Tuesday, May 20, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Non-religious summer camps develop niche

by Valerie Bauman

Reposted from:
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--campquest0518may18,0,1957158,print.story

When Joe Fox sends his daughters away to summer camp, he's confident they'll be surrounded by kids who share his family's beliefs and values.

Caitlin, 16, and Elizabeth, 10, go to Camp Quest, which in 1996 created a niche getaway for children who are agnostic, atheist, or just not sure what to believe yet.

Parents have plenty of summer camp options from Boy Scout and Girl Scouts to the YMCA to soccer, dance, music and drama camps. Many claim no religious affiliation while others are specifically Jewish, Catholic or fundamentalist Christian. The Camp Quest concept started in 1996 with 20 kids at a site in Ohio with the slogan "Beyond Belief."

Since then, demand has grown and weeklong camps have been added in Minnesota, Michigan, Ontario, California and Tennessee. In 2007 the camps accommodated 150 kids, generally ages 8-17. The projection for 2008 is more than 200 campers and new camps are also being considered in Vermont and the United Kingdom.

"They're good, moral kids without organized religion," Fox said of his daughters. "They can feel comfortable being who they are."

The family, from Furlong, Penn., has been sending their kids to the camps for years, even though it's more expensive and difficult to send them out of state instead of to a local camp.

Most Americans believe in some form of God - 94 percent according to a 2007 survey from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. And 53 percent have an unfavorable view of atheists. Kids who attend the camp are not required to be atheists, or anything at all, said Amanda Metskas, president of Camp Quest Inc.

"We really try not to label the kids," she said. "When a kid is 8 or 10, asking them to say 'I'm an atheist,' or 'I'm a Catholic' -- at 8 or 10 we don't think that kids are able to make a decision about their world view."

Camp Quest is a not-for-profit backed by the Albany, N.Y.-based Institute for Humanist studies, a think tank supporting the nonreligious Humanist philosophy, which emphasizes science, evolution, compassion and critical thinking.

At mealtime, kids learn about what the camp calls "freethinkers" throughout history - defining them as people who questioned or rejected religion. Examples can include people who believed in some version of a higher power, but held ideas conflicting with the social norm. Some freethinkers include: cycling champion Lance Armstrong, science fiction writer Isaac Asimov, women's rights pioneer Susan B. Anthony, abolitionist Frederick Douglass and author Alice Walker, who wrote "The Color Purple."

Campers are exposed to science and learn about evolution. They also participate in typical outdoor camp activities, including swimming, horseback riding and roasting marshmallows.

The counselors will sometimes discuss world religions and philosophies. They say the focus is not on what is "wrong" about other beliefs, but they do sometimes use examples from religions when talking about errors in critical thinking.

In one exercise, counselors tell the kids about different invisible creatures that live in the camp and then challenge the campers to prove that they don't exist. In some cases, it's a pair of unicorns, in other cases, a dragon. In each instance, the campers are told they can't see, touch or taste the creatures.

The point is that a belief isn't automatically valid just because it can't be proven wrong. The exercise is supposed to help kids who don't believe in God prepare for questions from their peers who ask them to prove a higher power doesn't exist.

If campers manage to prove the creatures don't exist, the prize is a $100 bill from before 1954 - when the government put "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency.

Camper Caitlin Fox, 16, said the camp has helped her build confidence.

"Before I attended I used to feel really embarrassed," she said. "I was afraid my friends would reject me if I said I didn't believe in some higher power."

Critics say the camps appear to espouse a particular point of view.

"Obviously that's a metaphor for God," Dr. Erika Chopich, Ph.D., said of the invisible creatures exercise. Chopich is a psychotherapist, reverend and founder of the nonprofit Hope America Ministries Foundation. "It's clearly meant to teach that God cannot possibly exist ... There's obviously some teaching going on, there's some philosophy there. It's not completely neutral."

Lev Pinskiy, of Brooklyn, sends his son, Eugene, 14, and daughter, Margaret, 9, to Camp Quest because he wants them to have a sense of belonging.

Pinskiy considers himself a Humanist and was raised without organized religion, but he came from a Jewish background, while his wife was raised in the Russian Orthodox Church. In separate incidents, Pinskiy felt his children were rejected by both religious communities because neither considered the children to be their own.

"I don't want my children to feel isolated and like second class citizens, because they're not," Pinskiy said. "They have -- as I do -- a strong system of morals and rules for behavior."

Pinskiy said Camp Quest has helped his family -- especially his children -- become more confident about their own disbelief.

"Nobody wants to live alone in a bubble," Pinskiy said. "So it's extremely nice to find similarly minded people with the same world view."

For more information about Camp Quest, see below:

S'mores and Summer Freethought Fun at Camp Quest

Camp Quest, the first summer camp aimed specifically at kids from atheist, agnostic, Bright, humanist, skeptic, and other freethinking families, is entering its 13th summer! Camp Quest offers a week of fun, friends, and freethought for campers and volunteer counselors. This summer there are six Camp Quest sessions across North America:

Camp Quest Smoky Mountains (Tennessee) -- June 1-8 (Campers Ages 8-17)
Camp Quest Ohio -- June 21-28 (Campers Ages 8-17)
Camp Quest West (California) -- June 29-July 5 (Campers Ages 7-17 + family camp)
Camp Quest Minnesota -- July 27-August 2 (Campers Ages 8-17)
Camp Quest Ontario -- July 27-August 2 (Campers ages 7-16)
Camp Quest Michigan -- TBA (family camp)

To learn more, please go to www.camp-quest.org and click on each camp location for more information. You can get involved by registering a camper, volunteering as a counselor, or donating a campership. Hope to see you around the campfire!
---------------------------

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 62 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #182447 by Sleep of Reason on May 20, 2008 at 6:33 am

At last a chink of light in the darkness.

