We should raise children like we raise dogs

How should you take care of them?  According to one book I’m reading, you need to give them lots of exercise and they need to eat good food.  You need to buy a good leash and collar.  No, I’m not referring to a childcare book–I’m talking about a book on dog care: The Complete Dog Care Manual, by Bruce Fogel, president of ASPCA.

                       dog book.jpg

To use a dog book to raise a child, you’ve got to pick and choose the advice, of course.  You don’t put your children on leashes or toss them bones (except when they misbehave!).  It is interesting, though, that dog-raising books are full of good ideas that also apply to raising children.  And it’s especially interesting to compare the way we are supposed to raise dogs with the way many people actually raise children. 

My family has a dog (“Holly”) and two human children, aged 6 and 8.  I am thus an expert on this topic.

My dog-training book stresses that taking care of a dog requires a lot of work.  We need to invest a lot of time in order to have a healthy animal.  The dog book places a premium on early training?  “Your dog relies on you to train it from an early age to be trusting, even-tempered and sociable…” (page 48).  Compare this advice with the way many people actually raise children, ignoring them for long stretches and often abandoning them to the commercial wasteland of television.

Feeding is critically important, according …

Share

Continue ReadingWe should raise children like we raise dogs

The Semantics of Secular Labels

Ever since I started doubting the existence of God, I have frequently encountered confusion between the numerous labels used to describe non-theistic belief systems. This is most commonly seen between the words “atheist” and “agnostic,” both of which signify the absence of definitive belief in a deity. At first glance, the distinction may seem obvious: an atheist disbelieves the existence of God or gods, while an agnostic believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God and thus refuses to commit to either belief system. However, in reality these two terms tend to overlap to the extent that two people holding exactly the same (non)belief may label it differently, one identifying as an agnostic and the other, an atheist. Further, one’s label of choice is heavily influenced by the public perception of these terms, the word “atheist” being the more pejorative of the two in the eyes of the public. This probably convinces many non-theists to describe themselves as “agnostic,” as this label seems more palatable and less presumptuous than “atheist.” If one carefully examines the definitions of these terms, however, one should become more hesitant at rejecting one label for another.

I will begin my exposition by quoting from Bertrand Russell’s 1947 pamphlet, Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?

[. . .] As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a

…
Share

Continue ReadingThe Semantics of Secular Labels

Ignorance is bliss-or is it?

Sometimes I wish I believed in prayer.  I wish that I could plead, I wish that I could sacrifice, I wish that I could count beads or light a flame and a great omnipotent being would be coerced or convinced to grant my desire.  Some people think that you can pray for anything and that sometimes those prayers are granted.  They pray for trivial things, such as a new house, a car, for air in a nearly flat tire, or that they won’t be late for work.  My favorite example of this is expressed well in the old Janis Joplin’s song, “Oh Lord, won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz”.  For those of you too young to remember Janis Joplin, her gravelly voice belting out those words was unforgettable.  The lyrics are:  

“Mercedes Benz”

 Oh Lord, won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So Lord, won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?  

Oh Lord, won’t you buy me a color TV ?
Dialing For Dollars is trying to find me.
I wait for delivery each day until three,
So oh Lord, won’t you buy me a color TV ?  

Oh Lord, won’t you buy me a night on the town ?
I’m counting on you, Lord, please don’t let me down.
Prove that you love me and buy the next round,
Oh Lord, won’t you buy me a night on …

Share

Continue ReadingIgnorance is bliss-or is it?

Christians put on their Skeptic Hats to deal with the “Tomb of Jesus”

Such good irony.

I can’t help but shake my head at the many Christians who are temporarily putting on their Skeptic Hats to deal with a bold claim by a Discovery Channel documentary.  That documentary is claiming that a tomb discovered in Israel in 1980 held the bones of Jesus.   If true, the documentary’s claim would conflict with the alleged resurrection of Jesus.

[Note: there is controversy about the resurrection, based upon the original writings from the Gospel according to Mark]

Ebonmuse, an atheist, has pointed out many reasons to doubt the claims of the television documentary that the tomb discovered in 1980 was the tomb of Jesus.  He concludes:

I believe the most likely scenario is that this is a genuine tomb from biblical times, containing several ordinary people with names common from the time, which has been hyped beyond what the evidence supports by overzealous filmmakers trying to create a sensation. It is not a magic bullet to destroy Christianity . . .

Based upon the points raised in his article, I agree Ebonmuse.  For those same reasons, I agree with the many Christians who are now attacking the Discovery Channel documentary. There are, indeed, many good reasons to doubt these claims. It’s fun to engage in skeptical inquiry, marching side-by-side with devout Christian believers for a change!

No sooner are they finished criticizing the claim about the tomb of Jesus, though, you can hear many of these same believers asserting, as undeniable facts, all of those ancient …

Share

Continue ReadingChristians put on their Skeptic Hats to deal with the “Tomb of Jesus”

Should we teach philosophy to little kids?

One of Diane Rehm’s recent shows featured Marietta McCarty, who advocates teaching philosophy to children to develop critical thinking skills and to deepen their sense of empathy for others.  Here’s the interview.  McCarty, who has taught at both the elementary school and community college level, has written a book titled Little Big Minds.

According to her website, McCarty is:

Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Piedmont Virginia Community College in Charlottesville, Virginia. She has brought philosophy to children in rural, suburban, and city schools in the central Virginia area for over fifteen years, as well as schools around the U.S. “Her Philosophy in the Third Grade” program is nationally acclaimed and she lectures and gives demonstrations around the country on this one-of-a-kind program. While focusing on third graders, she philosophizes in kindergarten through eighth grade classrooms.

McCarty starts with the premise that children are natural philosophers.  They are “the best philosophers.”  Children have a natural curiosity and an innate sense of wonder.  Even young children are capable of studying philosophy.

Philosophy, according to McCarty, is the art of clear thinking.  Philosophers are people who “hold many ideas in their mind at once.” Philosophers “empty their minds of clutter and confusion.”  She stresses that children need to exercise their minds just like they need to exercise their bodies.  Philosophy can help children “gain clarity about ideas.”  Underlying McCarty’s strategy is her belief that ideas have consequences.  “What we think motivates all of our actions and all of our decisions.  If we don’t …

Share

Continue ReadingShould we teach philosophy to little kids?