9-year-old Alex, and his father, Ian, write for HumanistLife on the subject of ‘atheist children.’
Alex (age 9) with his father, Ian (age 36)
I think that children should not think they have to be the same religion as their parents if they don’t want to be. There is no point in following the rules of a religion you don’t believe in. A person has to decide that they believe, not just in a god but in the rules that go along with it.
I think a child isn’t really religious until they say so themselves, and they actually know enough about the religion they say they follow. Sometimes I think that children my age at school feel they have to belong to a religion. This might be because of where they were born or the colour of their skin. They feel they belong because they go to a place of worship with their family, not because they have thought about it.
I think of myself as an atheist now but I might change my mind. As I get older my ideas might change and that’s okay. But I don’t think my little brother (who is 5) is old enough to decide his religion because he doesn’t know enough yet.
The recent arguments about whether a child starts life without religious belief – not starting as an ‘atheist baby’, despite the misquoting headlines – are neither new nor original. As a parent I would argue that human beings may start off credulous, but that we are not born with a specific religious faith. Believing what we are told by our parents may have sound evolutionary value but it means that we may not think critically about the things they teach us.
I’m trying very hard not to be guilty of this myself. I consider myself mostly atheist, but certainly agnostic, and to start with I was very careful to discuss religion with my kids in terms of ‘Some people believe…’ rather than as fact. This was made more difficult when I found that some of their teachers were describing religious stories as historical events. So now our kids are growing up asking questions and being told what we believe, always being promised that they’ll be able to make up their own minds.
I should point out that I’m not always so truthful. We’ve had childhood stories including the usual Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy myths. We’ve discussed how revolving doors are powered by mice (hence the squeak) and my surgical scars being the result of sword fights or a shark attack. Or a sword fight with a shark. But once they were old enough to ask about religion, they were old enough to be told what we consider the truth.
I see ‘agnostic’ as a default setting. I think it’s interesting that we often don’t see it as a neutral one, seeing as most religious people are unbelievers for every faith but their own. My own feelings about young people having the right to choose their own beliefs should be clear from the YAH4schools campaign I accidentally started. I think freedom of religion is hugely important – which is why I think we should question whether identifying a child by their parents’ faith is meaningful. I suppose a lot of it comes down to whether we think religious belief is something based on feelings or on thoughts. But this is about whether a young person can or should be considered to have a religious faith. I’m not young, so I asked someone who is. My son’s words above make me very proud.
Alex‘s dad, Ian Horsewell is a science teacher, and the originator of the Young Atheist’s Handbook for Schools campaign, which came to fruition in April this year.
Well done, both of you. We are atheists/agnostic, and did the same “some people believe” thing to which the question often became “but what do you believe?” I am sure you appreciate how difficult that can be to answer but we did our best. We also taught them tolerance, to the extent that they are now way more liberal than I while quite intolerant of intolerance.
Our daughter flirted with christianity for a while, largely because her best friend was involved. We had anxious moments when as a teen she went off to Camp and Retreats with them (it was her choice) but felt vindicated when she “returned to the fold” on her own.
It is possible to teach children to be critical and open minded without destroying their childhood completely. (We also did Santa and the Tooth Fairy for a while but came clean as soon as we were challenged…but what is more awesome and wonderful than nature) The only downside (if you can call it that) is that in our household every suggestion becomes a debate….
First of all – well done to Alex! What a fantastic and thought provoking piece of writing (your Dad’s bit isn’t bad either…) I find this an especially interesting conundrum as we have a daughter who is adopted from within the family. Her birth mother and grandparents are devout Christians whilst my husband and I are atheist / agnostic. I would never take issue with my children choosing to take on a religion and will ensure that my daughter understands the Christian religion so she can better identify with her birth mother, but it is very difficult to convey a completely impartial point of view when talking about something you have actively moved away from in your own life. I think that I will keep your article on file and show it to her when she is older (she is only four right now).
We have been doing the same thing with our younger son (who is not much older than Alex). He says that he doesn’t believe in any religions right now, but his best friend believes in Jesus and my son wishes that the Ancient Greek gods were real “because they are pretty awesome”.
