Presumably there is more to the statement - do your homework or you will fail...

We just go in circles you and I. Even if I were prepared to accept your comparison (and I'm not saying that I am or getting into how completely different the concept of memes is from brainwashing), that 'homework' is a form of meme/brainwashing, I'd still argue 'but it's a different type of meme/brainwashing and not a bad thing', and then you'd say 'you're being inconsistent, what's the difference' and then I'd say 'I can't articulate it', and I'd try to get you to articulate why they're not different types of meme/brainwashing, and then you'd say, 'I'm not saying that they're the same'...

etc etc ad nauseum...

maybe refrain from stating they deserve to be treated differently until you can articulate why

This

Sure, but some religious beliefs are also predicated on (or include) empirical falsifiable propositions such as "Jesus was resurrected on the third day" and what have you.

To be clear again, no-one is saying that religious beliefs and non-religious beliefs are exactly the same all the time (or vice versa) or that religious beliefs and normative claims about homework are of equal value to children. What is being asked of MB is for him to provide reasons for his harsh moral judgements on the one but not the other.

Yep, I'm still there, because to accept the consequentialist view I'd have to be able to show that passing on religion is harmful, and I can't currently do that. If I could, I'd happily adopt that view.

By the way, I've almost finished Rachels' book and of the views I've read about so far, I'm definitely leaning toward a Social Contract view on morality. I understand that it has a potentially serious flaw, and I have no answer to that, but the rest fits. And yes, I think I see the implications that has for my views on the passing on of religion to children but perhaps you've noticed that I haven't made any partisan statements on that issue for quite some time.

I understand the difference.

It does follow, but I don't see how it's a meaningful conclusion wrt to religious views and cognitive biases. We have no reason to believe that cognitive biases explain any spiritual beliefs because in your example, the focus of the research was on non-religious beliefs and they're not the same as religious beliefs. Fair enough, but what if it read like this:

P1) Research on cognitive biases has been focused on beliefs.
P2) Cognitive biases can explain some beliefs.
P3) Religion is a type of belief.
C1) Therefore cognitive biases might explain any spiritual beliefs.

-----

By the way, I do understand your 'relevant difference' point. Am I right in saying that it would be similar to, for example, that men and women have different psychological processes. You might say 'yeah, so what, they're different', and it doesn't matter until you provide a context that would highlight a way in which they are different. So if I argued that a man or a women were not suitable for a particular role, I'd have to able to show why their thinking is different in a way that matters in that context?

So this I think is a part of the issue. You are dismissing a ethical theory because it doesn't deliver the results that you want while not reconsidering why you want the results you want.

If you can't show that passing on religion is harmful why are you worried about the implications of passing on religion?

Hah! I can

I accept that religion has a few benefits including a uniting effect, a cohesive value. Within one culture, a shared belief has benefits particularly if it results in behaviour that is of overall benefit to that culture, such as bravery on the battlefield or altruistic behaviour (do unto others...). An immediate effect of losing that might be some kind of break down in cultural harmony. That I consider that we might be headed for a time when that particular belief system may, in the end, have the exact opposite effect on a global scale is irrelevant because we're talking about immediate effects.

You'd be surprised how often these days I find myself arguing from the religious side. Despite the long list of my faults and intellectual limitations, I'm still considerably ahead of some of my atheist friends and have used some of the arguments that I've been exposed to here against them when they've expressed what I now consider to be quite ignorant positions, such as friend who recently posted on my facebook wall an image with the caption 'Too stupid for science? Try religion'.

Ok, maybe I shouldn't have said that I'd happily adopt it. It's more a case of 'if I could demonstrate the harm then consequentialism wouldn't present a problem for my position' but it's not necessarily a moral theory that I subscribe to. Almost certainly isn't, is what I'd say currently.

That I can't show it, doesn't mean that I'm not right. But, all I have right now is an intuition that religion is a net-negative and that clearly isn't going to be persuasive to someone like yourself.

Ok cool wrt the first sentence.

Given what you've said previously regarding intuitions I don't think relying on them should be persuasive to yourself.

This is really bad - you are choosing your moral philosophy based on whether or not it will validate your conclusion.

I quite like Social Contract.

I'm going to skip some logical complaints here as they would be a digression. But let's look at the structure of your argument:

P1) Research on cognitive biases has been focused on beliefs.
P2) Cognitive biases can explain some beliefs.
P3) Religion is a type of belief.
C1) Therefore cognitive biases might explain any spiritual beliefs.

What you have done is here is to argue that religious beliefs and non-religious beliefs share common ground (both being beliefs) and so can be treated as equivalent. If you can treat them as equivalent here, then why can't you treat them as equivalent for the 'urging on children' argument? There must be some other property that you believe religious beliefs (but not non-religious beliefs) have that allows you to treat them differently in the two arguments. So identify that difference.

Yes

Yes, can we please all pretend that I never said that I just phrased it really badly.

In my defence, I did say that I like the idea of the Social Contract theory and I can see that might present problems for my views on religion because if it could be shown that religion, as an individual self-interest, either had no harmful effect on the mutual benefits enjoyed by a group, or in fact enhanced them, then that would be somewhat problematic for my views on religion, and I still like it.

However, I'm right at the beginning of my thinking on this and don't know what I dont know yet.

This is right at the crux of what I have been getting at for the last X months. zumby has stated it pretty clearly here, and it would be useful if you actually did identify that difference.

I don't think that this is the right question because I'm not trying to separate religious beliefs from non-religious beliefs, that actually doesn't help me. I'm trying to identify whether or not there are different types of belief and how then, those beliefs should be dealt with wrt teaching them to children, or teaching children about them.

There are clearly beliefs that we teach to children (e.g. look left and right when you cross the road, do your homework because it will benefit you), and there are beliefs that we teach children about (e.g. there may be multiple universes, the universe is infinite). What distinguishes those beliefs from each other?

I have, for quite some time.

It would be helpful to how you are perceived if you were to acknowledge that this difference between 'to' and 'about' is an entirely new argument.

From your examples, the 'to' beliefs are normative (you ought to do such and such) and the 'about' beliefs are descriptive (X is true).

Maybe it is a new argument in a technical sense of me not having phrased it exactly like this before but from my point of view it's simply another way of expressing what I've felt about this since day one, that children should be taught about religion, not taught it as if it were the indisputable truth. It's what I've meant in the past, here for example -what it is and isn't ok to teach to children as indisputable truths or here I don't teach 'from' either of those books. I have taught them about those books though, or there are many religions being taught to children .

Anyway, I'm sure neither of us want to spend time proving or disproving that this is a new argument, I'd rather just progress it. I should point out (again) that I've backed off on the actual argument, I'm not saying that they should or shouldn't be treated differently anymore, at least not until I can show why they should or understand why they shouldn't.

And there's that brainwashing children perspective.

And it's not a new argument in a technical sense. It's a new argument, period. This type of pretending like you're not doing anything different gets you into far more trouble than you realize. It basically shows how hard it is for you to admit that you're wrong.