Sure - what struck me was not anything about believing that the position espoused by Pullman is incorrect. We disagree on what the truth about the metaphysics is, but we agree that there *is* a truth about the metaphysics. Stipulate that I've got no problem with your position being informed by the belief that Catholicism is correct.
Now that I read your response, though, I think that - of necessity - I have a different perspective on when/how/whether to expose children to different ideas, since I belong to a minority "religious" tradition. For M and I, there's no getting around the fact that Ruth is fairly early going to be asking questions like, "who's Jesus?" and "what's church?" Unless we lock her in a box, she's going to encounter religion in the ambient culture. So if I approached religious perspectives as dangerous elements to shield her from... I'd be more or less out of luck.
Of course, not everyone is a Catholic, but I presume that you're less worried at least early on about protecting her from the differences with various Protestant sects, as long as the social mores are basically the same, they believe in G-d, Jesus, etc. (so no Unitarians). And of course there are irreligious and immoral elements in the ambient culture (for obvious reasons, I dislike some of that immorality being labeled "secularism" - I'm as concerned about the influence of media images of violence, especially, as most religious folks. Similar to your point: I play Grand Theft Auto, but I'm an adult with a well-developed separation between fantasy and reality.). So it's not as if there's no work to be done raising a child with Christian values and beliefs.
So I guess what strikes me about the "dangerous" designation is that it seems to bespeak a hedging-out rather than a managed encounter with alternate perspectives and beliefs. Maybe where we disagree is on the importance of a coherent world-view to later critical thinking. To me, it seems potentially inimical. Someone who's not only been taught that there's one right way but had alternatives presented (or not presented) as threats to belief is unlikely to approach them in a spirit of critical inquiry when they hit 18 (or 38). Of course, that may be the point. :) But, much as I'd prefer my child to grow up to be an atheist, I'd rather she honestly went out and became a Catholic, or a Wiccan, than hate and fear religion because I'd drummed into her head.
I think this intersects with general issues about how authoritarian to be with children. I'm sure I lean much more anti-authoritarian than you, but even I recognize that you're not going to get away with sitting a two-year-old down and saying, "what do YOU think your bedtime should be?" (though there's an interesting literature on approaching behavioral problems through skills-building rather than punishment; e.g., working with your child to help them organize their room in an efficient fashion rather than just penalizing them for not cleaning it up). In terms of belief systems, we figure the best we can do is, when questions come up, let her know what we believe, help her learn about other things she may be curious about, and let her know that - while we definitely stand behind our beliefs - questions about religion are very difficult and despite what anyone says, no one really definitively KNOWS the answers the way that they know 2+2=4 and they should always be approached with a certain degree of epistemic humility.
Also, what's wrong with Locke? I'd think you'd love him - he's a founder of libertarianism, and his theory of property is based on the claim that our bodies and the Earth are granted to us by G-d.
no subject
Now that I read your response, though, I think that - of necessity - I have a different perspective on when/how/whether to expose children to different ideas, since I belong to a minority "religious" tradition. For M and I, there's no getting around the fact that Ruth is fairly early going to be asking questions like, "who's Jesus?" and "what's church?" Unless we lock her in a box, she's going to encounter religion in the ambient culture. So if I approached religious perspectives as dangerous elements to shield her from... I'd be more or less out of luck.
Of course, not everyone is a Catholic, but I presume that you're less worried at least early on about protecting her from the differences with various Protestant sects, as long as the social mores are basically the same, they believe in G-d, Jesus, etc. (so no Unitarians). And of course there are irreligious and immoral elements in the ambient culture (for obvious reasons, I dislike some of that immorality being labeled "secularism" - I'm as concerned about the influence of media images of violence, especially, as most religious folks. Similar to your point: I play Grand Theft Auto, but I'm an adult with a well-developed separation between fantasy and reality.). So it's not as if there's no work to be done raising a child with Christian values and beliefs.
So I guess what strikes me about the "dangerous" designation is that it seems to bespeak a hedging-out rather than a managed encounter with alternate perspectives and beliefs. Maybe where we disagree is on the importance of a coherent world-view to later critical thinking. To me, it seems potentially inimical. Someone who's not only been taught that there's one right way but had alternatives presented (or not presented) as threats to belief is unlikely to approach them in a spirit of critical inquiry when they hit 18 (or 38). Of course, that may be the point. :) But, much as I'd prefer my child to grow up to be an atheist, I'd rather she honestly went out and became a Catholic, or a Wiccan, than hate and fear religion because I'd drummed into her head.
I think this intersects with general issues about how authoritarian to be with children. I'm sure I lean much more anti-authoritarian than you, but even I recognize that you're not going to get away with sitting a two-year-old down and saying, "what do YOU think your bedtime should be?" (though there's an interesting literature on approaching behavioral problems through skills-building rather than punishment; e.g., working with your child to help them organize their room in an efficient fashion rather than just penalizing them for not cleaning it up). In terms of belief systems, we figure the best we can do is, when questions come up, let her know what we believe, help her learn about other things she may be curious about, and let her know that - while we definitely stand behind our beliefs - questions about religion are very difficult and despite what anyone says, no one really definitively KNOWS the answers the way that they know 2+2=4 and they should always be approached with a certain degree of epistemic humility.
Also, what's wrong with Locke? I'd think you'd love him - he's a founder of libertarianism, and his theory of property is based on the claim that our bodies and the Earth are granted to us by G-d.