Other Comments by Sleep of Reason

2. Comment #182451 by Stew282 on May 20, 2008 at 6:50 am

I've always been a bit undecided about organised atheistic activities; I was especially uneasy reading the article about the American group who had an organised Sunday meeting which smacked strongly of quasi-religious cultism, chanting the mantra of 'Free-Thinking'.

However, this seems a really good idea - getting kids out in the fresh air to do a bit of healthy exercise and adventurous activity, and throwing in a bit of rational thought at the same time. I think it's a great idea and hope it spreads.

By the way, Plans for the Ice Palace have been approved!!! - http://stewton.myminicity.com

Other Comments by Stew282

3. Comment #182453 by glittergulch on May 20, 2008 at 7:01 am

"Obviously that's a metaphor for God," Dr. Erika Chopich, Ph.D., said of the invisible creatures exercise. "It's clearly meant to teach that God cannot possibly exist..."

I wonder if the little kids at the camp are able to take a away an understanding of the exercise that's more accurate, unlike this adult who apparently took the exact opposite meaning out of it.

Other Comments by glittergulch

4. Comment #182454 by rod-the-farmer on May 20, 2008 at 7:09 am

Anything that promotes rational thinking in young children is goodness. I wonder if the camp library has any books on the subject ? The God Delusion is probably longer than they have time to read, and more adult than the target age group. But some of RD's other books on science would probably be just fine.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

5. Comment #182455 by Stew282 on May 20, 2008 at 7:12 am

glittergulch...

"Chopich is a psychotherapist, reverend and founder of the nonprofit Hope America Ministries Foundation." - nuff said.

Chopich is also author of: (wait for it....) "Healing Your Aloneness: Finding Love and Wholeness Through Your Inner Child"

Sounds like a bit of a disturbed puppy, desperately seeking the grail of happiness through the irresponsible laziness of the supernatural path.

Other Comments by Stew282

6. Comment #182456 by Celandine on May 20, 2008 at 7:19 am

There's obviously some teaching going on, there's some philosophy there. It's not completely neutral.

And why shouldn't they teach about logical fallacies? What a ridiculous objection.

Other Comments by Celandine

7. Comment #182457 by Cartomancer on May 20, 2008 at 7:22 am

I was so disappointed to find that a "Camp Quest" didn't involve limp-wristedly mincing around the countryside, simpering and lisping at passers by, while trying to find a magic sword, rescue a damsel in distress and uncover buried treasure...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

8. Comment #182461 by happy on May 20, 2008 at 7:26 am

Get 'em while they're young!

At the end of the day, this is about money - as the title of the article suggests, there's a niche.

Part of me likes to think that religion will slowly die out by itself, and stuff like this is just sinking to their level.
The other part of me thinks, hooray, more soldiers for the atheist's army, viva revolution!

What I am sure about is that stuff like this should be allowed in our society, so for that reason, I see this as a good thing.

Other Comments by happy

9. Comment #182464 by DjSouthPaw on May 20, 2008 at 7:34 am

"In one exercise, counselors tell the kids about different invisible creatures that live in the camp and then challenge the campers to prove that they don't exist. In some cases, it's a pair of unicorns, in other cases, a dragon. In each instance, the campers are told they can't see, touch or taste the creatures.

The point is that a belief isn't automatically valid just because it can't be proven wrong. The exercise is supposed to help kids who don't believe in God prepare for questions from their peers who ask them to prove a higher power doesn't exist."

hmmm while this is well and good for logic and rational thinking, one does not want to get kids to go and start questioning other kids beliefs without there being a religion topic going on in the playgrounds ( not a likely scene ? )

Also, i don't think that they should be taught the arguments and counter-arguments like if they were going to go around debating preachers or something. This is what the Christians do to their kids when it comes to answering evolution with their non-sense

does it matter that the other side is based on lies and Dogma.. and we stand on reason and rationality, and evidence and science?. These camps from what i've read here seem like training ground for the next Christopher hitchens speak-a-likes

should they not be taught comparative religion as "cultural stories and myths" instead?. No mentioning of it's truth value, but simply teach kids that not holding any of those beliefs is OK, and justifiable. And THEN offer those who wonder about how to defend their atheism with the tools to do so

if they have concluded on some sort of belief or absence there of

lets not "create" militancy from an early age?. lets make kids agnostics, tell them why it's a reasonable starting point and the importance of scepticism in all things and the roll intuition plays in every day life etc

(I'm very militant as an atheist myself FYI )

Edit: i live in Sweden though, i could have under-estimated the need for kids to have belonging with others that think like them. But i would like to be sure it's their own thoughts, not something instilled by their parents ( the atheism and anti-religion that is.. not science, reason and critical thinking )

Other Comments by DjSouthPaw

10. Comment #182467 by hungarianelephant on May 20, 2008 at 7:42 am

I was so disappointed to find that a "Camp Quest" didn't involve limp-wristedly mincing around the countryside, simpering and lisping at passers by, while trying to find a magic sword, rescue a damsel in distress and uncover buried treasure...

Do you think there's a market for such a thing? Maybe in Oxford after the Pimms runs out ;)

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

11. Comment #182468 by Ian (South Africa) on May 20, 2008 at 7:44 am

I've always thought that these camps (not just the religious ones but summer camps in general) to be a little strange.

I feel a little uncomfortable with that characterisation perhaps I should just say an American cultural oddity. Much like Butlins type establisments are a British cultural oddity.

Anyway I suppose if one must send ones children away for part of the summer a camp that embraces critical thinking as well as outdoor activities is a much healthier idea than the religiously motivated camps.

Other Comments by Ian (South Africa)

12. Comment #182469 by calyx on May 20, 2008 at 7:47 am

"They're good, moral kids without organized religion," Fox said of his daughters

I hope camps like this will hope to sway at least some of the people who subscribe to the view that atheist people are immoral, it annoys me to know end to hear that.