His older brother is totally oblivious to the idea, so we just try to make sure both our sons know that whatever they choose to believe or not believe will not affect our love for them.
Totally in agreement about the Greek gods, but tell him I think the Norse ones are even more awesome…..
All the old gods were pretty awesome, because they were petty, flawed and had the BEST superpowers. I remember the Norse gods being my favourite for a while. Wonder if Mum still has my old books…
I am not a parent but I do sympathise with the dilemmas over Xmas and the tooth fairy. Of course, the real difference is that children grow out of such early beliefs but then find themselves being assailed into retaining other beliefs which are even more shaky for the rest of their lives.
Whenever I hear claims that parents should be allowed to decide their children’s religion and which religiously-motivated schools they should attend, I simply ask if the parents will expect to decide how their children will vote for the rest of their lives?
If they can decide on their children’s religious identity and ideology for life then why not their children’s political beliefs and ideology too?
That usually provides the context for people to re-consider their beliefs on this.
One other point I would make is that the religious stories they read are just stories, like all the other stories about artificial creatures like Paddington Bear.
John, that’s the analogy I use when advocating against the existence of church schools. Gets people thinking when you start mentioning Communist Academies.
Or BNP/Fascist Academies?
Come to think of it, the Nazis certainly did have academies for their young leaders as I recall. Is that what people really want to see again – only over here this time?
Another aspect is that we do not allow commercial organisations to run schools, do we? Can you imagine soft drinks’ academies or burger “free” schools?
Kids already struggle to achieve a healthy diet; can anyone imagine what would happen if they were literally fed on a school diet of junk food and junk religion?
I applaud Alex and Ian but I have a slightly less harmless story about leaving children free reign in their beliefs. 2 of my sisters children (22 and 26) have joined Islam. Nothing wrong with this of course if it is moderate. It’s not moderate though, my niece wears a niqab and burka, no longer works, drives, sees any men except family members and her husband (who I am not allowed to meet as my partner and I are unmarried). She does not go out unescorted any longer. My nephew will not work for non Muslims and they have moved to Egypt so they can live a more Islamic existence. As a family we have been torn apart and although we have tried to be understanding and have debate about the subject or whenever we voice concern over these issues we are told we are islamaphobic. I fully believe everyone should be able to make up their own minds but as an atheist I struggle to accept this brand of fundamentalism.
Whay does anyone want to start someone else’s life on a negative anyway?
What I was trying to get at in my commentary on Alex’s writing is that not being religious is not a negative. It’s simply a statement, one that Alex is happy to make at the moment. The problem is that, as he has already experienced, people both young and old seek to define him in ways he’s not happy with.
Both Alex and I are really pleased that this article seems to have resonated with readers. I thought he expressed quite well my fear; often when we talk about freedom of religion regarding young people, we mean the freedom of their parents to insist what their children will learn, think and believe.
I was not trying to disagree with the article. In effect we should be encouraging everyone to look carefully at both sides of the religious battle. Young children would find this very difficult and it would perhaps be best to let that happen gradually and by example from elders,but to start off saying you must be on one side or the other whilst very young is caus ing a lot of problems. Best all people of all beliefs to get immersed in Interfaith and naturally absorb all sides. In this situation however you are very unlikely to ‘lose’ a child of your own to another belief, but it will make them a much more rounded person
Well done Alex – you’ve really thought this through well. I hope my daughter (currently 7) is able to process and articulate her beliefs as well as you when she is your age.
For me, as a Christian parent, I obviously would be delighted if she chose to follow Jesus, but (contrary to what the media seems to portray) I have no intention of forcing her to believe what I believe. But that doesn’t mean that I intend to be dishonest about what I believe, or how strongly I believe it, to appease some societal norm – if I didn’t believe it to be true and life-changing then I wouldn’t believe it myself!
I think the other side of this argument, and perhaps one that we are somewhat unaware of in Britain, is that for many people their religion and their culture are intrinsically linked together. Asking someone to change their religion is asking them to change their entire lifestyle, and, in some cases, lose contact with their family. I’m not necessarily defending this idea, but I do think we need to be cautious (particularly those of us who are white, British men) before we make judgments against other cultures based on our own experiences (and beliefs) in a predominantly post-Christian western country.
