Peter Gardner on Religious Upbringing and the Liberal Ideal of Religious Autonomy

Religious Upbringing, Religious Diversity and the Child’s Right to an Open Future>

“…To see how this might work itself out in practice, it will be helpful to compare the henofideist approach to that of McLaughlin, who has developed perhaps the best recent defense of religious upbringing. In a series of articles McLaughlin (1984McLaughlin ( , 1985McLaughlin ( , 1990, argues that at least in the milieu of a diverse society, ... where the child will not only be surrounded constantly by a range of religious and non-religious perspectives, but will also be inevitably drawn into the open debate about such matters which is part of the tradition of such societies, particularly through liberal education, the provision of which I enjoin on parents as a responsibility (1990, p. 111), it is possible for parents to give their children a religious upbringing without violating the central liberal value of personal autonomy. In order to do so, McLaughlin argues, the parent must pursue 'autonomy via faith:'…”

Should We Teach Children to be Open-Minded? Or, is the Pope Open-Minded about the Existence of God?

“…something "whilst holding a determinate belief' or a firm belief [9]. It "is surely wrong", he says, to claim "that open-mindedness is incompatible with holding firm beliefs" [lo].…”

Michael Hand, Indoctrination and the Inculcation of Belief

“…But he is prepared to believe an intellectual authority who has ‘collected and examined enough relevant evidence to settle the question’ (2002, p. 551). Such an association of indoctrination with rationality and evidence is not new: others like John Wilson (1967), Ivan Snook (1972), Terence McLaughlin (1984, 1985, 1990), Eamonn Callan (1985) and Peter Gardner (1988) have consistently adopted this definition of indoctrination. For example, Callan postulates that ‘the necessary effect of indoctrination on the mind of the learner is a belief which is maintained without due regard for relevant evidence and argument’ (Callan, 1985, p. 115).…”