It took me a while because he wasn’t terribly interested in hearing a story that fails to involve trains. So I finally broke down and read it as a story about a little locomotive named Emily who lives on the island of Sodor…

I think this may have skewed my results a little — particularly the question about whether he’d like to live there. Flower or no flower, obviously he wants to live on the island of Sodor!!!

Anyway, here’s the result:

* Was there really a red flower? yes.
* Do you think Emily really saw a red flower? yes.
* If Emily had not been there, would there have been a red flower anyway? yes.
* Do you think flowers can move around like in the story? yes.
* Do you think the red flower changed into a green frog? yes.
* Would you like to live on the island of Sodor? yes!!!
* Why? duh!!! It’s fun to live there with all the trains!!! (Okay, that’s the question I screwed up… lol)
* When you look at your toy Gordon, is it possible he might suddenly become Toby? yes, Gordon might become Toby.

I’m not totally sure if he really agreed with all of that or whether he assumed we were playing some sort of imagination game…

I thought the red flower could be imagination or love and the froggie could be playfulness. Elusiveness, hopping away.

Maybe THINGS don’t change in the blink of an eye that often, but meaning does. We imbue things and places and life with meaning, and that is shifting and changing, being remade, all the time.

The other thing I thought of when I read the story was how we give meaning to events, things, and occurences by naming them. Language allows us to agree on reality and meaning. And sometimes the name doesn’t match what it is. Like a just war, humane force feeding (still on my mind), or a husband who beats his wife and calls it love. Is it a flower or a frog?

So much is about squashing meaning into tidy receptacles, seeing the same thing every time we walk into our front yards. It’s kind of strange, I TA an undergraduate class, and it’s all about presenting accumulated knowledge all neatly packaged, while in my graduate courses, the reading and assignments I have to do are about deconstruction and taking apart and questioning that knowledge and its uses in structuring society. We’re encouraged to basically unlearn a lot (helpful to me since I never really paid attention) so that we can think creatively and with (hopefully)fresh perspectives. Kids have that naturally.

Interesting post, thanks!

The 4 year old was probably too young. It was just a fairy tail and things do strange things in many fairy tails. Nevertheless, she didn’t want to be in such a place but to just visit. Her mother was there and didn’t say a word so she was not any significant influence. The thing that made me question the whole effort was the girl’s comment, “Mommy I want a kitten.” after she heard the word in the story. I didn’t give the mother any hint what is was all about beyond a study I was doing for some activities on the Internet.

In the end, the mom wanted to know how her child did. Was she normal? Was she above average? Was there some other competitive metric? Interesting.

The 6 and 8 year olds responded as I expected and had no desire to live in such a place and immediately grasped the fact that I had not made all the things change like they could have if the little girl had only looked at them. They would not be able to depend on anything. Putting on clothes for school was an example they brought out. They were together when I tried the story. Their parents were in another room and disinterested.

The 10 year old showed a little problem with the story and started to try to analyze it and had questions that were about like Ron’s issues. I attribute some of it to a fairly suspicious view of the whole thing and he was looking for a catch. When pressed, he didn’t care for the idea things could change either but did relate to the teleporter (“beam me up Scotty”) in Star Trek as maybe working the same way.

The reaction of the 11 year old was dominated by her personality. She is very smart, tough as nails, sees only black and white and does not tolerate any nonsense. “Things can’t just change!” and after that the exercise was just that, an exercise. She had no desire to even think about whether she would like to live in such a place.

The 13 year old showed a certain amount of school conditioning. When asked if she would like to live in such a place, her answer was a question. “No?” She was looking for the “correct” answer. She also had problems with the logic of the basic story similar to Ron. In the end she went along with it and did say that the impermanence was not something she felt she wanted to deal with. So I pressed her a little more and asked if she had ever read of or heard of people claiming that they had seen things change like in the story. She did not pick up on it. That surprised me some because she too is smart and has been steeped in religion from an early age. The family is quite religious and the girl has always been in a parochial school.

Finally I tried it on a Catholic adult. She was the only one of the group that was aware that I subscribe to the secular viewpoint. She immediately picked up on the relationship to religious miracles and I could see a switch to a defensive position before I even pressed the concept. After about 5 minutes discussion in which I explained the three axioms and their implications, she preferred that we terminate any more discussion and treated me as one of the Devils assistants. As I said before … Hmmmm!

Thanks for doing the story with your kids and giving us the feedback. I agree with the Gregg that the adults are gettting tripped up over the details, but so far most of the kids don’t seem to worry about them. I’m curious to if Gregg can tweak it to everyone’s liking.

I thought I would include a conversation my son had with my husband last month. It is relevant to teaching kids about what is real and what is not. I was so proud of him when he had this conversation with his dad.

