In West Germany, the churches enjoy an immensely useful privilege: they can familiarize children with their denomination in religious instruction before the children are able to think critically.Children must trust their parents and authorities. We are the descendants of those who, as children, blindly trusted their parents when they said, “Don’t go play by the river, because there are crocodiles there”. The children who ignored this, who looked to see if this was true, were more likely to have been eaten by the crocodiles and could not therefore be our ancestors.
But this does not only work with crocodiles, because they really exist on some rivers.It’s just as well when you talk about ghosts or any other nonsense. As children, we depend on trusting the authorities of the elderly on every issue. Trust is rewarded, mistrust is punished, and that is added.
Now, if one teaches a certain ideology, at an age when the children do not yet have an understanding of logic, but only have a kind of intuitive short-circuit logic, then one can install beliefs and at the same time deprive people of the ability to questioning them.To do this, one uses a trick that missionaries and apologists still try today in adults, but with very little success:
Intuitively, children distinguish between “inanimate matter” and “intentional agents”.Even toddlers know that a ball you kick behaves differently from a cat you kick. “Intentional agents”, i.e. living beings with an autonomous will, are not bound to material bodies in our intuition: the tiger that roams through the grass had to be identified by our ancestors on the basis of traces and circumstantial evidence – when they saw his body, it was already too late.
So it’s easy to tell children that there is God.From my religious instruction I still know the numerous arguments for God, which we also find here on the Internet:
You go for a walk on the beach and find a watch.The watch consists of many parts that are arranged sensibly. Only a watchmaker can create such a thing, not chance. The universe consists of many parts that are arranged sensibly. It is obvious to assume that there is one who made the universe, and we call him God…
Even many adults still find this plausible – you don’t see the mistakes in this watchmaking parable so easily.As a child, you have no chance to see the mistakes. In this way, children can be made to believe in God, even though the argument (and others) are flawed, but the mistakes are too well hidden.
Once the children have been persuaded to believe in God, the second step is to convince them that there can be no counter-arguments against God.The trick is simple: God does not belong to nature, but stands “above nature” and “above logic”. That is, with “natural logic,” or the observation of natural things, one cannot refute God. This is something that many atheists and almost all agnostics believe in ourselves. The statement that God does not belong to nature is pure, pure nonsense – but nonsense cannot be refuted.
One now has 1. a faith in God, 2. all means to prove that God does not exist, were “destroyed”.You are the prisoner of an ideology. Few people realize that if one cannot prove or refute God with “natural logic”, the watchmaking parable is, of course, pure nonsense and cannot prove God either. Some apologists actually believe both: you can prove God with the existence of the universe, but in general you can neither prove nor refute God. If people do not notice this self-contradiction, then they are all the more not able to make mistakes in the arguments for God.
Ultimately, this means that if you believe in a specific God whose existence cannot be refuted, then there is no way to get rid of that faith – he is not falsifiable.Most people do not know that “irrefutableness” has logical consequences. There is no way to refute nonsense, and an irrefutable statement has no meaning whatsoever. The irrefutable God is therefore pure nonsense, and any argument, no matter how well one deems it, that leads to this God must befalse.
But, as I said, most people don’t notice this: they have been tricked into accepting a God through arguments that could never be proven by arguments – and now there can be no arguments to get rid of that God.
If, as in the former GDR, children are prevented from being confronted with this trick, most people will not believe in God either, as they do – the arguments are extremely weak.
The arguments for God are just enough to convince children or people with weak logical abilities.If one first believes in God, one does not benefit an intelligence and the mastery of logical tools any further, because one cannot refute God by any of these means.
So if you want to turn Christianity into a small minority religion within two generations, you only have to abolish religious education.That’s all – and the former GDR proves it. If you can save children from using this trick for two generations, religion is done. Because it’s not easy to catch adults with it.
There are no arguments for God, which cannot be refuted.There is no objection to it, but there is no reason to believe in such a God. If one can even put a god into play with arguments, then arguments against God also work. Now the sum of all valid, valid arguments for God is exactly 0. However, there are sham arguments that look like valid arguments. The arguments against God, on the other hand, are completely ignored, because there can supposedly be no arguments against God – if that were true, all arguments for God would be wrong anyway, regardless of their content.
So one counts the hits (sham arguments for God), ignores the failures (arguments against God – supposedly, because they cannot exist), and this procedure, Francis Bacon already knew, is the root of all superstition.
If children are protected from this kind of superstition, they may, as adults, accept other superstition, but with little probability ofthis.
This trick is not the only one, I have just given it by way of example, there are others that are no less effective.
By the way, the churches know that they are at the collar if religious instruction is abolished.They will argue for the same privileges to be given to Muslims than for their abolition. Because the taxpayer pays for this privilege, that is, the atheists also pay for indoctrinating children with religion. So we atheists pay taxes to be discriminated against. This is what we are trying to keep us out of moral debates. I do not, of course, see the promotion of an Islamic ideology in which infidels are inferior people, coming from states where there is the death penalty for atheists. I don’t have to give my enemies the money to inoculate their children with hatred against my peers. It is already difficult to bear the fact that taxpayers’ money is wasted on religious instruction, rather than on a general, integrated, common religious education in which all the major religions are taught instead of just one, which children then have to accept.