There are clearly different outcomes for children raised to enjoy intellectual autonomy (personal independence) and those burdened with intellectual heteronomy (the condition of being under the domination of an outside authority, either human or divine). In many churches, homes, and faith schools, children are relentlessly taught intellectual heteronomy.

If you take a small toddler into your faith group and begin indoctrinating them when their brains are still just getting organized, and if you challenge and scold them anytime they show signs of intellectual autonomy, then you are going to get a person that has been essentially ruined as a thinking, questioning adult. Donald Capps puts it this way in his book, “The Children’s Song, The Religious Abuse of Children”.

“What is at stake here is the freedom of children to think for themselves and to feel secure in the knowledge that adults will not hold their expressions of intellectual autonomy against them. Especially where biblical literalism is taught and practiced, and where punitive attitudes towards sinners are voiced and countenanced, children are unlikely to experience such freedom to think and reason for themselves. Rather, they are likely to feel that it is wrong for them to think for themselves and that, if they do, they are likely to incur the disapproval, if not the wrath, of precisely those adults who have power over them. Fearing the negative consequences of their exercise of intellectual autonomy, they are likely to overreact, to place even greater strictures on their own freedom of thought than these adults may have required of them.” (p. 59)

Parents who promote intellectual heteronomy likely grew up in such a stifling environment themselves and simply cannot imagine any other way of thinking or being. This is a key argument for ending childhood indoctrination. The chain must be severed once and for all. Every parent who contemplates imposing their religion on their children should study Donald Capps’ book before they do that.

Donald Capps has passed away, but he is one of the most respected authorities on the psychology of religion and was memorialized by the Indiana Senate just to mention one among a lifetime of awards and achievements. The unfortunate thing is, his academic credentials, life achievements and contributions will not mean anything to many people who have joined this discussion [Amazon.com Parenting Forum, where I originally posted this]. They will dismiss his reasoned arguments as merely opinions. For them, there is no hope. For their children, and even their grandchildren, what can I say?

“Donald Capps, Princeton Theological Seminary’s William Harte Felmeth Professor of Pastoral Theology, earned his B.D. and S.T.M. from Yale Divinity School, and his M.A. and Ph.D. from the Divinity School of the University of Chicago. He draws on his training as a psychologist of religion in both his teaching and his writing. His research interests include pastoral care, psychobiography, and the psychology of religion, art, and poetry. His courses cover pastoral counseling, poetry and the care of souls, pastoral care of the life cycle, and people with chronic psychological disorders. In 1989, he was awarded an honorary doctorate in sacred theology from the University of Uppsala, Sweden, in recognition of his publications in the psychology of religion and pastoral care, and of his leadership role in the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, which he served as editor of its professional journal from 1983 to 1988 and as president from 1990 to 1992. He is ordained in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.”

Basically a visiting scientist (self described hotshot) comes in, takes over some of my equipment and then proceeds to tell everyone that it was set up incorrectly (with the HUGE implication that I don’t know what I’m doing). Had the pleasure of using the system myself and him bringing a class of med students around (who don’t know one way or the other) to watch me and then proceed to tell me, in front of them, how he’d “fixed” it for me and how I’d been doing it all wrong.

I actually talked to the company to confirm that I was doing it right – and I am. I then talked to him today (repeat of previous conversation, this time minus the audience, on a different usage point) and as he walked away I realized that he’d gotten the impression he had because he hadn’t bothered to ask my help in the initial set-up for his log in.

So basically we’re both right – it IS screwed up when he uses it but it isn’t when I do. Our lack of having a real conversation about it kept us from discovering that. And of course in the process my reputation took a beating (and he disappeared before I could tell him what I realized).

Which all serves as an interesting (to me) extension of your post – two people too close-minded to consider all of the possibilities of the situation. Like, bizarre as it may seem, two seemingly opposing things can in fact both be true.

fluorophore, I know what you mean! Naturally it feels good ‘to be right’ or to have more knowledge then the next guy. But if one truly doesn’t know the answer or cannot be 100% certain, where does one draw the line? I’d be interested to hear what happened to you at work!

(Can you tell I got humiliated today? lol, I still think I’m right and my ego wants to prove it, but I’m trying to just let it go. It ultimately doesn’t matter, I hope, but I found that I was really uncomfortable being perceived to be wrong – even if I trusted the correctness of my work. Funny things, our egos.)

I’m realizing more and more that it’s the fundamentalist-type Christians that give all of Christianity a bad rap. As the Chaplain notes above, most evangelicals simply cannot be reasoned with, so a constructive dialog is all but impossible to create.

Whether you believe or don’t believe in God, it’s tough to create a dialog with someone who’s 100% sure they have the answer and won’t listen to another viewpoint. Are we doomed to gnostic atheist vs. gnostic theist battles forever?

Perhaps a more humble approach should be considered?

Speaking as a former evangelical believer, I suspect that the battles will continue as long as conservative religion continues. It’s not merely tough to create a dialog with a 100%er, it’s impossible. Someone with that degree of certitude has nothing to gain by engaging in dialog and listening to other viewpoints. And how can you honestly expect someone who is 100% certain about his or her position to be humble? One may be more or less courteous, but it’s hard not to be at least a little bit patronizing when one is absolutely certain that one is right and the other is wrong. Notwithstanding religious talk about the virtue of humility, religious certitude can’t help but engender arrogance.