AIBU for not wanting my MIL to discuss Jesus and heaven with my 5 year old?

[Spearshake]

I was just having breakfast with my 5 year old son and he asked me, 'do only people who love Jesus go to heaven?; I asked him who told you that.
Unfortunately, my tone must have been a bit sharp (hey, first thing in the morning) so he said, 'I don't know'

(I know it's his grandma though (my MIL) because she has been staying with us for the last week and we haven't been in contact with anyone else who is likely to make such comments) Unless he has been on the evangelical channels again

The problem is that I am an atheist, so I have a tough time with such discussions. He asked me what God is the other day, and I asked him to wait until his father gets home and he can answer (he was brought up more religiously than me)

Any ideas from fellow mumsnetters of a similar religious (or non-) bent on how to deal with such ideas would be most welcome.

Thank you!

I'd be fascinated to know how common it is for the children of passionate atheists become theists in reaction against their parents.

Also I just don't think it's true that children are already atheist as some kind of default setting. Children aren't anything. They absorb mores off their parents and surrounding culture. Atheism isn't some kind of 'natural' state which is then corrupted by the introduction of religion. Where is the evidence for that?

Yep, I find militant atheism strange and off-putting too. For one thing, it's not clear why they want to convince atheist. There's no evidence that atheists are happier. It seems to be based on a belief that it is "in itself better" not to believe in god...

Atheism is a faith, what rubbish.
Dora, I suppose you think OFF is a TV channel and bald is a hair style.
Abstinence is not a sexual position, and atheism is not a faith.

Surely you were saying I find it hard to understand why I should believe in right and wrong when this is explained by my socialisation?

Yes. Not that you find 'the arguments for altruism as a social/evolutionary strategy' hard to understand. Those and socialisation (of any description) are two entirely different concepts. I found it hard to understand that you could find it so odd that you would have such a genuine, deep-seated feeling that there was an inherent good and bad if you were well aware of the impacts of socialisation on our beliefs.

Any normative (as opposed to descriptive) moral claim is susceptible to the same objections as those levied against belief in god, and yet it's only religious claims that receive scorn.

Why would a belief in an inherent good and bad attract the same amount of scorn? Non-religious people claiming to have that belief are far less common - in fact you're the first I've come across. I would certainly be equally happy to disagree with that as an incorrect belief though. I would say the scorn is borne of the knowledge of the threat the religious and their beliefs pose by virtue of their numbers. And their contempt for logic and evidence, of course. If a large group of non-religious people believed in an objective morality and tried to impose that on wider society, to the detriment of many groups, and were contemptuous of everyone else while holding a position of privilege they were all too happy to exploit at others' expense, then yes, they would probably attract equal scorn.

I never get why all these atheists who managed to form their own opinions about religion despite all kinds of indoctrination nevertheless don't seem to have any faith that their own children will be able to do the same.

Probably because it was a struggle for many of us and we can see it is one that the majority of people never even reach the point of going through. Unless you want me to assume that my child would be vastly more intelligent than (random number warning) 90% of the rest of the population, why would you have me assume said child will escape, or move beyond, indoctrination?

I am a non- stamp collector.

If you believed that it was better to believe that there is no God, and you felt that some people were trying to persuade your children that there was a God, then I can see why you might be upset, especially if you doubted your ability to reason with said children.

In the end, I suppose, it's about belief and fear.

I don't think it is common for them to become theists in a reaction against their parents but it is very common through their own exploration. All the really committed Christians that I know where not brought up that way. I struggle to think of any who came from Christian homes and are committed Christians and that includes a couple who had vicars as fathers.

Dora, you might find this helpful

Dora how would you feel about a beloved relative trying to convert your five year old to Mormonism or Scientology?

"In the end, I suppose, it's about belief and fear."
Religion is.

Atheism isn't.

I agree that it isn't systematic, certainly.

Well, OK, bertrand. But, why then, the hostility? If non existence had been proven and discussion assured, why then the need for militancy?

I fail to see the difference between altruism as a 'social strategy' and altruism as something that we are socialised into. But we're in angels dancing on a pin territory here.

And I just don't believe that the majority of people who are atheists do not believe in some normative concept of right and wrong.

I also fail to see why being socialised into morality is fine, but being socialised into god is not. Since clearly according to your impeccably rational position you couldn't possibly believe that there's something about morality that makes it better than god...

If a large group of non-religious people believed in an objective morality and tried to impose that on wider society, to the detriment of many groups, and were contemptuous of everyone else while holding a position of privilege they were all too happy to exploit at others' expense, then yes, they would probably attract equal scorn.

And I hate to break it to you, but a large group of people do believe in and impose such an objective morality on us from a privileged position... Even if you insist that laws no moral basis, judges have recourse to the principles of "good" and "evil" in passing sentence all the time I'm afraid.

"Well, OK, bertrand. But, why then, the hostility? If non existence had been proven and discussion assured, why then the need for militancy?"
I suspect that there would be less hostility from atheists if prople of faith stopped telling them what they think and believe, and stopped completely dismissing their desire for their children not to be told that God is real, or that "a little bit of Christianity does no harm".

I've never had a person of faith tell me what to believe, Bertrand, but if this happens to you I can see that would be annoying! But I think it's important that parents aren't able to dictate everything their children hear - exposure to other points of view is very important imo.

People of faith preach too much? Or relatives of faith do it? Presumably if strangers do it, it's possible to simply go somewhere else.

"I've never had a person of faith tell me what to believe, Bertrand"

See? Completely dismissive.

The OP's MIL did exactly that to her child. It happens to children all the time. Every day in state schools.

That's an interpretation. Another one was that she was simply relating her experiences.

I think that exposure to other views are important- for one thing it helps when they get to school. If they have never heard of God it is immensely exciting as a concept. If they have already heard about it it doesn't have the same impact. They will meet it at school.
I get the impression that some of the most dogmatic atheists are like that as a reaction from an overly religious background and don't seem to imagine they might have children who react against them.

Eh? I fail to see how saying that I (an atheist) have never been told what to believe by a religious person (that I recall) is the same as a lady telling a child that only Christians go to heaven. Run that by me again?

How can a person 'relating their experiences' lead a 5 year old to the conclusion that only people who love Jesus go to Heaven?

That must be some pretty spectacular experience.

I find it astonishing that an atheist has never been told what to believe by another person.

I thought assemblies by the Gideon society were fairly well established in this country at a minimum?

I fail to see the difference between altruism as a 'social strategy' and altruism as something that we are socialised into. But we're in angels dancing on a pin territory here.

I'm talking about socialisation causing you to believe something so much that you think it must be an inherent truth - nothing to do with altruism. If you understand that 1) socialisation can do that, and you understand 2) the rational arguments for X not being an inherent truth, I don't know how it can be so problematic for you to separate that out. As it is you seem to believe in an objective morality simply because such a thing 'feels' so right to you. I am saying that if you understand 1) and 2) then there's no reason for you to still believe that 'feeling' X is an inherent truth is an argument for it being one.

And I just don't believe that the majority of people who are atheists do not believe in some normative concept of right and wrong.

People believe what they are taught. Lacking a belief in a deity does not necessitate awareness of the origins of morality. People don't go around advertising the fact that there is no objective morality, such that if you continue to believe there is, you need to justify your holding on to that belief or else be considered stubborn or ignorant. Especially since any objective morality a rational atheist cares to think exists probably doesn't negatively impact various groups of society. Otherwise one would think said rational atheist would use their reason and no longer labour under the illusion that their objective morality exists.

The 5 year old wasn't led to that conclusion though - he asked if it was true. Hope for the younger generation yet.