"Before I attended I used to feel really embarrassed," she said. "I was afraid my friends would reject me if I said I didn't believe in some higher power."

This is one of the things that Dawkin's has been aiming to achieve, it's nice to see that in some small way some children are becoming less afraid of admitting that they don't subscribe to any particular religion.

"We really try not to label the kids," she said. "When a kid is 8 or 10, asking them to say 'I'm an atheist,' or 'I'm a Catholic' -- at 8 or 10 we don't think that kids are able to make a decision about their world view."

This is what Richard was saying when he was talking about the invariably distorted statement about "child abuse" it was about labelling, not education. I'm very glad to see that at least some people have got this right, and are aware that it takes some time for a person to make up their mind's upon a worldview.

This seems like a pretty good idea to me, I like the things I have heard about this camp, unlike that atheist church article.

Other Comments by calyx

13. Comment #182472 by DjSouthPaw on May 20, 2008 at 7:51 am

still not sure what i'm going to do when and if i do get kids, religion is so unpopular and dead in Sweden, that by merely mentioning my resentment towards it might cause my kids to seek religion out of pure reversed Psychology =D

Other Comments by DjSouthPaw

14. Comment #182473 by calyx on May 20, 2008 at 7:55 am

still not sure what i'm going to do when and if i do get kids, religion is so unpopular and dead in Sweden, that by merely mentioning my resentment towards it might cause my kids to seek religion out of pure reversed Psychology =D

But of course once your children see all the immoral swedish atheists raping and killing indiscriminately nothing you say will have any bearing - they will undoubtedly realise the only way to be moral is through god.

/sarcasm

Other Comments by calyx

15. Comment #182475 by Lucas on May 20, 2008 at 8:00 am

Sounds good to me. I'm going to send the link to my mom and see if my little brother can go as a field test (we are very far apart in age). Meanwhile, I'd like to witness these camps in action. I wonder if I can get a job with them and/or get a grant to observe them and interview the kids and counselors. This could take a couple years, but I'll let you all know if I can come up with something more nuanced than the above article.

Other Comments by Lucas

16. Comment #182482 by Epinephrine on May 20, 2008 at 8:21 am

I'm of two minds about these camps - on the one side, I think it's great for several reasons - feeling comfortable discussing atheism with others their own age, meeting people who share their mindset, exposure to rational thought and logic, and the general good that comes out of camps (activity, friendships, etc.)

I do also see DjSouthPaw's points. My children aren't being "taught" atheism. It's a difficult line to walk, trying to encourage a child to think critically, without foisting one's own views on them. It doesn't seem the least bit wrong to do the exercise on the existence (or not) of unicorns - it's in my mind the right approach, and the one we've taken with our children.

We've explained that there are some things that one can tell things about directly, through one's senses, like the existence of an apple. That there are other things that one can discver through their effects, like magnetic fields or gravity, and that because of their consistency we can make predictions, test them, and come up with ideas about how they work. And a third class of things about which there is no evidence, and thus there is no way of determining their existence - like spirits, or an afterlife. Lack of proof of their existence doesn't imply that they don't exist, but without evidence to support their existence we have no reason to believe in them either.

Somewhat surprisingly, despite my eldest being in kindergarden, she's already had to deal with her lack of belief (or at least, her agnosticism) and how it affects relationships with other children. In that sense, I think the camps sound great.

Other Comments by Epinephrine

17. Comment #182484 by Epinephrine on May 20, 2008 at 8:28 am

But of course once your children see all the immoral swedish atheists raping and killing indiscriminately nothing you say will have any bearing - they will undoubtedly realise the only way to be moral is through god.

Oh, I just have to share a story now -

Last weekend my wife lost her wallet while doing some shopping at the various garage sales in the area; when she realised it she went out looking for it at the various sales, and one person explained that someone had come by her garage sale to tell her that they had found a wallet. My wife went to the address and recovered her wallet (with all contents), and on our walk home pointed out the house to me - and there on the back of the lady's car was a Darwin fish.

Darned amoral atheists. Not just returning wallets, but going out of her way to inform other garage sales that she had found it.

Other Comments by Epinephrine

18. Comment #182485 by jdb on May 20, 2008 at 8:30 am

"Critics say the camps appear to espouse a particular point of view.":
"There's obviously some teaching going on, there's some philosophy there. It's not completely neutral."

I must have missed that commandment:
"Thou shalt keep all summer camps neutral."

I'm pretty sure the hundreds (thousands?) of theistic summer camps have highly questionable "neutrality."

Other Comments by jdb

19. Comment #182489 by DjSouthPaw on May 20, 2008 at 8:38 am

well, in either case i would just recommend teaching the logical conclusions a child of that age, could make, and understand for him/herself and see if it picks up on things like "fairies aren't provable not to exist" at say age 10. they will get the point for sure. and then generalizing it towards all things that can't be regarded in any other then an agnostic way ( such as god ), although i would be careful making that connection the first thing i do. teach the rules of reasoning and Logic separate from it's implications, and let them try to figure them out first, before painting that picture

for me.. it's the difference between saying:

"see?. since fairies can't be proven to exist. thats the same argument you can say to Christians about god"

and:

"see?. there are many thing that can't be proven to not exist, like this fairy example. This doesn't mean that they become more likely.. so be careful when people claim to know things they can't possibly know"

The latter being the most desirable in my opinion

Other Comments by DjSouthPaw

20. Comment #182492 by DjSouthPaw on May 20, 2008 at 8:49 am

#182485 by jdb

"I'm pretty sure the hundreds (thousands?) of theistic summer camps have highly questionable "neutrality." "

fighting indoctrination with indoctrination doesn't seem like a moral high-ground to me

if you'll excuse my analogy, it reminds me of that Jesus camp director saying that "well islam is getting holy warriors. we should to"

Btw.. are there normal [ quote ] [ / quote ] preflixes on this forum or?

