Question Is it philosophically defensible, or morally right, to inculcate your child to an organized religion when you yourself do not firmly believe in it? Along the same line, is there anything wrong about avoiding religious topics with your child with the intent that the child will choose her own set of beliefs when she becomes more mature?

Accepted:
October 9, 2005

Comments

I should say right at the outset that I am not speaking as a specialist in ethics. I am a parent. My husband is also a philosopher. Our considered view is that, basically, one should not tell children things that one believes to be untrue. Perhaps there are exceptions -- I'm not about to criticize the parents of a dying child who encourage the child to have hope. But if you're going to encourage a child to believe something you think is false, you need a really good reason. For one thing, it's imprudent: you risk your own credibility if the kid finds you out. So I wonder, in your case, what your reason fis or "inculcating" in your child a set of beliefs you think are false?

Neither my husband nor I believes in Santa Claus, and therefore did not tell our children that there was a Santa Claus. We didn't go out of our way to tell them that there wasn't, but neither of our kids seemed inclined to believe that there was. They talked about Santa Claus pretty much the same way they talked about Big Bird -- they could enter into the pretense when it was fun to do so, but they weren't confused about the difference between reality and make-believe.

We also don't believe in God. We followed the same policy. Despite the urgent advice of many people whose business this wasn't, we did not feign religion "for the sake of our children." Whatever benefits there may be to belonging to a religous community -- and my husband and I are prepared to admit that there are many -- we just could not possibly have tried to persuade our children of something we believed to be false. There are always social benefits involved in believing what most people believe, or at least in acting as if one does. But if we want our children to resist peer pressure when it comes to drugs and sex, why not also belief?

I’ve long been a non-believer, but I remember that when my firstdaughter was born, I too began to worry about the sorts of questionsthat are raised here. It’s one thing for me to be a non-believer— can’treally help that, since the only thing that can give me a reason tobelieve in God would be evidence that suggests the existence of a God–but it’s a separate matter whether I should try to inculcate a beliefin God in my daughter. After all, I reasoned (in a panicky sort of way–overwhelmed by the sheer immensity of the responsibility that I hadjust taken on), I could be wrong, I’ve been wrong before, and if othersare right in their belief that the existence of God is necessary foreternal bliss and non-belief in God is sufficient for eternaldamnation, then perhaps itwould be morally wrong for me to take a chance and doom my child toeternal damnation. I got over this worry pretty quickly, but now thatI’ve just rehearsed it again, I’m beginning to panic again. What in theworld is wrong with that reasoning?

Some parents worry thatunless they join an organized religion, their children will end upwithout any moral principles. They might then conclude that they have amoral responsibility to society to make their children religious. For adiagnosis of the error in this reasoning, go here.

The first sort of reasoning (not that I need to tell Jyl) goes bythe name "Pascal's Wager". It has been the subject of much controversy.The best recent paper I know is by Alan Hájek. See his"Waging War on Pascal's Wager", Philosophical Review 112 (2003), 27-56. Alan also wrote the Stanford Encyclopedia article on Pascal's Wager, which is presumably a better place to start for those who are interested.

Letme offer a slightly different perspective on the question originallyasked. I don't think I'd want to say that it is permissible to"inculcate" one's children in a religion one doesn't accept. But thatis strong and fairly loaded language. I actually know two people whoare in the something like the following situation. (I could be wrongabout some of the details, so if anyone guesses who I've got in mind,don't assume I'm right. The situation is officially hypothetical.) Alexand Tony are white academics and have adopted two black children. Theybelieve very strongly that, as the church is and long has been thecenter of the black community, it is important for their children togrow up in a black church. So they attend one and take their children,even though they themselves are not believers. I don't myself seeanything impermissible about their doing so. In fact, it strikes me asadmirable. Note that it isn't obviously consistent with their broader goals to convey theirlack of belief to their children, since doing so could undermine theirchildren's involvement in the church.

So let's ask a more general question: Is it permissible to expose one's children in a serious wayto religious life even if one is not oneself a person of faith? Hereagain, I don't see why it shouldn't be, and I can well imagine goodreasons for wanting to do so. It doesn't have to be a fear ofdamnation.

That isn't, of course, to say there is some obligation to expose one's children to religious life. That would be a much stronger claim.