PIXABAY
Modern psychology has given humanity invaluable insight into parenting and what makes a good parent as opposed to what bad parenting is. Fortunately, in my life, I didn't have to suffer bad parenting although I wouldn't say I was raised by good parenting. It was a working-class English ethos with not much consideration to higher education or finer upper neo-cortex sensibilities. But this post isn't about me. Just a note though on the kids I lived with when living out on the streets between 1979 and 1986. I was out there as one of the three groups of spiritualists: the 'spiritual quester' as I gave away what I owned in '79 to go on this spiritual investigation and it's been one hell of an interesting 40-years, but I digress. The point, though, was the difference between me and all those screwed up traumatized kids was bad parenting! Overwhelmingly, most of the kids I talked to out there shared stories of being traumatized and beaten or otherwise by their parents and I'll note here that very many of them shared stories of religious abuse. It's, in part, why I view childhood religious indoctrination as a type of child abuse.
I would say that prior to modernity and the knowledge it entailed there was a basic understanding of common sense within the parenting model--sadly, and perhaps somewhat tragically this common-sense notion disappears when the lens gets shifted to religion and God.
But first I think it's reasonable to focus on the failures of modernity and the education model or lack thereof when it comes to one of the most important areas of human life. We, as a society, put 16-year olds through all kinds of hoops just to get a driver's license but the same 16-year old has no restrictions or qualifications when bringing offspring into the world--it's an anything-goes, model when it comes to Darwinian drives. Hell, to rub salt into the wound, the nanny welfare state pays these kids to bring dysfunction into the world! Now I'm not saying every young person who brings a child into the world is a bad parent--some of them are obviously great parents but this doesn't disqualify my larger societal concerns. Any move or development into a healthy post-postmodern society will have to deal with a new education model for parenting. This would be a part of the education within The Four Pillars of a new sustainable integrated model for civilization.
This brings us to the argument for poor design. The psychology of humans combined with the length of helplessness within the human animal causes incredible and near unlimited dysfunction and failure. It could be argued that if humans were designed to be this way by malevolent archons then this prolonged helplessness was one of the primary engineering devices of control--a most definite negative intention.
Western theism specifically has to become a contortionist or redefine the notion of what good is when it comes to the issue of parenting. I don't accept the redefining of good-by western theism when it comes to their apology for God and its poor design choices and often abominable behavior when analyzed by any rational standard. Good parents don't set up offspring against offspring in a millennia-old struggle of death, blood, and violence! Only an evil God would do such a thing and this is the Gnostic position. A GOOD God doesn't punish anyone forever for not getting it right in one life--only an evil God would do such a thing and this is the Gnostic position. A good parent whether human or God doesn't need or demand worship, only an evil God would ask for such a thing and this is the Gnostic position. I'll link here my fave atheist YouTuber, Underlings, who clearly and succinctly deconstructs the western theistic notion of heaven and concludes rationally and rightfully that this version of heaven is really a hell! Only an evil God would offer up this version of 'heaven' and this is the Gnostic position. I could go on and on here but these points suffice (or should) when arguing this case.
I'll note here that we do get into religious efficacy arguments as they pertain to how society should be structured and this is an important and worthwhile discussion but I sit squarely in the Secular Humanist model for society and believe religion to be an adult only area of inquiry. If it were up to me I'd make it so the inquiry into God and reality would begin at around university age and as an elective. I am in no way advocating for the abolishment of religion or religiosity but rather I'm arguing that religionists not be allowed societal power. Once again I see this as a compromise between the idealists and the materialists in much the same way that my Four Pillars are a compromise between The Marxists and Capitalism.
I should note as I often do that for this model to work Secular Humanism would have to function at incredibly high levels of reason, logic, and integrity. This can't happen under the present neoliberal corporate oligarchy as far as I can see.
That's all for the moment:)
