If anything, its the much smarter choice. Why force your kids to believing science is the only answer? Does that not make you equal to the religious who do not wish for children to be taught science? That's nonsense. Especially when many scientists can and will not disprove any potential for a "higher" power. The intellectual need to be exposed to both sides, see both arguments presented in a non-biased manner to make a decision. If you're going to say you do not believe in religion, you better have an extensive knowledge of the many varying religions. You should CHOOSE which you believe in, science was shunned for many years because of religion, why would scientists do the same?
I went to church as a child, I understand religion and still have all the prayers memorized. However, that did not stop me from attending one of the most prestigious universities in my country for science. I feel many students(that I've encountered) who were "raised" atheist have a much harsher and ignorant view of the world as well as the overall behaviours of humanity.
On the flip side, I wholeheartedly disagree with believers forcing religion down their kids throats and not letting them explore on their own. It goes both ways. Yet many believers tend to push the whole "This is the only truth, and if you don't believe you'll go to hell when you die" dogmas on their kids and discourage exploration.
That's because religion is more believable when you are still Santa Claus eligable.0 -
I have this debate a lot at home. First off I would never keep MOST things from my daughter. She's bright and I prefer she make her own conclusions. If she had an interest in learning about religion I'd gladly take her to any church, synagogue, etc. But really she doesn't so I generally don't bother. And without any influence or indoctrination on my part she's already becoming quite the little atheist. Once she found out religious people wanted to ban Harry Potter that was it for Jesus and crew.
I do make an exception though. Hell. If she were to hear about hell I would quickly tell her that it's just a made up story designed to scare people. I don't mind letting her learn at all, but I won't let anyone intimidate her into belief.0 -
If anything, its the much smarter choice. Why force your kids to believing science is the only answer? Does that not make you equal to the religious who do not wish for children to be taught science? That's nonsense. Especially when many scientists can and will not disprove any potential for a "higher" power. The intellectual need to be exposed to both sides, see both arguments presented in a non-biased manner to make a decision. If you're going to say you do not believe in religion, you better have an extensive knowledge of the many varying religions. You should CHOOSE which you believe in, science was shunned for many years because of religion, why would scientists do the same?
I went to church as a child, I understand religion and still have all the prayers memorized. However, that did not stop me from attending one of the most prestigious universities in my country for science. I feel many students(that I've encountered) who were "raised" atheist have a much harsher and ignorant view of the world as well as the overall behaviours of humanity.
On the flip side, I wholeheartedly disagree with believers forcing religion down their kids throats and not letting them explore on their own. It goes both ways. Yet many believers tend to push the whole "This is the only truth, and if you don't believe you'll go to hell when you die" dogmas on their kids and discourage exploration.
That's because religion is more believable when you are still Santa Claus eligable.
That's an interesting point actually. I wonder how many people would still believe in the concept of a God if they had absolutely no knowledge of religion, god, Christ, etc until like age 30.0 -
If anything, its the much smarter choice. Why force your kids to believing science is the only answer? Does that not make you equal to the religious who do not wish for children to be taught science? That's nonsense. Especially when many scientists can and will not disprove any potential for a "higher" power. The intellectual need to be exposed to both sides, see both arguments presented in a non-biased manner to make a decision. If you're going to say you do not believe in religion, you better have an extensive knowledge of the many varying religions. You should CHOOSE which you believe in, science was shunned for many years because of religion, why would scientists do the same?
I went to church as a child, I understand religion and still have all the prayers memorized. However, that did not stop me from attending one of the most prestigious universities in my country for science. I feel many students(that I've encountered) who were "raised" atheist have a much harsher and ignorant view of the world as well as the overall behaviours of humanity.
On the flip side, I wholeheartedly disagree with believers forcing religion down their kids throats and not letting them explore on their own. It goes both ways. Yet many believers tend to push the whole "This is the only truth, and if you don't believe you'll go to hell when you die" dogmas on their kids and discourage exploration.
That's because religion is more believable when you are still Santa Claus eligable.
That's an interesting point actually. I wonder how many people would still believe in the concept of a God if they had absolutely no knowledge of religion, god, Christ, etc until like age 30.
0 -
That's an interesting point actually. I wonder how many people would still believe in the concept of a God if they had absolutely no knowledge of religion, god, Christ, etc until like age 30.
I think this question could go several ways.
In today's sense, probably not well. Only because I wonder the type of person raising a child that does NOT want them exposed to any type of religion. To me, I would think they are not very open minded and thus their children would presumably be raised in the same sense.
However, had society never been introduced to religion... well I wonder the type of society that is. What type of people would we have had to be to either a) Known everything without a little (or a lot) of research. or b) Not cared, or been intrigued enough to come up with reasons why certain phenomena occurred.
If a) were true,we'd all be super genius with no time for such a trivial debate
if b) were true, we'd never have gotten around to making computers because we would have been perfectly fine with living our neanderthal ways... or our species would have died off by now, and there'd be a new species dominating.0 -
This is pathetic.0 -
That's an interesting point actually. I wonder how many people would still believe in the concept of a God if they had absolutely no knowledge of religion, god, Christ, etc until like age 30.
I think this question could go several ways.
In today's sense, probably not well. Only because I wonder the type of person raising a child that does NOT want them exposed to any type of religion. To me, I would think they are not very open minded and thus their children would presumably be raised in the same sense.
However, had society never been introduced to religion... well I wonder the type of society that is. What type of people would we have had to be to either a) Known everything without a little (or a lot) of research. or b) Not cared, or been intrigued enough to come up with reasons why certain phenomena occurred.