Son: Dad, did the groundhog see his shadow and that’s why it is snowing today?

Dad: What do you think? Do you think that could be why it is snowing?

Son: Well…There would have to be a REALLY BIG groundhog controlling the world if that was true.

Dad: Do you think that sounds like it could be true?

Son: No (laughs) that’s just silly!

I can’t help but smile when I think of that!

Clearly this was a rather hastily assembled experiment and as Ron pointed out it did not make much sense given any significant thought. Of course the same is true of even sophisticated illogic as presented in “Alice in Wonderland”.

With more work it might be possible to make Metanoia analogous to “Heaven” ( No one has ever seen it. ) and the concept of items changing contrary to their nature more closely analogous to Biblical “miracles” like rivers turning to blood, dead people returning to life, walking on water, parting of seas , etc. I’m not sure it is worth the effort to really make it logically hang together but it does show me that children that have not been exposed to significant amounts of religious training can grasp the irrationality of violations of the Law of Identity. At least one adult reaction was surprisingly almost hostile and did not want to be exposed to any more of that type of thinking. Hmmmm!

I think we must lose a lot of numbers to marriages to religious spouses. Think about it: In the U.S., there just are not a lot of atheist/agnostics. To happen to find one, fall in love with one, have them fall in love with you back, and then marry one is almost a miracle in itself. I’m sure a lot of nontheists marry religious spouses, and that spouse takes the upper-hand in the spiritual upbringing of their children.

I also think there may be a large number of non-religious who are not very strong in their non-belief so when they have kids they turn back to religion.

I think it was last week’s HNN issue where someone wrote in a call for more of us to start having more babies!

Maybe some other readers have some other ideas, but I have a personal strategy so far. It only reaches my small circle, but I believe the more of us that do this, the more of an affect it will have: It is clear that prejudice against us stems from fear. Religious people associate atheism with evil. They have very real fears that our country will deteriorate into an immoral pit of sin and crime if we lose religion.

My strategy is to let my friends and acquaintences see the kind moral person that I am, be non-confrontational and non-threatening, and then let them know that I do not believe in God. I am confident, happy, and firm in my non-belief. I have not lost a friend yet.

On the flip-side, my “coming out” has helped a few others I know to come out as well (at least to me).

I use this same tactic when I write letters to the editor of my paper. I am firm on my stance, but I try to state things where I am somehow building on at least one common belief with religious people. In this way I try to disarm the believer and be less threatening to them, while at same time I get my point across.

The best approach I can think of so far is for all of us to learn to speak up more. But to do it in a kind, thoughtful, and respectful manner. We’ve got to get the courage. The more non-theists that religious people know, the less they will be afraid. Especially if we are moral, compassionate, and happy.

However, it is well-known that the more educated and liberal a woman is the less children she is apt to have. Also, the more children you have (especially early starters), the less education and time to come up with your own thinking on the subject of religion. In any case, it is something of an axiom that the rarest species of an atheist is a born one.

My suspicion is that we are missing a big opportunity here, which is to raise more of us. If we can’t oprganize, don’t proselytize and are loath to reproduce, our secular way of life is going to go the way of the Shakers. What can we do?

“Did you know that electrons seem to disappear when you try to look at them? Additionally, they appear to be at multiple locatoins simultaneously.

Science can appear magical, especially on a subatomic level, and I would say that a consistent set of rules is hardly something to rely on when it comes to science. Not when there are so many new discoveries.

The story about the little girl might be better if, after investigating the flower, they discovered a reason “why” it was moving around and changing. Perhaps it was a frog that had the ability to appear to be a flower, luring insects to it, so it could eat them. Make the story about discovery.”

The ‘Faithful’ feel that they CAN look at things very closely - just with a set of presumptions that are inflexible despite what one finds. Enter: “Satan plants dinosaur bones to trick us!”.

Saying it isn’t intended for my age group doesn’t excuse these problems - as anything I present to my child would have to make sense to me first.
I had to reread it a couple of times to follow, and I’m no dummy. The intentions are inspiring, however!

Just the other day a pbs show featuring a bunch of non-henson muppets featured a story wherein all the characters that live in this big tree discussed their different ideas of what the spirit of the tree was like, and whether it was real or not. It was great - I wish I had a transcript. Several belief systems were represented in a clever way - and in the end, all the animals were glad for their diversity and at peace.
There was an animal that was insistent that everyone tell him what THEY thought, because that’s what HE wanted to think too.
There was even a point of view represented that there was no spirit of the tree, just everyone’s feelings about it, and this was not something to be distraught about.

We didn’t watch - I only had the sound on, while Tessa played with blocks and I worked in the kitchen. When Tessa is old enough to watch a little TV, I hope there is more programing like that! I was really impressed.

I wish I could test this on my daughter, but she’s not quite 2 yet…