Other Comments by DjSouthPaw

21. Comment #182501 by Epinephrine on May 20, 2008 at 9:16 am

DjSouthPaw -

You can quote people by using <_blockquote_> and <_/blockquote_> to begin and end the segment you wish to quote (removing the underscores).

I agree that children should be taught the logic, and how it applies to argumentation afterward, and I am also against indoctinating them as atheists. I suppose it depends in a sense on what the environment is; here in Canada my daughter is most likely only going to be exposed to religion by general mention of it and its presence in the lives of her teachers, classmates and so on, and as a result I'm confident that teaching her to think critically is all that is needed.

In areas of the USA, where people in authority positions may attempt to use fallacious arguments to influence children, I can see why picking apart standard creationist fare might be helpful.

While indoctrination isn't the answer to indoctrination (nor is intolerance an answer to intolerance), I do believe that preparing them for challenges makes sense. Innoculating them (in a metaphorical sense), ensuring that they've been exposed to something similar, so that their "immune system" recognises the invaders for what they are, and can produce antibodies of the right sort. While our bodies can fight off invaders, we often give it a boost by preparing it ahead of time - the flu shot isn't exactly the flu strain you'll eventually meet, but it sure helps a lot.

Even as it is, the weight of a teacher's opinion is heavy in a child's world. I've corrected things that my daughter's teacher has claimed (generally silly generalisations about nature, like "snakes lay eggs", or "X is a vegetable, not a fruit"), and there is certainly a resisitance to it - she trusts her teachers, so having them contradicted is tough. Luckily, she trusts me more (and I know the subject area better). If you are in an environment that puts specific pressures on a child, it's certainly right to arm them with the right (intellectual) weaponry.

Other Comments by Epinephrine

22. Comment #182514 by DjSouthPaw on May 20, 2008 at 9:59 am

the more i think about it. the more i see a fallacy in my own reasoning since it is biased by my almost completely secular upbringing and surroundings

Epinephrine, i think you've got the right idea 100%

if she will be confronted with fallacious arguments used against her, things she cares about, ( pro choise, science, education )The right thing to do is to see to it that she has heard equal or the same arguments, and knows how vacuous they are

i might even go so far as to teach concepts like (comfort,amount of believers,authority does not = truth-value), and drawing distinctions between disrespecting people, and evaluating ideas, theories and propositions.. for example the catastrophe of the "islamophobia" word.

no doubt offending religious people offends them to their deepest core if truly religious.. but there is no room in todays society to be gentle and over-respectful about it ( at least not in north America or in the UK )

Other Comments by DjSouthPaw

23. Comment #182524 by jdb on May 20, 2008 at 10:44 am

DjSauthPaw,

I wasn't suggesting that anybody should indoctrinate children with atheism! Far from it. I was just pointing out how the good reverend offered "not completely neutral" as a criticism.

Anyone can guess that CampQuest will probably have some localized charge fluctuations, but remain neutral on average. I'm sure, however, that this pales in comparison with the utterly ionic character of the theistic camps, which most certainly fail the "neutrality" condition that the good reverend has put forth.

Other Comments by jdb

24. Comment #182526 by DjSouthPaw on May 20, 2008 at 10:48 am

#182524 by jdb

DjSauthPaw,

I wasn't suggesting that we should indoctrinate children with atheism! Far from it. I was just pointing out how the good reverend offered "not completely neutral" as a criticism.

Anyone can guess that CampQuest will probably have some localized charge fluctuations, but remain neutral on average. I'm sure, however, that this pales in comparison with the utterly ionic character of the theistic camps, which most certainly fail the "neutrality" condition that the good reverend has put forth.

fair enough ye. sorry for making assumptions =)

[sarcasm]
a man in holy orders being a Hypocrite?, thats not possible is it? [/sarcasm]

Other Comments by DjSouthPaw

25. Comment #182527 by Stew282 on May 20, 2008 at 10:54 am

People (Epinephrine, DjSouthPaw) appear to be falling into the trap the religious types so love.

Guys, ATHEISM HAS NO DOCTRINE! - It is impossible to indoctrinate someone not to believe in something unless you accept the premise that that thing exists. You cannot "teach atheism". You can teach religion and indoctrinate religious belief. You can indoctrinate someone to believe the falsity of evolution.

At school I was not taught to speak Swahili. This is not the same as, "I was taught not to speak Swahili."

In any other subject, it's perfectly acceptable to point out the faults in skewed thinking: the failings of facist or communist politics, bad economic strategies, eugenics, statistics etc. etc. So why do people start crying when responsible adults teach children about the flawed thinking of religion.

Your complaints, gentlemen, are an example of the undeserved deference shown to religion that Richard Dawkins is constantly decrying.

Other Comments by Stew282

26. Comment #182529 by calyx on May 20, 2008 at 10:58 am

After watching the Jesus Camp documentary, I'm glad to know that at least they are attempting to be neutral, that camp was so one sided it wasn't funny. Watching that film genuinely scared me, especially the comment the woman made about fundamentalists in Islam. It's deplorable to think that one could respect suicide bombings and actually want to cultivate that sort of behaviour in Christian's. Some of the kid's bought that too, really saddening.

I sent my Christian father a link of Jesus Camp and he had this to say about it.

Watched quite a lot of the TV program. Very extreme, very American, dreadful. A very unbalanced film about very unbalanced people.

How you can expect to find any 'balance' at that Camp is beyond me, but at least our version of it is attempting to do exactly that.

Other Comments by calyx

27. Comment #182531 by calyx on May 20, 2008 at 11:02 am

Stew282 I interpreted what they were saying more along the lines of anti-theism than athiesm. I think they were talking about not teaching children that 'Religion is all evil'.

