Should Kids Be Told Religious Stories are ‘Myths’?
Two weeks ago, I gave away three copies of Richard Dawkins’ new book, the Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True, a highly acclaimed book seeking to introduce youngsters to the science behind some of life’s biggest mysteries: Who was the first person? Why do we have night and day? When and how did everything begin? The book is fascinating, easy to read and full of beautiful illustrations. Truly, there is so much about our world that is awe-inspiring, and Dawkins shows us how fun it can be to explore.
But Dawkins, a famous atheist, doesn’t stop there.
Before each chapter, he outlines various myths adopted through the ages as a way to explain scientific phenomena. He reasons that, before scientific exploration, people needed ways to make sense of these seemingly supernatural occurrences— so they invented stories and passed them off as fact. It’s a clever technique, and it’s interesting the way Dawkins lays Greek myths, Native American traditions, and Biblical stories side-by-side, and then allows science to tell its version of the story.
Clever and interesting — but also a bit arrogant and condescending. And, for us open-minded, nonreligious parents struggling to find the “right” language with which to approach religion with our kids, his dismissive attitude disappoints.
If we tell our children that present-day religious beliefs — particularly those described in the Bible, the Torah or even the Book of Mormon — are full of mythical stories, we’re teaching them that religion is hogwash. And we’re teaching them that the 70-odd percent of their neighbors and friends who buy into this hogwash are, therefore, intellectually inferior. I don’t care how subtle Dawkins tries to be, that’s his book’s subtext, and we all know it.
Now, how in the world does that kind of instruction set our kids up to be open-minded, freethinking individuals? How does it encourage them to embrace people with different beliefs and opinions? How does it show our kids that they are free to choose their own religious or nonreligious paths in life?
The answer: It doesn’t.
I’ll be the first to admit that science often butts heads with religion. But there are a huge number of people in our society that believe in science and religion. And I don’t really care that it doesn’t make sense to Richard Dawkins. I don’t really care that it doesn’t make sense to me! What my neighbor believes and how he rationalizes that belief is 100 percent not my concern. Whether he brings his own beer to my barbecue, on the other hand…
Here’s the thing: I do not believe — and I sincerely hope you don’t either — that pious people are stupid; in fact, many of the smartest people I know are pious. And that their faith may involve nonscientific stories does not make me superior. It doesn’t make you superior. And it doesn’t make our kids superior.
There is an intolerance in Dawkins’ insistence on calling these stories myths. Dismissing religious stories as archaic or absurd adds nothing to his book. In fact, for people like me, it takes away. And for church-going folks in Middle America? Well, forget it; they’ll never buy it. And didn’t Dawkins see the potential to educate all children — not just those whose parents subscribe to his exact point of view?
I know he wanted to break things down in the simplest way possible. I understand he wanted to present facts alongside of beliefs, and point out their roots and differences. There is merit to that.
But not everything is about science. Some things are about respect.
I will absolutely read The Magic of Reality to my daughter — or, rather, show her the super-cool iPad app! But I’ll first let her know the book was written by an author who believes religious stories are myths. I’ll remind her that the author is just one person; and that lots of other people in the world believe those stories are real. I’ll tell her, as I do often, that it’s up to her to decide for herself what makes sense, what feels right.
From what I gather, Richard Dawkins wants parents to help their children put religious belief in a context of science. Fair enough. But I do hope that, before cracking open The Magic of Reality, parents will help their children put Richard Dawkins in a context of religion.
[...] she didn’t have much to say about it (she hasn’t read it yet), but she referred to THIS BLOG, in which the blogger laments Dawkins’ decision to term Judeo-Christian myths [...]
I have to disagree with you. His book is a perfect way to teach children an “alternate” view from religion. As you started to touch on in your last paragraph when you said that you would still let your child read it, but explain it’s just an opinion. But let’s face it religion is filled with beliefs that are taught as facts! These are his beliefs and he is teaching them as truths, just as a Catholic or Mormon would do with their beliefs. My children are told constantly by their grandparents that non-believers go to hell, as if it’s a proven fact. This of course is upsetting to my 5 year olds who know that their parents are atheist. But rather than tell them that their grandparents are wrong. I just say “Well that’s what they believe. What do you think?” Dawkins unravels the “myths” of religion in the way he believes is true. What a wonderful opportunity to teach children the apposing argument and finish it up with. “So what do you think of what he’s saying?” In their lifetime they will be inundated with intelligent and not so intelligent people telling all kinds of stories, the beauty of the critical thinker is that we don’t believe everything we are told. No matter where the source comes from.
