Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.
Well argued, however when you say "But a baptism has nothing to do with the direct safety, health, and happiness of the baby. A baptism is the act of deciding for a child something that is irrelevant to the child’s immediate well-being" it shows you do not fully understand the religious/christian mind.
ReplyDeleteBy baptizing their child they believe they are looking after their child's safety & well-being through their "spiritual" health. This is often as important, if not more important, to them than the child's physical health. So, from their perspective it is absolutely their duty to do this, just as it is to monitor their child's diet.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think Michael is conflating the idea of claiming dominion over a child's mind with the idea of "inducting a child into a certain religion," as he aptly puts it. To say that a Baptism represents the former is nonsensical: babies do not have the ability to form religious beliefs, so how could a parent be trying to sculpt those beliefs at a Baptism?
ReplyDeleteInstead, a Baptism represents an induction into a religion. This simply means that society will tend to regard the child as a member of that religion UNTIL SUCH TIME AS (S)HE DECIDES OTHERWISE. This is still problematic, but I think most would agree that it is not as insidious a practice as trying to enforce a certain belief system. (Of course, many religious people do this as well, but I don't think a Baptism is an example of that.)
Of course, this reason in itself may be important enough to justify boycotting a baptism, but that line of reasoning would probably also rule out religious weddings. (Unless perhaps you find weddings to be so much fun that the cost-benefit analysis still demands you attend, which is a consideration that is probably less relevant for baptisms.)
Perhaps a baptism itself does not "claim dominion over the child's mind" but surely, it is a symbol of how early religious practices and (excuse the word) indoctrination do? And thus the boycotter is doing so because of what it symbolises?
DeleteMichael, having had the same issue myself, I completely agree with your position and arguments. (One quibble: to the argument "isn't babtism just one small, meaningless ceremony" the answer should be "exactly" ;-) ).
ReplyDeleteOf course, as Keith says, baptism is not equal to enforcing a belief system; on the face of it it is more akin to joining a club. The problem is more that (involuntarily) joining the religion is still largely seen as a commitment by the child, with subsequent pressure when it does decide otherwise. Even in secular societies, leaving ones religion is not made that easy.
What strikes me as strange is when you compare to the discussion we are currently having over here (Germany) about the recent court decision contra circumcision. If it's a matter of degrees, why are the arguments there (the pro ones) pretty much exactly the same as in the baptism case?
If it's no big deal, just wait until the child is old enough to decide on its own. A religion that is confident of it's tenets should have no problem with that.
Michael, I've almost always agreed with you, but this special pleading is almost amusing. You could construct a much better argument (and several other pieces of your argument are good), but this is terrible:
ReplyDeleteTo me, a baptism represents, at least in part, a parent forcing his or her religious heritage on a child unable to approve or reject the gesture. It labels a baby with a certain religious affiliation, and enters him or her into that religion, or else puts him or her on the path toward that religion. My presence at a baptism condones the practice of basing your child’s beliefs on yours. But as a person who values freedom of conscience, I reject in full the idea of parents passing their religious beliefs onto their children by default.
What about names? What about attitudes? What about community? What about school? What about friends? Children base ALL BELIEFS on their caregivers. They then grow and develop from that beginning.
Parents decide or influence EVERYTHING about a child's life and mental and social development. You dislike this one thing, in particular, which you can probably justify. But your attempted generalization is bad, and weakens your overall argument.
I was raised in (and eventually left) a church that was against infant baptism for a lot of these reasons...namely, the lack of a free will choice about religious belief. They did, however, have infant dedications which were dedications of the congregation to watch out for the child and to help buide him in the faith, etc.
ReplyDeleteExcellent post, Michael. Good for you. I fully agree.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if there really is a neutral alternative to baptism. It seems that if atheists care about the well-being of their children, they ought to raise their kids as atheists. If religious beliefs are false and damaging, one ought not to let their child get mixed up with such things. After all, there is peer pressure at school, and there are a lot of Christians, in particular Evangelicals, in American schools. It seems that parents are rarely neutral about such weighty affairs. We do not wait until children achieve autonomy to let them decide if it is right or wrong to be tolerant, for example. It seems that if you are an atheist, because you care for the well-being of you child, which I would think includes encouraging the cultivation of intellectual virtues, you ought to raise your child as an atheist. Theists, I suppose, ought to do the same. Let's not forget that Catholics practice what is called 'confirmation,' wherein the individual makes what should be a conscious thoughtful commitment to the Church, or take the option of avoiding the sacrament altogether. One might argue that by the time a Catholic is of age to be confirmed, he or she has already been brainwashed or indoctrinated such that the decision is already made, but this would involve an impoverished view of human agency and the power the human animal has to use reason.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree. I was twice baptised. Once as a Congregationalist by my Protestant father and once as a Catholic by my Catholic mother. I, of course remember neither of these auspicious occasions. Later when told of them I was sworn to secrecy by each parent – neither of whom was aware of the nefarious ceremony arranged by the other. It has affected me all of my life but I must say not to the same extent as being en-cultured into arithmetic and later algebra. Forced to engage in both of these useless activities against my will, I was taken away from natural boyhood proclivities such as playing cowboy and Indians (I know, shows my age) and football. Now I never much think about whether there is a God or not but every day of my life is governed by that accursed brainwashing and no amount of delving into the philosophies of Pythagoras and Plato will rid me of this affliction. There should be a law against it.
