Should children be allowed into houses of worship

In the course of researching Neurobiology and Neurophysiology, 2 interesting things popped out, and made me seriously question the ethics of non-consensual religious attendance.

The first popped out while researching brain waves.
Delta wave activity is predominant in that infants, and still appears in a waking EEG of five-year-olds.
Mu Waves are detectable during infancy as early as four to six months, are thought to be indicative of an infant’s developing ability to imitate. This is important because the ability to imitate plays a vital role in the development of motor skills, tool use, and understanding causal information through social interaction.
Alpha waves, which play an active role in network coordination and communication, do not start to appear until three years of age.
However, Beta Waves, which occur when we have our eyes open and are listening and thinking during analytical problem solving, judgment, decision making, processing information about the world around us, do not occur until age 12 or so.

Additionally, while looking into Neurophysiology, I noticed the Right Temporoparietal Junction, the part of the brain dedicated to thinking critically about other people, does not become fully specialized until 12 or 13 (in 5-7 year olds, it it’s about 30%, by 8-11, it’s about 62%)

Without the ability to think critically and analytically, they will unthinkingly accept things like Easter Bunnies, Santa Clause, Talking snakes and the like. (Yes, I understand that not all adults think critically either, however they at least have the capability to think critically. Whether or not they choose to use it is a different point)

So with this being the case, how can one ethically justify exposing undeveloped minds to such teachings?

The Doorman

Cheer up, it could be worse.

Umm… thinking “critically and analytically” is like the opposite of holiness.

Should adults be allowed into houses of worship

This is proly why Jesus said that thing about “Would that you become like little children…”

They are allowed into government “houses of worship”, calling them “schools” and requiring their attendance so they can be properly programmed by the state. And greatly punished for non-attendance (unlike religions).

Why is a political temple given a higher priority than a religious temple?

Because many of the things learned in schools are actually useful and beneficial.

That depends on who is doing the teaching. Most (if not all) religions include basic education on how to get along in society.

But are you saying that people should not get on the internet where they learn so very many things are are not actually useful?

Not at all. You asked what the difference was. The only thing I’m implying is that religion doesn’t teach anything useful that can’t be learned in a school.

It can’t be learned in a school that forbids anything but the propaganda of the day.

If parents don’t agree with what the religion, or church or priest/minister is teaching then they can go to another religion, or another church or stop attending.
The options are much more limited when dealing with the school system.

It’s kinda indoctrination when children are exposed to religion from child hood, they should only be introduced when 18, then they can make a reasonable free choise.

It’s non-consensual family membership that really sucks. What a world. I shouldn’t have my parents imposed on me like that. There oughta be a law or something.

Then they also should not attend school until they are 18 so they can discern propaganda.


What the hell is that even supposed to mean? And how is it at all relevant to what I said?

I don’t see the relevance.

You don’t see the relevance of parents having control over what their children are being taught?

Not really. That’s not a difference between school and religion.

Religion teaches morality and values. Parents choose the religion and the environment for the child. If morality and values are taught in a school then parents have little control over what is being taught. If they disagree with the curriculum then they have a big problem because it is difficult to opt out of the school system and difficult to change schools and extremely difficult to change the curriculum.

Schools teach the same thing. And parents can always home school if they are that distraught over the curriculum.

That’s probably a good thing in some cases. But school also gives students the tools they need to make their own choices. Plus, they aren’t selling their information as the ineffable word of God. They don’t need to believe it all and, in fact, questions are generally welcomed. I can’t say that’s true for all nonreligious schools, but I think what I’m saying is generally true.

I certainly agree the current school system is more reminiscent of preparing kids for life in a 1950s factory, than in preparing them for the 21st century… but to answer your broader question (see - when you ask thoughtful questions, you get answered)

Education and critical thinking aim to reduce uncertainty about the world. Religion simply accepts uncertainty (or attempts to provide answers with dogma, rather than experiment).

The Doorman

Wow, 2 comments in 1 thread from you, which are response-worthy, I’m impressed. Keep up the good work James!

In response to your question, I shall point you to an article I read last year. It’s excellent, so I recommend taking the time to read it.

The Doorman