Wendy, I am new to your blog, having just been directed here from the Canadian Atheist site, which I read regularly. I have a feeling that I will become one of your regular readers, especially as I prepare for the birth of my first child, one we intend to raise as a rational freethinker respectful of religion. But I suspect I am not representative of your “regular” reader as I am an ordained minister in a liberal Christian denomination.
Personally, I consider myself to be non-theist: I don’t believe in God. That said, I do believe (and I see everyday) that belief in god(s) is very powerful in our world, shaping the worldview of many, many people. I have no problem with identifying the Christian, Jewish, or Mormon stories as myths; I believe that this is what they are. But for me that doesn’t make them meaningless. I make a distinction between fact and truth. Certain stories, while not factual, may still point to higher truths or hold meaning. I hope that we (both I am my agnostic scientist partner – who, on most days, is more tolerant of religion than I am) can raise our child to engage these myths, or sacred stories, with curiosity (What is this story REALLY about? What did it say to people a long time ago? What might it say to people now?) and with respect.
Thanks for your blog. And thanks for pointing me to the Dawkins resource.
Funny, I just blogged about this myself. For the record, my child’s assessment of believers was not that they’re stupid, but that they’re insane.
I took it as an opportunity to discuss the idea of respecting people, even if we don’t respect their ideas, and that people can believe different things and that’s all right.
I think as usual, Dawkins is being blunt and factual, and in a culture where all beliefs except non-belief are held to be special and to be coddled, his frankness comes across as stridency. Personally, I’m very glad to have a resource to teach about Christian myths without the inclusion of such treacle as “And God sent Jesus because He loves YOU so much!”
Rian, I love your comment about how what science teaches us is not always the same as what “feels right.” For as long as I live I don’t think the concept that speed is a constant and distance and time are variable will ever “feel” right, but that doesn’t change my acceptance of general relativity. That said, I don’t think there is any problem in teaching our kids to value both. Feelings have value. Our brains are capable of processing more data than we are consciously aware of faster than we can consciously follow – Malcolm Gladwell wrote about the concept in “Blink.” I want my kid to trust her own feelings – to feel confident that what she feels is right, particularly with regard to interactions with other people, probably is right. I think it is important for her to develop that kind of confidence. And I also want her to understand the humility inherent in the scientific method – that we have to be willing to change our convictions to match the facts and not the other way around.
My problem with Dawkins’ patronizing treatment of religion in his kids’ book is it is hurtful to nice people and isn’t necessary. I presume Dawkins feels comfortable referring to religious stories explaining natural phenomena as “myths” because he honestly believes that is an accurate statement (as do I). But that doesn’t change the fact that it is still a loaded and hurtful way of describing someone’s religious beliefs. Christians might refer to me as a godless heathen who will burn in hell for all eternity, and think they are perfectly accurate in their description. It’s still kind of mean to say. For years, the overall movement in modern religion has been toward tolerance. Catholics and Jews and Muslims and Hindus and so on are more and more tolerant of each other. They believe differently, but accept each other and find respectful ways of talking to each other about the world. We non-religious people can either take a dark ages, exclusionary, monotheistic stance (We are right and you are all wrong and so must be feared, mocked and destroyed!) or we can take a modern accepting stance (We don’t believe the same things, but there is room in this world for both of us.) Dawkins is laying claim to the former. I share his beliefs, but prefer the latter.
I feel no shame in admitting that I’ve been lumping the Bible with all mythology when teaching my children. I look at things differently perhaps, having spent about a third of my life as a pagan, and I still have many pagan friends. Christians teach their children that the Greek, Norse, Celtic, and even Hindu legends are myths, but there is a bunch of people who believe those stories to be true. In many Christians case they look down on other mythos and teach their children that they’re “evil”. I remember learning Greek myths in third grade and wondering why those stories weren’t true, but the Biblical ones were supposed to be true. To me, the Greek myths seemed far more logical. Kids can be smarter and more aware than most people give them credit for. My kids are learning that mythology is very real to people, and it’s not ok to tease them for their beliefs. I frame it from the standpoint that if they don’t want to be teased or looked down on for not believing then they can not tease or look down on those who do believe. We explain it that some people feel more comforted believing that there is a higher force, and that’s ok. We ourselves are comfortable with just science’s explanation of things. In my opinion this way of going about things is teaching my kids to be open minded and tolerant. It’s teaching that even when you completely disagree and think someone is wrong you can still be tolerant and understanding of their differences.