Other Comments by calyx

28. Comment #182533 by DjSouthPaw on May 20, 2008 at 11:08 am

#182527 by Stew282

People (Epinephrine, DjSouthPaw) appear to be falling into the trap the religious types so love.

Guys, ATHEISM HAS NO DOCTRINE! - It is impossible to indoctrinate someone not to believe in something unless you accept the premise that that thing exists. You cannot "teach atheism". You can teach religion and indoctrinate religious belief. You can indoctrinate someone to believe the falsity of evolution.

you can't teach atheism. but you can teach militancy, and if you do that to kids 10years old. then you're doing it wrong.. if you tell kids what to think about religion. instead of telling them to think for themselves. just like my dad learning me to call Priests pigs by the age of 4 because he had been beaten by catholic priests in his irish upbringing and never finished school because of it

i'm ALL for conversational intolerance, Disrespect of Theism to the highest degree, i have NO sympathy for any clergy and their personal delusions

but i will not say that there is "no wrong way" to teach children to be free thinkers. and this is when you fail to live up to that title and make them instructed thinkers in a specific way !

Other Comments by DjSouthPaw

29. Comment #182535 by Epinephrine on May 20, 2008 at 11:28 am

Stew282:

I am perfectly aware of what atheism is and isn't.

One doesn't actually need a doctrine to be capable of indoctrintation - teaching in general, and of opinions, principles and points of view qualifies fine. My OED says that these definitions date to the early 1600s, so it's not exactly a new use of the word.

I am not out to forge my children into atheists, nor into anti-theists. I will give them the tools they need to make up their minds, I will debate with them, challenge their views, and try to encourage introspection. That is what I mean.

Guys, ATHEISM HAS NO DOCTRINE! - It is impossible to indoctrinate someone not to believe in something unless you accept the premise that that thing exists.

Really. So you have to accept that unicorns exist before you can teach your child otherwise?

You cannot "teach atheism".

Sure you can.

You can teach religion and indoctrinate religious belief. You can indoctrinate someone to believe the falsity of evolution.

Right, but one can also do the opposite.

In any other subject, it's perfectly acceptable to point out the faults in skewed thinking: the failings of facist or communist politics, bad economic strategies, eugenics, statistics etc. etc. So why do people start crying when responsible adults teach children about the flawed thinking of religion.

Your complaints, gentlemen, are an example of the undeserved deference shown to religion that Richard Dawkins is constantly decrying.

Not to be rude, but it seems like you are the one missing the point. I said precisely that I will teach the fallacies and flawed thinking of religion. What I won't do is teach her that there is no god.

I only teach her truths, not what I believe.

At one point my daughter explained that a friend of hers had seen a vampire. Our dinner guest was quite amused by the whole interaction, as I never once said that vampires don't exist. She even pressed the point - "it could have been a vampire!", and I agreed that it is possible that it was a vampire, but explained that there are many other things that seem more likely. I suspect my approach worked, she eventually decided that there were many other things it could have been, and that it prbably wasn't a vampire - and she's better armed now for taking on other strange claims than if I had simply said that vampires don't exist. I can't assert the non-existence of something.

Other Comments by Epinephrine

30. Comment #182538 by DjSouthPaw on May 20, 2008 at 11:49 am

Epinephrine said:

Not to be rude, but it seems like you are the one missing the point. I said precisely that I will teach the fallacies and flawed thinking of religion. What I won't do is teach her that there is no god.

I only teach her truths, not what I believe.

< The Southpaw Seal of Approval >

Other Comments by DjSouthPaw

31. Comment #182539 by Nova on May 20, 2008 at 11:50 am

Epinephrine:

What I won't do is teach her that there is no god.

I only teach her truths, not what I believe.

Yes, I have heard many atheists espouse this view but I don't understand it. There is no reason not to teach what the facts tell us and surely you are an atheist because you observe the facts pointing towards atheism, then, in what way, is teaching atheism different to teaching anything else? Unless your belief in atheism is not fact based - the only other alternative I can think of is faith. Surely, if you are not sure enough of atheism to teach it that makes you an agnostic.

Other Comments by Nova

32. Comment #182543 by DjSouthPaw on May 20, 2008 at 12:05 pm

well Nova, it's about being technically agnostic. the likely-hood of God being reduced to that of russel's teapot or fairies

technical agnosticism to avoid being hypocritical when calling theists deluded for claiming certainties about god and god,s will

that doesn't make you Agnostic on the fence sitting

Other Comments by DjSouthPaw

33. Comment #182545 by Epinephrine on May 20, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Nova -

Ok, you have two basic points in here - one about teaching of atheism, and one trying to tease apart atheism and agnosticism. I'll work in reverse order.

Surely, if you are not sure enough of atheism to teach it that makes you an agnostic.

Atheism/agnosticism. This is a bit of a line-drawing fallacy, unless you feel that atheists are those who claim with certainty that there is no god, in which case anyone with a rational approach is at most agnostic. You can't rationally claim that there is no god, so you are either an extreme agnostic or irrational. The label "atheist" is of little use if you only use it to denote certainty in the non-existence of deities. If instead you use it to define those people who don't believe in a god, then it does come down to a question of belief. I don't believe in a god, but I can't be certain of the non-existence of god, so I am both atheist and extremely agnostic.

Yes, I have heard many atheists espouse this view but I don't understand it. There is no reason not to teach what the facts tell us and surely you are an atheist because you observe the facts pointing towards atheism, then, in what way, is teaching atheism different to teaching anything else?

Right - so you teach facts, you teach reasoning, and when (inevitably) they ask for your opinion, you explain what your opinion is, and why you hold it. If your 5 year old is like mine, she'll ask something like, "but you can't be sure, can you?" And I said, "no, I can't be sure."

