The Child is Father of the Man

As published in the Rationalist Society of Australia Journal, September, 2016



What should we tell a child about the world? How do we distinguish between knowledge and beliefs? Answering this question requires us to reach deep down into ourselves and grasp for the forgotten struts that hold one’s view of the world together. Proceed with caution however, as once the supports are prized away the whole thing is apt to collapse.


My atypical view comes as a result of my six-year-old son’s placement in a fundamentalist and evangelical religious instruction (RI) program. Despite us immediately pulling him out of it, and even after I’d written opinion pieces opposing RI in the Australian media, our boy was put back in the class without our knowledge.

The experience brought me unwillingly face to face with the question of what to tell my son about religion. I’d prefer him to find these answers on his own. The conversation went like this: I tried to explain the limits of our knowledge, and cast some doubt on his new found certainty of the existence of a Creator God; while my son grilled me as to what I believed – presumably so he could instantly adopt my position. The resentment at being placed in this position cements and reinforces my opposition to proselytising in schools.

The school curriculum is a perennial source of controversy. Was Australia settled or invaded? Is Safe Schools an anti-bullying program or misguided social engineering? What should we teach children about culture, and religion? Opponents of both religious instruction and the Safe Schools program argue against teaching children contested beliefs or ideologies.

One of the architects of Australia’s National Curriculum, Professor Ken Wiltshire, recently demanded a stop to the “outsourcing’’ of religious instruction and sex education to “ideological interest groups’’.

“We don’t want material creeping into the curriculum without it being quality assured. You should never outsource the development of a curriculum to any group with a particular agenda, or blindly accept any curriculum material they have provided to be used in schools”.

The issue is fraught by evolving attitudes toward the rights of children – no longer merely the “don’t speak until spoken to” property of parents.

We should distinguish between rights as they apply to learning in three ways: the rights of parents, the best interests of society, and the rights of the child. In western cultures, parents still enjoy inordinately high levels of control over their child’s education.

According to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR), parents have the right to bring up their children in their chosen religious or non-religious belief system.

Consider the tension between the rights of parents, and the rights of the child. The child cannot assess what is best for them and can only rely on the assumed best intentions and good judgement of their parents. But what if the parents insist on inculcating their child into an extreme or harmful belief system?

We also need to balance the entitlements of parents with the utilitarian notion of what is best for society, and reflect on the significance of a child’s potential.

As poet William Wordsworth noted “The child is father of the man”.


My heart leaps up when I behold

A rainbow in the sky:

So was it when my life began;

So is it now I am a man;

So be it when I shall grow old,

Or let me die!

The Child is father of the Man;

I could wish my days to be

Bound each to each by natural piety


Our days “bound each to each” the child begets the adult, connected by a continuous line of experience. The outcomes of what we teach children extend well beyond the lives of the parents, influencing the temper and texture of our future society.

But how can we measure the rights of parents? Beyond chattel ownership, parent’s rights can be measured in maximising the child’s ongoing welfare and opportunity to flourish.

So, to the extent that the parent’s rights rely on satisfying the best interests of the child, then the child’s rights take precedence. The rights of the parent turn on the best interest of the child. Given the prevailing balancing of parent’s rights over children’s rights, this should give us cause for alarm.

Children’s rights aren’t adequately protected when it’s legal to indoctrinate them into closed orders, send them to extremist schools, or proselytise fundamentalist dogma in state schools. Serving the best interest of society involves providing the child with knowledge and arming them with the critical skills to deploy it.

Those arguing against teaching contesting beliefs strike upon the crucial distinction: beliefs are secondary to knowledge. By definition, beliefs lack the verifiability and or universality which would otherwise render them as knowledge.

So, how about this rule of thumb? If adults cannot agree on a particular proposition, don’t teach it to children.

Challenging the generally accepted meme of parental entitlement, involves allowing the child greater autonomy and freedom of thought to develop their own framework of ideas and beliefs. Wordworth’s phrase evokes the unbroken link between a child’s world and the adult world, but it should also motivate us to reflect upon the gradations between belief and knowledge.


2 replies
  1. Eric Glare
    Eric Glare says:

    It isn’t as simple as you write. Sex, gender and sexuality education gets accused of being contested belief chiefly because parents have never been taught this curriculum. The universal claim is that sex ed is too little too late and lacking relevance. I am a gay man aged 51 and I have been looking for explanations of how gender is fluid in the media but there are none. I think I know but it is my own rational deduction not knowledge as such and it depends on a very nuanced notion of what gender is, not what most people think is gender. I would prefer to say my gender expression changes such as when I put on a suit and tie. But I’m not sure. No wonder this education is outsourced to third parties.

    With such a paucity of information and the lack of answering of very basic questions despite them being asked constantly isn’t it the case that it is belief against belief rather than “beliefs are secondary to knowledge” because of the lack of discussion of the knowledge? Beliefs seem to be inhibiting knowledge from being verifiable even though the beliefs don’t explain the natural diversity of sex and gender. It shouldn’t be controversial but intersex people are constantly excluded from belief and their existence denied – narrow beliefs trump knowledge and common sense.

    Isn’t it a bit disingenuous to say “If adults cannot agree on a particular proposition, don’t teach it to children” when there has not been an honest attempt at discerning knowledge? How would sex ed ever be taught? This is the ongoing circular problem: lack of education of parents, lack of information, lack of agreement and limited sexuality education of their children. Doesn’t the right of the child to information about themselves, about their biology, mean we have to cut the cycle and give them information parents don’t agree on? Although I think dumping statements such as gender is fluid in ‘believe me’ statements with no other information seems to be creating a lot of controversy and distraction.

    • Hugh Harris
      Hugh Harris says:

      Hello Eric,
      You make some interesting points. My feeling in reading your critique is that you are frustrated by the lack of science in media commentary in general in regard to the proposition that “gender is fluid”. I have a lot of sympathy with this point. When the controversy erupted over Safe Schools, I attempted to find out as much as I could about it. My conclusion was that the science is more aligned to the non-binary proposition of gender, but that there is still some disagreement over the prevalence of intersex and non-traditional genders in the community, and that at a certain point there is a demarcation between what science says, and where ideology begins. For instance, the statement: “gender is fluid”, is not a scientific statement of fact. I say this accepting the scientific fact that a certain percentage of children and adults identify in non-traditional genders. The statement that “gender is fluid” depends on how one views the science and makes a fairly large generalisation which is arguable.

      Further, even though I tend to agree with the proposition, I’m aware that a substantial percentage of the population disagree vehemently. In this case, where science doesn’t settle the matter, I don’t why my views should take precedence. And I certainly don’t see any pressing need to be teaching it as fact to students, especially those in primary school. They can tackle bullying of LGBTI students without promoting an ideological stance.

      Thus, I don’t think it’s disingenuous to say “if adults don’t agree”, don’t teach it to children. If the science is not settled, then the focus should be on settling the science. If there’s a debate on what our attitude should be to the science, then this should take place in the media and the community. Not in the classroom.

      And if we want to end the discriminatory and harmful practices of teaching children creationism and religious fundamentalism in schools, then we need to be consistent.


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

six − two =