I applaud your consideration of, and recognize the difficulty with, having intelligent friends who believe apparently outlandish things. The problem is that there are so many religious stories. Many contradict the laws of nature, the findings of science and even one another. What else do you call an ancient story that has no evidence for basis in fact other than “a myth”?
I read my (free! thanks!) copy of this book, and Dawkins’ calling the Biblical stories myths did give me pause, but I didn’t exactly find it objectionable. I did wonder how my bright-but-Christian friends would react. But your post gets at what is really my biggest difficulty in dealing with religion with my kids. I feel like I have to treat others’ religious beliefs with a certain amount of respect, and give them a certain amount of credence, to keep from offending people. (Or having my son offend people.) I don’t tell my son that there is no God, or that his friends are silly or stupid to believe in God. I say that a lot of people (not including me) believe in God. But this opens the door for the religious folks to frighten my son by telling him that he must accept Jesus to avoid spending eternity in a pit of fire, or that he can’t be a good person without believing. How can I let him know that I really, really don’t think there’s a God, without telling him that his friends and their parents are just flat out wrong? By allowing that there’s any chance at all that they are right, then I’m allowing that there’s a chance that he’s going to miss out on the eternal life. And while he’s a smart, rational kid, he really does want to live forever. I really struggle with this. I don’t want to tell him what to believe, but I don’t want him to decide that he should believe just to be safe a la Pascal’s Wager. Maybe I do want to tell him what to believe! See, I really am having trouble with this!
Great writing like always Wendy. I really love that you value the person even though they have a different ideal then others.
Reading your post I am reminded of Victor Villasenor’s story of growing up as a dyslexic Mexican-American boy being taught within an American-Anglo/Saxon culture in Oceanside, CA who is now a motivational speaker and author of Rain of Gold, which is his family’s history. Oral tradition which is much older then writing was practiced in his family from one generation to the next. Being taught that, what he was told about his family’s stories and journeys in life rubbed off on him, and he came to believe it was all myth. Being the good scientist and loyal son, he set out to Mexico to disprove or not all of his dad’s stories. Amazingly enough he discovered that there was truth in every story that was passed down to him, and so he wrote his book the way it was told to him correlating it with his understanding.
Science being the discovery of what is not true to determine fact. Religion is the pursuit to discover Truth to discern values. I have native American friends who remind me that, “We don’t have a religion, we have a way of life.” The religionist and the scientist developed independently of one another produce a tripod with a short leg that always tips over and is never balanced. Children hear what we tell them, but they pay more attention to our loyalties and those values become part of them. It is amazing to me that rather then discovering the underlying values in a story that can be gained by discerning a possible universe reality it is merely dismissed but this is understandable in the light of imperfect human beings roaming the earth telling others what they should and should not do. Love Michael
You say that “There is an intolerance in Dawkins’ insistence on calling these stories myths.”
Isn’t that the same as to say “There is an intolerance in Dawkins’ insistence in pointing out that stories that are not true are not, in fact, true.”?
If they’re not myths, then what are they?
- Mark
I like the way Dawkins doesn’t pull punches, but you are right that his words do not set well with those who want to reconcile science and religion. As an evolutionary biologist, I don’t think it’s his job to soften science to make it more accommodating to religion though.
I teach my kids that all religious stories are myths, whether currently popular or not, because they are myths. I find I often don’t need to call them “myths” when my kids learn Biblical stories alongside other traditional religious stories, because the similarities are obvious. On the other hand, elevating one religious story to the level of “real” would require a lot of work on my part.
Teaching my kids to respect the believer but not the belief is an ongoing struggle for me as a parent. I am of the camp that religious faith, as an unsubstantiated idea, does not deserve to be elevated in any way, regardless of how many people believe in it. While I don’t believe that all pious people are stupid, I most certainly believe that religion is stupid. Actually, that’s probably one of the nicer adjectives I’d use to describe it.
That said, I would still like for my children to have friends, and because we live in a very conservative religious area, it’s important to me that my kids know they must tread carefully in faith discussions with their peers, and that calling religion “stupid” probably won’t win many friends.
An important issue your post brings up is the idea of letting our kids decide for themselves as freethinkers when it comes to religious beliefs. I claim to be doing the very same thing, but wonder if I’m making a decision for my kids by giving them the freethinking, secular education that religious fundamentalists hate so much. While I absolutely would accept and love my kids if they become “religious,” I don’t really think there’s much chance of it happening when they are spending their childhood years learning to seek answers in reality. I would be completely shocked actually if my kids believe in any gods as adults.
