What happens when atheist scientists have kids? Do they expose them to religious traditions and institutions?
I surveyed nearly 1,700 natural and social scientists at elite American universities, and approximately half expressed some form of religious identity, whereas the other half did not. Then I interviewed a scientifically selected sample of 275 of these scientists, to ask them how they feel about religion. I found that nearly one in five (17 percent) of those who are atheists and parents are part of a religious congregation and have attended a religious service more than once in the past year.
Why would this be? Research I conducted with sociologist Kristen Schultz Lee (University at Buffalo, SUNY) showed just how tightly linked religion and family are in the United States--so much so that even some of society's least religious people find it important to expose their children to different religious choices. Our research challenges the assumption that parents who engage in religious socialization always hold religious beliefs themselves.
The atheist scientists interviewed cited personal and social reasons for introducing and integrating religious traditions and institutions into their children's lives.
Their reasons include:
• Scientific identity - Study participants wish to expose their children to all sources of knowledge (including religion) and allow them to make their own, informed choices about a religious identity.
• Spousal influence - Study participants are involved in a religious institution because of influence from their spouse or partner.
• Desire for community - Study participants want a sense of community (moral or otherwise), even if they do not personally hold religious beliefs.
To me, one of the most interesting findings was the discovery that some atheist scientists not only want to expose their children to religious institutions, but they also cite their scientific identity as a reason for doing so.
We expected these individuals to be less inclined to introduce their children to religious traditions than they are. But it turns out they want their children to know about different religious traditions because it is more consistent with their identity as a scientist to expose their children to all sources of knowledge. They want their children to be "free thinkers." Yet it is also important to them that their children don't abandon skepticism in the course of their religious education.
One study participant, a chemist raised in a strongly Catholic home, said he came to believe later in life that science and religion are not compatible, but what he wants to pass on to his daughter-- more than this belief --is the ability to make her own decisions in a thoughtful, intellectual way.
"I ... don't indoctrinate her that she should believe in God," he said. "I don't indoctrinate her into not believing in God." Like other atheist scientists who are parents, he has exposed his child to a variety of religious choices so he does not inadvertently indoctrinate her with atheism.
We hope the study's findings will help the public better understand how our professional and family lives can interact with our religious lives. We also hope they will serve to remind us that there is greater diversity in how atheists approach religion and childrearing than stereotypes might lead us to expect.
Elaine Howard Ecklund is a sociologist at Rice University, director of the Religion and Public Life Program, which is part of the Social Sciences Research Institute, and a Rice Scholar at the Baker Institute for Public Policy. Her most recent book is Science Vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think (Oxford University Press, 2010)
Paul Wallace: Why I Teach Evolution in Church
Religion and Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Conflict & agreement between science and religion
Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science - New York Times
"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors." (George Washington) Thanksgiving Proclamation, October 3, 1789.
"The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained." (George Washington)
"It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to Him. This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe." (James Madison)
"Statesmen my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.” (John Adams)
"Let the pulpit resound with the doctrine and sentiments of religious liberty. Let us hear of the dignity of man's nature, and the noble rank he holds among the works of God. ... Let it be known that...liberties are not the grants of princes and parliaments." (John Adams)
Some people say: "We are free to believe whatever 'we' choose"!
-----------------
I say: We are all born 'ADIAMORPHIC'', "GODLESS"!
If we are then 'forced' by parents and environment to
'believe' in a 'so-called "Supreme Being"---"God"; ---
"We are (NOT) "free to believe" whatever we choose"!
There's no "choice"!
========================
IF YOU ARE "RELIGIOUS":
what 'you' 'presently' "believe" ---'you' did not "choose"!
'It' is not a result of 'your'--- personal "free" "choice"!
You were indoctrinated, 'infected'; at an early age with a
"Dogma" that addicted you to a "belief" that was 'chosen' for you!
Thus, you 'caught' the 'plague'!
And, ecause you are still addicted to that bizarre hallucination
you are presently a victim of Mind-Control!
=============
Reasonable, rational, sane, logical people do not believe
silly unfounded or lying assertions; and no 'special' epithets
should be attached to those who reject unreal absurdities!
-------------------
Further; the "freedom to believe" does not grant special powers
to 'believers', that devolves to inflicting discomfit upon others.
No morally rational person would condone such a 'belief'!
Nor, be affiliated with an organization that is known to have
killed many people, and is responsible for hiring and supporting
rapists and pedophiles!
===========
One's "perceived" "reality" is often irrational!
"Love" of something 'imagined' is effectively "narcissism", "self-love";
because the nonentity only exists in the mind as a mental delusion!
"Ghost" "Holy" or otherwise is a non-existent nonentity!
-------
Narcissism: Erotic gratification of mental attributes!
Exposing your children to some of these brutal stories borders on abuse.
Allow your child's brain the opportunity to develop before filling it with concepts such as hell and heaven.
Teach them that Love is all they need.
You do not need scary supernatural tales to get the point across.
As a confirmed and committed atheist, I endured it all for about 2 months before I was able to sort myself out with the significant and substantial insurance settlement less medical bills).
I can help a fellow human being in need without the religious expectations and attendant moral implications of my assistance.
Shame on you for depicting genuiness as opertunistic.
If my children choose to follow religion as adults, I will be proud of them for making their own decisions (although they disagree with my own), and will be secure in the knowledge that I did not prevent them from making their own decisions due to heavy-handed childhood indocrination.