If a) were true,we'd all be super genius with no time for such a trivial debate
if b) were true, we'd never have gotten around to making computers because we would have been perfectly fine with living our neanderthal ways... or our species would have died off by now, and there'd be a new species dominating.
Well I wasn't saying that the experiment would include parents that didn't allow kids to be exposed to religion. And I don't necessarily think that people needed religion to try and research where things all came from. Humans are naturally curious beings, and I believe they would have questioned and wanted to learn regardless of the concept of a god-being.0 -
Parents who do not teach their children about religion are teaching them more than they realize.0
-
This is pathetic.
Not to an atheist who believes that Jesus is about as real as Santa Claus is.0 -
Parents who do not teach their children about religion are teaching them more than they realize.
Just as parents who only expose their kids to certain kinds of beliefs and won't allow them to question for themselves what they believe and what resonates true for them.0 -
Not to an atheist who believes that Jesus is about as real as Santa Claus is.
To address it to children is what I find pathetic.0 -
Just as parents who only expose their kids to certain kinds of beliefs and won't allow them to question for themselves what they believe and what resonates true for them.
Children in religious homes should absolutely be allowe to question. They should question all religions, and hear, study, learn about what they all have in common and how they differ.0 -
Not to an atheist who believes that Jesus is about as real as Santa Claus is.
To address it to children is what I find pathetic.
Eh, it's a meme meant for adults, not kids.0 -
Just as parents who only expose their kids to certain kinds of beliefs and won't allow them to question for themselves what they believe and what resonates true for them.
Children in religious homes should absolutely be allowe to question. They should question all religions, and hear, study, learn about what they all have in common and how they differ.
Would you agree that they should consider non-belief as well?0 -
Eh, it's a meme meant for adults, not kids.
I find it hilarious that atheists compare Santa Claus to God. It's nonsensical.0 -
Would you agree that they should consider non-belief as well?
Of course. We talk to our children and our students about atheism all the time.0 -
Don't forget that there are some churches that are less doctrinaire than others. I'd be interested to see a breakdown of just what churches these brainiacs are sending their kids to. I'll bet very few are going to fundamentalist churches.
I'm agnostic, and I'm a very active member in my Unitarian Universalist church. We have no creed, no dogma - we spend a great deal of time talking about morals and ethics and we study and take wisdom from many religions. Many of the congregation are Atheist or Agnostic. And many many of the congregation are scientists, educators, academics. I can name 10 engineers off the top of my head.
"Church" and "Religion" are big broad terms. Not everybody who goes to church thinks dancing is evil.0 -
Eh, it's a meme meant for adults, not kids.
I find it hilarious that atheists compare Santa Claus to God. It's nonsensical.
He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He know if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake.
Good kids are rewarded with presents. Bad kids are punished with coal. The comparison makes a lot of sense to me.0 -
Eh, it's a meme meant for adults, not kids.
I find it hilarious that atheists compare Santa Claus to God. It's nonsensical.
Why? To an atheist, both Santa and God are made up by humans and are mythical/not real creatures.0 -
Eh, it's a meme meant for adults, not kids.
I find it hilarious that atheists compare Santa Claus to God. It's nonsensical.
Really? Santa Claus was a real historical church figure who over time was given supernatural magic powers. Sound similar to Jesus if you ask me.0 -
He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He know if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake.
Good kids are rewarded with presents. Bad kids are punished with coal. The comparison makes a lot of sense to me.
Do you know any kid who really got coal?0 -
He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He know if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake.
Good kids are rewarded with presents. Bad kids are punished with coal. The comparison makes a lot of sense to me.
Do you know any kid who really got coal?
Do you know anyone who went to hell?0 -
That's an interesting point actually. I wonder how many people would still believe in the concept of a God if they had absolutely no knowledge of religion, god, Christ, etc until like age 30.
I think this question could go several ways.
In today's sense, probably not well. Only because I wonder the type of person raising a child that does NOT want them exposed to any type of religion. To me, I would think they are not very open minded and thus their children would presumably be raised in the same sense.
However, had society never been introduced to religion... well I wonder the type of society that is. What type of people would we have had to be to either a) Known everything without a little (or a lot) of research. or b) Not cared, or been intrigued enough to come up with reasons why certain phenomena occurred.
If a) were true,we'd all be super genius with no time for such a trivial debate
if b) were true, we'd never have gotten around to making computers because we would have been perfectly fine with living our neanderthal ways... or our species would have died off by now, and there'd be a new species dominating.
Well I wasn't saying that the experiment would include parents that didn't allow kids to be exposed to religion. And I don't necessarily think that people needed religion to try and research where things all came from. Humans are naturally curious beings, and I believe they would have questioned and wanted to learn regardless of the concept of a god-being.
That doesn't really make sense then. Religion WAS created out of our curiosity(And I'm saying the original stems of religion, not Christianity). Of course we were naturally curious, how else would we have been able to survive for so long. But as people began to develop more intellectually rather than instinctually they wanted to know they "whys" vs just the "hows" and I believe that's where religion comes in. Once religion was in place, we continued to develop further intellectually. More people were questioning for real answers not just "you made God cry, now he hates you and thats why it rains". Religion was a stepping stone to science (out of natural intellectual evolution). Again, this is why I gave my a or b options. I just don't see how we would have had the wonder for science if we didn't have something that preceded it
I don't really see how it would be plausible to create a world of children who do not learn of religion until they are in the their 30s. Unless we create some elite school, where you enter at birth and do not leave until mid-adulthood. Then we might get an answer..0
This discussion has been closed.