If it’s arrogant and condescending to say that present-day religious books are full of mythical stories, then how is it not condescending to exclude Native American stories? And how does ‘present day’ change anything? Just because all the people who believe something are dead menas we can now call it a ‘myth’? There are neo-pagans who have ceremonies for various Greek and Roman deities. Do they not deserve the same level of respect as any believer of ‘present day’ religions?
I think for one you are conflating religion with the stories of religion. Not every religions person believes in a literal Ark, or, for that matter, that everything in the universe revolves around a fixed-in-space Earth. Sure, some do. But there comes a point when you’re saying “I respect your opinion that 2 + 2 = 5″. I’m bothered by the idea of setting aside a speical place for just one set of stories. We can respect a story, and understand that it’s not true.
Just as Dawkins’s book does, I tell my son the reasons why we know various stories aren’t true. And sometimes that’s “what happens if you give a mouse a cookie”. And if it’s Noah’s Ark, I will tell him there are people, even smart people who believe it.
I think the only way to be respectful is to treat them all the same. And I think it’s disrespectful for anyone to claim that Adam and Eve deserve any more respect than Raven or Turtle
I don’t think teling kids the Bible is full of myths equates to reigious people bieng intellecually inferior. Or at least it doesn’t have to. And I really don’t like the alternative. Telling him that those stories are true?
I’ve been ‘discussing’ this book with critics on the Web, and none are willing to come out and say Dawkins is factually wrong in any of the chapters (although I suspect they’d point out Evolution if they’d actually read the book). What I take from that is, “Well, yes, that’s how rainbows really work, but we don’t want to teach CHILDREN that!”
How else would you characterize religious stories? They certainly can’t be supported as factual. When cultural stories, religious or otherwise, can’t be supported outside of the story collection, they *are* myths. That doesn’t make believers automatically stupid, only ignorant.
I don’t see how calling a myth a myth is arrogant or condescending. The number of people that hold a belief to be true has no bearing on the evidence or lack of evidence supporting it. And I want my child to understand that believing something is true without evidence *is* foolish. Just because all my neighbors believe something, doesn’t make it a true or reasonable or a good thing to believe. Were all the scientific pioneers of the past that smashed the myths of their day arrogant and condescending? More like, they were simply insistent on pointing to the facts, even to their own detriment. I don’t see how my son can be a freethinker and cater to the foolishness of others, no matter how many they number or how difficult a position it may put him in.
I guess in the end I don’t find it arrogant or condescending to call a spade a spade. My brother’s family is quite religious. I’ve never hesitated to call them out when their religious nonsense flies in the face of reason. But I’m certainly not going to be rude about their prayers before meals in their home, even if I’m not going to pray with them. I don’t want them to proselytize to me and I won’t do the same to them. I’m much more interested in teaching my child to understand that others deserve respect and consideration but that their ideas are open for discussion as long as you’re respectful and stick with the evidence.
LOVE! I really admire people who practice what they preach!
Great post, thanks, but I have one point to contend:
“…neighbors and friends who buy into this hogwash are, therefore, intellectually inferior.”
My opinion (not Dawkins’, I haven’t read any of his books) is that the ‘inferiority’ (that’s not a good word) is not intellectual (I agree with you that many religious people are very intelligent) but rational. I believe a freethinker should hold rationality (therefore science) above all else. That doesn’t mean that various forms of spirituality are out, there is just no way to rationalize most modern or archaic religions, that believe in magic (unless you choose to believe that the physical properties of the universe have changed considerably in the last few thousand years). So I’m saying that I hold my religious friends to be rationally ‘inferior’, that doesn’t mean I don’t respect them in other ways but I’ve certainly told my daughter that what they believe is a myth. I believe that this knowledge will allow my daughter to understand the physical world in a more satisfying way.
“I’ll remind her that the author is just one person; and that lots of other people in the world believe those stories are real. I’ll tell her, as I do often, that it’s up to her to decide for herself what makes sense, what feels right.”
I understand what you’re saying about dismissing others’ views as myths, but your second sentence makes me uncomfortable. The point of the book is to use science to determine what is real and true. Science and “what feels right” are often not the same. That’s the kind of argument the Faithful use to dismiss evolution.
I’m more inclined to put it in the light of Greek Mythology- to explain to my kids that to us, they are stories, but that people IN THAT TIME believed these things to be true. Likewise there are things people now believe that maybe hundreds of years from now will seem silly, and not just religion. The promise of science is that as better answers come along, we’re free to dismiss old ideas and grasp our new understanding, and to me that’s what freethought is. Freedom from accepting things for face value or tradition; freedom to be open to new answers and ideas. It’s fair to say the book doesn’t pull punches, but that’s Dawkins!