Thank you for speaking up; perhaps the reason many non-believers see theists as not being open-minded is that so often the extremists are not challenged ‘in-house’.
I don’t think Alex or myself suggested that people should change their religion. I think we both believe people should be free to do so. I would argue that unless a person has the freedom and capacity to opt out of a religion, then describing them as belonging to a particular faith is meaningless.
I feel strongly about freedom of religion, the same as I feel strongly about other freedoms of choice. The difficulty is when these freedoms impose on me, my family or on others who do not choose them.
I have not chosen to teach my children religious belief (they have been educated about religion but not instructed, if that makes sense). So surely it is wrong for another to teach them religion as fact in school? The next logical step in this, for me, is that children should not receive religious instruction from anyone until old enough to opt in. This, however, is a hugely political debate!
Ben, I must applaud the approach you describe here. I find it laudable that you should follow a religion while expressing your offspring’s right freely to choose their own. I believe that this important humanist aspiration does not conflict with honest faith, and that most religions can respect this same freedom, if they examine themselves critically. At the same time, we as humanists need to recognise the dimension of ethnic identity which is hard to unbind from religion. The tale of the protestant atheist or catholic atheist in Ulster is informative. We would like to see freedom of and from religion, but at the same time religious minorities have a right to their identity and to freedom from prejudice.
“There is no coercion in religion” – there’s an important truth in those famous words.
I was very impressed by Alex’s and Ian’s articles, but I was especially impressed by Ian’s comment, “I see ‘agnostic’ as a default setting. I think it’s interesting that we often don’t see it as a neutral one, seeing as most religious people are unbelievers for every faith but their own.”
I have often thought that, if there was a world opinion poll asking, “Do you believe in Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism etc?” an overwhelming majority would vote “No” to each of them.
If you call yourself a scientist, then your label should always be ‘Agnostic’
Sadly not every scientist has this as an unshakeable setting.
And who am I to say ‘should’ any way.
Do search out ‘Humanists for Science in the BHA Community page.
(should you be so inclined)
I do call myself “Agnostic”. Although my views come very close to those of Richard Dawkins on his scale of belief and he calls himself “Atheist”, I cannot disprove the existence of a god or creator. Consequently, I cannot entirely dismiss the remote possibility that there is or was one. Generally I prefer the word sceptic. It covers atheism and agnosticism; it unites them instead of dividing them.
Neither can you prove the existence of chappy in t’clouds, but I suppose you know that ….. and the real question is why waste time talking about him all the time? Atheists are very bad at that.
Agnostic and skeptical are good companions but they do not cover the whole spectrum of a [scientific] investigation.
Skeptics[amd sceptics] therefore miss out on a lot that is good for mankind.
If i were agnostic about gods I would logically be agnostic about a lot of other things I have no real evidence for. I am not agnostic about dragons or homeopathy therefore I see no reason to be agnostic about gods, with the caveat of course that I would change my beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary.*
*Except I probably would not & would fight for those beliefs challenging the nature of the evidence & the rigour of the theorising about what that evidence actually showed. This is of course one of the central tensions of science – new theories are challenged by the reactionaries who were often the innovators of their generations & so the theories are refined & become robust (if they don’t just disappear like many cold fusion experiments for example)
A lovely article and certainly thought provoking. I found myself being sent on a magical, mystery mid tour of thought and reflection. Both my wife and I identify as an atheist. I’m little more intolerant of religion and rather militant with my atheism, and its something I express vehemently via social networks. On the other hand with my two young children I find my self less confident, confused and hesitant of dealing with religion at the point they enquire. I read books and blogs on parenting beyond belief. While I wouldn’t love my girls any less if they decided to follow a religion, I can’t say I wouldn’t be disappointed and worry that somewhere I did something wrong. All I want to do is teach them how to think and not what to think. We share the natural world with them and help them to find enjoyment and fun in the world that can be touched and seen. What to do, what to do? The article and comments leave me more confused with a feeling of impotence to the task of dealing with questions about an imaginary sky Daddy as and when they arise. #confuseddaddy