The life and death of objectivity

Somewhere in the vicinity of Mars is a teapot orbiting the red planet, a teapot so small that human telescopes cannot locate it even if they endeavoured to do so. The existence of this piece of cutlery is conjectural one might argue, but such doubts are immediately shot down by little schoolchildren who, from the time they could read, are taught about it, pressed to sing its praise every Sunday morning, and expected to chant a litany in its name before bed. After all, who could refuse the truth of a celestial teapot when it is ascertained so vehemently by innocent, little children?

Thus runs the famous thought experiment conceived by philosopher Bertrand Russell in response to certain theists reverting to the "truth" of the Bible to establish the truth of a deity. Perhaps what this experiment starkly highlights, more than the irrationality of evangelists, is the religious conditioning of children and the regrettable abortion of objectivity.

A newborn child is perceived as the expansion of a family, a homogeneous and cohesive social grouping, and is not allowed the freedom to choose its religious beliefs simply because it lacks the mental faculty to understand logic or reason. Therefore, even as the child can be perceived as the product of its parents' needs and hopes, it is also that it imbues the parents with a responsibility to reciprocate with the inculcation of associations necessary to fulfil those hopes. Consequently, it becomes evident that the conditioning of perspectives is an inevitable collateral of humanism.

However, any contention arises when such conditioning seems to discredit objectivity and instead substitutes its logical place with a prejudice that serves an individual or familial purpose as opposed to a national purpose. The inability to define its criminality is a reflection of the inability to determine what such an education might accomplish, and therefore places the onus on parents to be responsible and understand the importance of volition.

Such an upbringing, more often than not, prevents the child from engaging in debate without recourse to religious bias, simultaneously paving the way for an inheritance of perspectives. Irrespective of how much one laments such unfortunate predispositions, the solution is never and has never been their (the children’s) education itself but the circumstantial convictions of the child's parents. That, obviously, is a multifaceted consideration.

At this point, it may be necessary to address the following question: while objectivity is essential to conducting fair and logical debates, where does one draw the line marking the amount below which knowledge is deemed subjective and above which knowledge is deemed objective? In other words, what is the "minimum amount" of knowledge necessary for the creation of objectivity? For example, doesn't religious conditioning make possible a situation whereby a child that has known religious orthodoxy is in a position to gauge better its implications than a child that has been liberal all through its growing years?

Therefore, in the absence of an environment that mandates objectivity for some reason, it would be unfair to conclude the absence of objectivity as being counterproductive. In much the same way, furthermore, the religious conditioning of a child is only as condemnable as it may seem in a context that demands objectivity and, in any other circumstances, the responsibility, at least in my opinion, lies with those who disagree to address the problems arising thereof suitably.

*

Rough notes

• Parents raise the child in an environment ripe with theistic notions


• Prevents the child from engaging in debate without recourse to religious bias


• Shapes the way the child sees the world


• Having religious parents implies an early exposure to religious beliefs


• Having irresponsible parents implies a continuation of irresponsibility