And that's your choice - you either explain your reasons and opinion, and allow her to make her own, or you choose to present opinion as fact, something I can't agree with. Obviously, we continued to discuss it, and I imagine it'll come up again.

Other Comments by Epinephrine

34. Comment #182546 by Stew282 on May 20, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Comment 28 - DjSouthPaw.

you can teach militancy, and if you do that to kids 10years old. then you're doing it wrong.. if you tell kids what to think about religion. instead of telling them to think for themselves.

There is no indication in the article that this is being done or that kids are not encouraged to think for themselves. You are simply making and unfounded assumption in order to establish your straw-man here. So you can destroy it with:

just like my dad learning me to call Priests pigs by the age of 4 because he had been beaten by catholic priests in his irish upbringing and never finished school because of it.

...drawing a false comparison between this Camp Quest and catholic child abuse.

but i will not say that there is "no wrong way" to teach children to be free thinkers. and this is when you fail to live up to that title and make them instructed thinkers in a specific way

Again there is no evidence in the article to support this claim. I remember in the article concerning the atheist sunday school getting the feeling that the girl interviewed was chanting a mantra of free-thinking but I get no such feeling from this one.

Other Comments by Stew282

35. Comment #182548 by Stew282 on May 20, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Comment 29 - Epinephrine

Firstly, learn the difference between 'teaching' and 'indoctrination'. It's quite significant.

Secondly, I'm intrigued - very. How exactly does one 'teach atheism'? Read and understand my comment about being taught Swahili before replying.

Lastly, I think you are taking exactly the right approach with your daughter. But you are wrong to assume from this article that that very same approach isn't being used in this summercamp and criticise the place without evidence.

Other Comments by Stew282

36. Comment #182549 by Partisan on May 20, 2008 at 12:24 pm

"Nobody wants to live alone in a bubble," Pinskiy said. "So it's extremely nice to find similarly minded people with the same world view."

Bit of a loaded statement here ; no-one wants to live in a bubble, but by mixing only with people who share your own ideology (for which religious or non-religious frameworks count) living in a bubble is exactly what'll happen.

Then again, I can understand why these camps would have a function in America, where kids are more likely to come into contact with religion than in the UK. When all the other students are running off to sing I <3 Jesus around campfires it can't be fun to be the atheist kid stuck at home. I think the idea of theist/atheist summer camps is sickening in toto, to be frank, and can only encourage fundamentalism, but it's making the best of a bad situation.

Other Comments by Partisan

37. Comment #182551 by DjSouthPaw on May 20, 2008 at 12:36 pm

*sigh*.. this will also take several lines =/

There is no indication in the article that this is being done or that kids are not encouraged to think for themselves. You are simply making and unfounded assumption in order to establish your straw-man here

the article says what exercise is being done to teach kids for example about the Russel's teapot arugument.. but it doesn't specify how the adults do it, what i was saying is that HOW they say it. matters.

witch i then followed up on and specified examples that should have been easy enough to spot and determine that my straw men are actually possible ones, neither of us know how it's actually been said

counselors tell the kids about different invisible creatures that live in the camp and then challenge the campers to prove that they don't exist. In some cases, it's a pair of unicorns, in other cases, a dragon. In each instance, the campers are told they can't see, touch or taste the creatures.

my point there is. HOW did they tell the kids. thats the key word. how

what i was doing was comparing the way my father portrayed the church in the worst possible light.. and if the camp quest people were to do it the worst way imaginable, it would be a fair analogy

i don't know how they say it. and i suspect neither do you. The difference is that i'm saying that IF thats the case it's bad... i made no claim that they are indoctrinating kids, i expressed a concern if about if they were or not. and you're claiming without knowledge (to my suspicion) that they aren't

I get no such feeling from this one.

feelings are about as useful to me as personal revelation when it comes to determining truths mate

Other Comments by DjSouthPaw

38. Comment #182553 by Stew282 on May 20, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Sigh...This will be quick!

...and IF they're calling priests pigs, IF they're claimining believers to be stupid, IF they're saying all religion is evil, IF they're preaching Satanism etc. etc.

"I get no such feeling from this one" = "There appears to me to be no indication of that from this one." - Confusion between the senses of 'feeling' rather like the definitions of faith.

Other Comments by Stew282

39. Comment #182554 by Epinephrine on May 20, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Comment 29 - Epinephrine

Firstly, learn the difference between 'teaching' and 'indoctrination'. It's quite significant.

My advice, back at you :P Use a proper dictionary?

I can provide you with a list of the various uses of the word "indoctrinate" as well as the sentences they were used in, in which publications and in what year. That's the nice thing about having the complete OED available. Before I commented I looked it up. Before telling someone to "learn the difference" you should probably get a decent reference.

Secondly, I'm intrigued - very. How exactly does one 'teach atheism'? Read and understand my comment about being taught Swahili before replying.

I read your comment about Swahili. You are coming across (at least, to me) as an ass - hence my bristling and typing in a less than completely friendly tone. I'm probably on your side, you realise? We likely have a semantic difference in terms of defining "atheism", but instead of investigating that possibility you have elected to simply employ rudeness.

Just because you were not taught to speak Swahili, rather than being taught not to speak Swahili doesn't mean that it applies to the situation at hand. I can both not teach someone to believe in a god, as well as teach them not to believe in a god.

In fact, it's implicit in Christianity - they teach the belief in a god (God), and they also teach not to believe in other gods (anyone else). As a coincidence, they also do not teach the belief in those other gods (both not-teaching and teaching-not them. Suddenly it feels like some Tolkienesque language.) Clearly then, teaching non-belief is possible, just extend it by one god and you have atheism.

Now, that is somewhat tongue in cheek, but one certainly can teach belief, if only by continually reinforcing it. I fail to see why one couldn't teach a child that all religion is garbage, and that none of it could possibly be true. It might not stand up to a test of logic, but neither do the religions that are successfully taught to children.