ReplyDeleteForget about baptisms. There should be a law against reading Pythagoras and Plato.
DeleteMichael,
DeleteI am hesitant to comment as it is one of your least cogent pieces. Of the comments here, BubbaRich's comment is spot on: parents have an unavoidable & pervasive influence on the cognitive and social development of their children. If you want to construe baptisms as something akin to brainwashing or forcing a set of religious beliefs on a child, then teaching a child to play chess, appreciate Plato (god forbid!) and democracy, or any other thing under the sun, would have to be construed as 'forcing a heritage' intellectual or otherwise onto a child. Unless baptisms cause physical harm or are strongly correlated with aberrant cognitive development, I cannot see upon what grounds we should impugn the practice.
In addition, baptisms have a significant cultural and aesthetic value that plays a far more important role than any religious connotation associated with the practice. In my honest opinion, I think you should get off of your self-righteous pedestal and socialize with either your friends or family on what for them is an important and joyous event.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA baptism is the act of deciding for a child something that is irrelevant to the child’s immediate well-being.
ReplyDeleteAs the first commenter already pointed out, that is of course completely wrong from the perspective of a believer. If you believe that a person is doomed to go to hell if they die unbaptized, this procedure is much more relevant to their immediate well-being than eating their greens.
I might add that in my home country, Germany, being baptized means that you are made an official member of an organization without being asked about it. The point being: a membership fees paying member, a fact that becomes relevant the moment you start earning a salary because, unbelievable as it may appear from a USAn perspective, the state collects the major churches' membership fees with the taxes (they don't do that for Buddhists or Hindus, of course, thanks for asking).
And here is the kicker: When you are, say, 19 years old and decide to leave, say, the Catholic church, you have to pay a fee to be allowed to do so. That means your parents' decision earlier in your life directly costs you money...
What's the substantive difference between a single event baptism and participating in any religious activity that imprints a sense of membership in a child? Or even simply taking a child to religious instruction (where they will receive no exposure to competing or alternative belief systems)?
ReplyDeleteVery interesting post. I'm sympathetic to your approach. Here are my two thoughts.
ReplyDelete1) Being an atheist frees you from certain concerns. If you really don't believe in magic, then you don't need to be upset about magical pronouncements. Whether or not Mormons retroactively baptize, whether or not a prayer is made in Jesus's name -- if you are committed to your atheism, then these are unimportant matters.
2) There aught to be a positive value to your atheism. You aught to have a larger moral perspective in which you identify important things, such as, Separation of Church and State, the autonomy of the individual, etc. From this positive moral stance you can criticize things like genital mutilation, school prayer and misrepresenting reality to children. While your atheism surely informs your morality, it can be common ground even with believers.
For me, Baptism is low on the list of religious offenses. Circumcision is a little higher.
I agree wholeheadely. (See what I just did there?) I can't see affirming such a transparent celebration of religious indoctrination.
ReplyDeleteAs a secularist who comes from a family of multiple Protestant ministers and church workers, I totally agree with everything you said, Michael. Lutheranism being like Catholicism, I face/will face similar ceremonial issues. So far, I've been too far away to be asked to attend any baptisms, but there are still confirmations. And given the age of children at confirmation, and the degree of active and passive parental coercion involved, no, I wouldn't attend one of them, either
ReplyDeleteWell, if you don't want to go to a baptism, by all means don't go. But why rationalize your decision any further?
ReplyDeleteDo you attend religious funerals or funeral masses? I'm not sure why you would, as the mourners are clearly imposing their religious beliefs or heritage on the dead, who presumably are no more aware of what is taking place than the infant is at a baptism. The mourners may be comforted by the ceremony and appreciate the presence of friends and relatives, but their feelings and beliefs are certainly of no more significance than those of parents who believe baptism is necessary to their child's salvation (it must take place early to account for Original Sin, with which we're all born according to Catholic doctrine) and would appreciate the presence of friends and relatives at a ceremony by which their child's salvation is at least contingently assured.
This is a non-sequitur in extremis. The dead are, by definition, beyond any further coercion and under no imposition.
DeleteNow, the living in attendance who are heirs, especially juvenile ones, are indeed under coercion of some sort. But, that's not the argument you made.