(1) You said, "The whole freethinker mentality is bizarre."
(2) You also said we are all endowed with free will, which is the ultimate freethinking.
(3) The Bible says free will is a gift from God.
(4) So God clearly must have a freethinker mentality (in fact, the "ultimate" freethinker mentality.)
(5) Therefore, God is bizarre.
Does that about sum it up?
It sounds like to me that you want all the glory in the pride you take in what your children believe and how they are in their personal lives, (i.e., compassionate, caring, accepting, etc.). And, I am sure that they are those things which you mention.
However, do you not feel that your background in these different Churches did not play some role, to some extent, in your ethics and morals? How is it that you could not help but to be influenced, in some manner, by the teachings? It is impossible that a sponge-like effect wasn't present. And, to the same degree it is impossible for you to "know" what the real factors were that played a role in your children's development.
As parents, we would all like to think it was by our own doings and the environment we created for our children. We can judge a tree by its branches and the fruits it bears. However, sometimes in exposing its roots kills the tree. Do you understand this?
I do have pride in how I turned out and how my kids did as well. We all went through unbelievable pain to get here. My kids are well educated and compassionate people. If they had been left where they were, they wouldn't have stood a chance. If my adopted dad hadn't stepped in with me and spent time nurturing my sense of self, my intellect, and my decision making skills, I would still be a statistic.
I exposed my kids to religion so they could make a choice (it wasn't mine to do for them). I also spent plenty of time with the cultures of Ancient Greece, Rome, and Egypt and their mythologies as well as various African cultures, Scot, and Cherokee immersion.
I don't care what you think.
If I write anything that offends an atheist, it is short-lived. In other words, for an atheist it extends no further than their existence. All moral ethics or codes of behavior an atheist has is based, primarily, on Judeo-Christian culture. To think otherwise is pure foolishness.
And, I believe most atheists are very moral people. Although, I feel they attribute their morality to themselves rather than the real cause. I would never threaten a child with hell by using scare tactics. Or, I would never use "hell" as a means to have a child act in a prescribed manner or necessarily believe in God.
I have known God since birth, and because of this I enjoy sharing what I know, especially, with atheists. However, as long as you are closed off with self-satisfaction then what I could share with you falls on deaf ears.
From your posts, you sound like a "good" person who has turned his back on himself.
"To think otherwise is pure foolishness." Could this be any more smug? Even worse, because it is just wrong. It should be obvious to anyone with at least two neurons above their stem. Most atheists are actually Asian, and have very little to do with Western culture. That makes your absurd assertion both smug, and wrong.
However, what does their purity merit them? Nothing. Since, for them there is "nothing" they are just good for the sake of being good. And, the farmer carried another load away.
And, although, for atheists, there is no such thing as "good" and "evil". Christians are somehow "evil" in an atheist's estimation, and for them Christian, living today, are responsible for all the wrongdoings of dead and buried Christians. What do you call a universe where atheists believe there are no "standards"...but, they judge Christians by a non-existing "standard".
Fellow Christians will tell me, "nephew, you should try to win them over with love!" Hogwash! They're no better than the money changers at the temple. Now watch "how" all the poor, little offended atheists will jump all over this post trying to bring me to task for insulting their "goodness".
Stating that atheists have no moral code... tisk, tisk. Many self-professed atheists would disagree with you on that point.
No matter, we can see that the straw man lives.
Paraphrase: I am merely suggesting that atheists are without morals and would benefit from learning about how sinful they are and how they must observe the sabbath and take no other gods before that one.
You are having a laugh here aren't you? All religions have treated women as second class citizens no higher than a man's chattels as the bible clearly indicates in your precious ten commandment. Even many of today's religious structures are against women. Atheists don't need a set of ancient rules that by the way, are broken EVERY day by so called christian minds.
Did the 1700 odd years or so prior to the Enlightenment just slip your mind when christians followed their ten commandments and slaughtered anyone, man, woman or child in order to promote their silly beliefs.
Why would anyone bow to a god of the bible who wantonly murdered people on a whim?
And if you want to see who follows a more moral code of life, look no further than our jails; over 75% are of christian faith and less than .5% are atheists.
You really need to get out more.
What nonsense.
In re your "Guidebook and set of structured rules for life," one big thing you seem to be missing is that ethics EVOLVE. People learn, and revise the rules in light of their new knowledge. That is, they do some in some fortunate cases. In other cases they come under the sway of some fanatics who think they have the answers to everything, and learning in general and ethics in particular go through a couple of thousand years of relative stagnation.
Whether or not the final count is 17% or 1.7% of all 'scientists' are part of a religious congregation and have attended a religious service, we still don't know what socio-professional category these scientist-atheists belong to.
This leaves room for misconceptions. Are all of these people astrophysicists, Chemical engineers, geologists, nuclear scientists, or are they mostly if not entirely lawyers, psychologists, politicians, economists? I am not questioning the integrity of these scientists, but simply underlining the fact that they do not all live under the same socio-professional environments and/or pressures.
My point is, it would be misleading if people were to run with these numbers, declaring that 17% of the core of Science contains 17% of church going atheists, without specifying their socio-professional background.
Well -- not EVERYTHING.
"You can't have everything. Where would you put it?" -- Steven Wright
Everywhere.