Of course, some might argue semantically if one can "teach" non-belief, and I do not really like the thought of a drawn out semantic battle. I referred to toilet training and was corrected by some PC moron with the term "toilet learning", as we don't train children. Not an argument I want to get into.

Lastly, I think you are taking exactly the right approach with your daughter. But you are wrong to assume from this article that that very same approach isn't being used in this summer camp and criticise the place without evidence.

Thanks, I like to think I am getting some of it right. I take my role as a parent very seriously. I didn't really criticise the camp, merely said that I can see DjSouthPaw's points about indoctrination. I think dogmatically presenting opinion as fact is problematic for either theists or atheists (in either case it involves essentially an argument by authority, which if accepted will result in a vulnerability to that style of argument), and wasn't saying that the camp does so, but agreeing that IF they do so, it's not a good thing.

Other Comments by Epinephrine

40. Comment #182556 by Stew282 on May 20, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Ok, ok, I'm using the widely accepted understanding of the difference bewteen teaching and indoctrination.

In fact, it's implict in Christianity - they teach the belief in a god (God), and they also teach not to believe in other gods (anyone else). Clearly then, teaching non-belief is possible, just extend it by one god and you have atheism.

Accepting, if we may, a-theism to mean 'having no theistic beliefs', teaching the first commandment - 'You will believe in only one god and no others' cannot, (despite the beloved 'one god further' argument, which I do like and use) be construed as teaching atheism. I maintain that it is impossible to teach non-belief - one either teaches belief or one doesn't.

I think you and DjSouthPaw were basically saying that you agreed with the concept of the summer school as long as there wasn't a forcing of opinions (indoctrination?) on the kids instead of encouragement for them to learn to think for themselves. Unfortunately, to me at least, it seemed from your postings that you had made the assumption that this was the case from the article.

Other Comments by Stew282

41. Comment #182559 by Epinephrine on May 20, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Woohoo, glad to see we're getting along again.

I think you're right that in general speech, indoctrination has a certain meaning, but it certainly can mean as little as teaching a point of view.

As for teaching of non-belief, I am not sure. As I said, I don't want to get bogged down in semantics about "teaching". One can certainly teach children facts, and falsehoods, and their opinions on matters certainly seem to be influenced by those opinions presented to them (especially if presented as facts). We can probably chalk this up to differences in terms of definitions? Do you agree that one can influence the belief patterns (belief and non-belief) of a child through experience?

And lastly, yes, I think DJSP and I were both simply being cautious, not trying to condemn the summer camp without evidence. Glad to be back on your good side :)

Other Comments by Epinephrine

42. Comment #182563 by DjSouthPaw on May 20, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Stew282:

I think you and DjSouthPaw were basically saying that you agreed with the concept of the summer school as long as there wasn't a forcing of opinions (indoctrination?) on the kids instead of encouragement for them to learn to think for themselves. Unfortunately, to me at least, it seemed from your postings that you had made the assumption that this was the case from the article.

not at all against this sort of activity, i think it's wonderful if those kids get to learn all the good things that are simply needed to understand science, probability and logic thinking as a basis for making the right decisions later on in life both when it comes to beliefs and actions, whatever those may be

Epinephrine:

And lastly, yes, I think DJSP and I were both simply being cautious, not trying to condemn the summer camp without evidence. Glad to be back on your good side :)

well i have to admit i was a bit fueled by the fact that i though i had been called a moderate or sympathizer with religion, that didn't sit to well with me and i took it as a bit of a personal insult and had to win the discussion i felt ;)

that was the underlying start of the disagreement though. the need to be rigorous and not include wild speculation or personal bias when teaching kids about things you say to be true, like the nature of god

much like your vampire example... that exemplifies what i mean

Other Comments by DjSouthPaw

43. Comment #182566 by DjSouthPaw on May 20, 2008 at 2:03 pm

We can probably chalk this up to differences in terms of definitions? Do you agree that one can influence the belief patterns (belief and non-belief) of a child through experience?

as for a child's belief in god, i would not tell them what is more reasonable to believe,( at least i hope i wouldn't )

would probably go for an explanation for why i don't believe in it, short and sweet. if they have questions. give more reasons and answer the questions

that way you can still talk about belief in a god, and why YOU think it is not sound to have a theist belief, but not to make a lecture out of it

don't know what i would start with really.. if i had a son or a daughter, i would have Tv evenings with them from a young age in front of the Discovery channel when there are no cartoons on, hopefully catch some images of space and do some explaining . give them a leg up in science at school

take a personal interest when they learn evolution and help them with it. explain further and make sure they understand it to understand it fully, while wanting comparative religion taught in schools, well ( as it is in Sweden fortunately)

that should pretty much make them immune to religion.

in America how ever.. thats a tougher question =).
I would probably have to discuss the role religion plays as the only game in town when it comes to Spirituality. and feeling of something grander then oneself, and that religion isn't needed for that, and in my view demeans the role ( rant about the beauty of science )

when i think about it. i would probaby fail as a father with that program ;P

Other Comments by DjSouthPaw

44. Comment #182569 by MelM on May 20, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Found in the Newsletter (April 2008) for the California "Camp Quest West":

So, without further ado, we'd like to offer
our congratulations to Dagny in Danville
on the winning essay. Dagny chose to
answer the question: Is science the only
way of knowing about the universe? Or
are there other ways of knowing? Explain.

She notes that the explanations( gods) of cavemen still thrive. Indeed they do.

The short essay (pdf):
http://west.camp-quest.org/Media/April2008.pdf

Other Comments by MelM

45. Comment #182570 by Nova on May 20, 2008 at 2:33 pm

So in practise we are all agnostics but there is a difference between practising agnostics give a sizable chunk to the 'god exists' idea, they do give more credance to gods existence than fairies, we are atheists because we equate gods existence to fairies - that is the practical line and there are many people on both sides to show it is not simply a "line-drawing fallacy".

DjSouthPaw:

well Nova, it's about being technically agnostic. the likely-hood of God being reduced to that of russel's teapot or fairies

technical agnosticism to avoid being hypocritical when calling theists deluded for claiming certainties about god and god,s will

that doesn't make you Agnostic on the fence sitting

Right - so you teach facts, you teach reasoning, and when (inevitably) they ask for your opinion, you explain what your opinion is, and why you hold it. If your 5 year old is like mine, she'll ask something like, "but you can't be sure, can you?" And I said, "no, I can't be sure."

And that's your choice - you either explain your reasons and opinion, and allow her to make her own, or you choose to present opinion as fact, something I can't agree with. Obviously, we continued to discuss it, and I imagine it'll come up again.

Technically we can't be sure of anything. There is a tiny chance that everything are senses are telling us is wrong. Does this mean we shouldn't teach anything? No because the chance is too tiny. What if there was a majority belief that a monster would appear on earth tomorrow if we don't sacrifice half the worlds food every day? We can't prove this monster doesn't exist but this doesn't mean we shouldn't teach people it doesn't and the same goes for god. If people had a widespread belief in fairies, then would it really be right to feel squeamish in pointing out the fallacies just because we can't prove they don't exist?

Unless, of course, you give far more chance to god than fairies or destructive monsters that can appear out of nowhere, in which case you are a practical agnostic. We are all technically agnostics - its just some are practically atheists, seeing god as no more likely as fairies. I think opinion is something you are unsure of but still have conviction in - the existence of god is so unlikely that to treat it as opinion that he doesn't exist is absurd. I would obviously always protect the rights of theists to hold their beliefs as I would protect the right of flat earth believers to hold their beliefs though. I just think that as evolution and round earth should be taught as fact so should atheism.

Other Comments by Nova

46. Comment #182620 by frosty on May 20, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Kids seem quite able to sort this stuff out for themselves as long as they get the right guidance. My seven year old came home from school late last year proclaiming that Jesus loved him (this is in an Australian Public School, normally a bastion of Apathanism - don't know, don't care - I think they just had someone explaining the meaning of Christmas, which by itself I am Ok with). I explained that lots of people in the world believe in different religions, and where that belief may have originated. I explained that I didn't believe, and why, but left it at that.

A day or two later, he proudly announced that he didn't believe in the Tooth Fairy, and explained why!

He's still a bit quiet on Santa, I think the difference between 20c and a new bike is sufficient for him to hold out on that one.

Other Comments by frosty

47. Comment #182641 by OverUsedChewToy on May 20, 2008 at 5:49 pm

"
Camp Quest is a not-for-profit backed by the Albany, N.Y.-based Institute for Humanist studies, a think tank supporting the nonreligious Humanist philosophy, which emphasizes science, evolution, compassion and critical thinking."

Science and evolution are mutually exclusive all-of-a-sudden?

Other Comments by OverUsedChewToy

48. Comment #182740 by DjSouthPaw on May 20, 2008 at 11:21 pm

Nova you just restated what i said, but with more words then i did

i do indeed think God's existence is equal in probability to fairies ( less then 1% chance )

but i will not go so far as to say that it fits in to the same technical agnosticism i apply when i think my dinner table is made of wood, and that it's solid.. thats taking it to far in my opinion

By the way, i'm off now to an interview and test for a school, applying for the education of a Sound technician

( funded by the Swedish Missionary Church ) oh the horror, they forbid alcohol

so that will be my 3:d hand choice of school

Other Comments by DjSouthPaw

49. Comment #183002 by liberalartist on May 21, 2008 at 7:53 am

I think Camp Quest is a great idea, and if I had kids I would send them there. I was a member of Girl Scouts and it was a great experience. I loved going on camping trips and experience the great outdoors, which wasn't a regular experience for me. Today, the outdoors is practically foreign to my nephews who spend most of their day in front of a computer. What I liked about the Girl Scouts (as opposed to Boy Scouts which are different organizations) is that it was secular and open to all types of women. Kids need opportunities to get close to nature and learn real science. They also learn independence by spending a week away from parents.

Other Comments by liberalartist

50. Comment #183079 by Nova on May 21, 2008 at 11:02 am

DjSouthPaw:

i do indeed think God's existence is equal in probability to fairies ( less then 1% chance )

but i will not go so far as to say that it fits in to the same technical agnosticism i apply when i think my dinner table is made of wood, and that it's solid.. thats taking it to far in my opinion

Why is the knowledge that your table is made of wood more certain than that god doesn't exist? It would be a complicated situation for somehow your dinner table not to be made of wood when it looks like it is but by using incredible odds you could think of one. God is a very complicated idea but by using incredible odds you could think of a way god exists.

However, since we can't calculate the probabilities I don't see how you can put the idea that your dinner table is made of wood as more certain than that god doesn't exist. What if the trees that were used to make that table where the result of loads of sudden mutations in an explosion of improbability and this caused them to be made of a substance which looks and feels like wood but in some other ways isn't wood. What I wonder is how you can says that this improbability is less likely than the equally complex amount of parameters that need to be fulfilled to create god, he is smarter than humans and has loads of amazing abilities, so it would be way less likely than a human body assembling by chance.

Even if you maintain that we can be more certain of a table being wood than god not existing, surely both are sufficiently incredibly improbably enough that we can treat them as facts? If god is taken as too likely so that we can't treat his nonexistence as a fact then there are a multitude of other ridiculous things that we cannot say don't exist. I wouldn't advocate teaching atheism as a fact without any explanation like a dogma but teaching it as a fact and showing the reasons why.

Other Comments by Nova