Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Me Myself]

Actually, if you want to get all technical about it, then teaching anything to children (whether religious teaching or teaching kids how to read) can't possibly be brainwashing. The whole point of "washing" in "brainwashing" is the idea that information that was there is removed so that a person can be "programmed" anew. Whether it is cult indoctrination, some CIA experiments, extreme government propaganda, etc., the goal is always the same: take someone's way of thinking and change it to fit a new purpose. You "wash" the mind of old ideas to put new ones in. You can't brainwash children as you are teaching them their initial frameworks, not exchanging old for new. Indoctrination, yes. Brainwashing, no.
It may seem pretty trivial, but the distinction is important (IMO) for precisely the reason you state: any and all teaching of children would be brainwashing if we ignore the distinction.

That is what I said earlier too when I sted the actual definition of brainwashing.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

On the flipside, though, it's because of this emphasis on individuality that many traditionally community-based religions are able to practice at all today. In the West, a parent's right to be Jewish (for instance) and his child's right not to be Jewish are both the same right when it gets right down to it. This makes religious indoctrination hypocritical... at least in this society.

There was a time when everything but Protestant Christianity was severely repressed here. At one point, Catholics were effectively barred from public office. In my parents' lifetime, there were private clubs that didn't allow Jews to join. If we hadn't moved from that community-based idea of religion to an individualistic approach, Jews and Catholics wouldn't be in a position to expose their children to their faith at all.

An important point, well said. And yes, a lot of this comes down to individuality and personal choice- two values in our society not universally shared throughout history. But that's not really relevant; slavery was also something of a norm for much of human history- clearly, the way things have always been and the ways things should be are often not the same.

And there's no way that you can claim that religious indoctrination is not a violation of the child's individuality and personal choice- you may say its not a severe violation, or its justifiable (also both of these claims are suspect), but if one values individuality and personal choice, as one should, then allowing ones children to make this decision for themselves (a decision which, to belabor the point, often forms a crucial aspect of one's personal identity and sense of self) is sort of obvious.

 

[Koldo]

Well you are missing the point as you keep referring to the sincerity of belief from the 3rd person. I am talking about simple bias.

If I believed a vengeful deity existed and could send my kids to hell if they did not obey this god then my actions would be justified.

What if this belief consisted of hatred, bigotry and violence?

Salafi Muslims believe in this often and support violence and justify it through belief in god as an absolute fact.

Why do you not let them do the work of god?

I completely understand your point. And i think everyone else does so too. Nobody is ignoring that. I don't know why you are thinking otherwise.

As i have already said on this topic:
"This is the very root of the problem: to regard your belief as knowledge even when there is a major disagreement ( by experts ) on it."

It is not a matter of understanding that people are sincere in their belief it is a matter of understanding that to them their belief is as good as fact.

You described it yourself as a matter of not understanding that people are sincere in their beliefs. Regardless, it doesn't matter, because i understood what you meant back then.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm going to indoctrinate my child with critical thinking and rational skepticism. If they end up believing irrational things, that's their choice. I'll just blame my wife's genes.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And there's no way that you can claim that religious indoctrination is not a violation of the child's individuality and personal choice

Until you can rationally define these things in an empirical way, one absolutely can claim that

 

[Me Myself]

And there's no way that you can claim that religious indoctrination is not a violation of the child's individuality and personal choice- you may say its not a severe violation, or its justifiable (also both of these claims are suspect), but if one values individuality and personal choice, as one should, then allowing ones children to make this decision for themselves (a decision which, to belabor the point, often forms a crucial aspect of one's personal identity and sense of self) is sort of obvious.

They will make the decision for themselves.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Until you can rationally define these things in an empirical way, one absolutely can claim that

Well, I suppose one could claim it, but it wouldn't be especially tenable- and that's putting it rather mildly. And there's no reason to expect that defining individuality or personal choice would be much of a problem anyways (are these particularly tricky concepts for some reason? doesn't seem so); that choosing one's religion freely, rather than being indoctrinated at a young age, is to exercise more personal choice and individuality doesn't really seem like the point at issue here, but rather whether the supposed benefits of inheriting one's parents religious beliefs don't outweigh the sacrifice to one's freedom and independence.

And I've yet to hear any benefit to religious indoctrination of children, other than saving them from spending eternity splashing around in a sulphorous swimming pool- and if that's all there is, I'd say we can lay this matter to rest. Its simply a losing proposition- individuality and freedom of thought are sacrificed, to no apparent gain.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

They will make the decision for themselves.

No, oftentimes they won't, and as I've stressed, they've not been given a level playing field. But if you truly believe this is the case, then indoctrination at a young age is simply pointless, and should be dispensed with in that case anyways.

 

[Me Myself]

No, oftentimes they won't, and as I've stressed, they've not been given a level playing field. But if you truly believe this is the case, then indoctrination at a young age is simply pointless, and should be dispensed with in that case anyways.

A leveled playfield exists only on human imagination :biglaugh:

 

[Enai de a lukal]

A leveled playfield exists only on human imagination :biglaugh:

Nah, that's plainly false, and at attempt to muddy the water. A child who has not been told, throughout their formative years, that things are thus and such and not otherwise, will have an easier time making a responsible and objective evaluation of the matter for themselves when they reach a more mature age. If all I've heard throughout my entire life is how God is this and God does that and God most certainly exists, I'm going to have a very difficult time indeed approaching this belief with anything approaching impartiality.

***

And aside from everything people have said here, there is a little truth that I think we've been pussyfooting around, perhaps out of a misplaced sense of diplomacy; not only is it a matter of personal choice, its a matter of harm, as Luis has mentioned in passing. As I remarked, most posters here are probably thinking of Christianity- its the dominant religion in America, where most posters are from (I'm guessing)- but the same applies to certain forms of Islam, and other religions as well; many religious beliefs are simply pernicious. They are harmful and life-destroying; even if we aren't talking about extreme hate-mongering fundamentalism, most mainstream forms of Christianity (and other religions) include quite a few teachings which are not conducive to a happy life or human flourishing. Religious ethics are impoverished. Religion is, by its very nature, a matter of separating people into in-groups and out-groups.

In other words, if its simply a matter of a utilitarian calculus, once again, its just a losing proposition.

 

[Me Myself]

Nah, that's plainly false, and at attempt to muddy the water. A child who has not been told, throughout their formative years, that things are thus and such and not otherwise, will have an easier time making a responsible and objective evaluation of the matter for themselves when they reach a more mature age. If all I've heard throughout my entire life is how God is this and God does that and God most certainly exists, I'm going to have a very difficult time indeed approaching this belief with anything approaching impartiality.

Lets try this for impartiality:

You are 5 find your mother talking in a room where there is no one. You ask her who is she talking to and she tells you she will tell you when you are old enough.

When you ask your parents about God or Buddha or w e they tell you they will talk to you about it when you are twelve.

Do you honestly believe this is neutral?

Because its obviously not. You will have curiousty and spontaneously generate ideas as to why they dont want to tell you about it. Is it so cool and a privilege of adulthood? Is it so shameful they dont want to talk about it?

Hiding your religion is just not neutral. It is naive to think it could be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In traditional community-based religion, culture and religion were inseparable. There is no word for religion in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Hittite, or Sanskrit. To describe someone's religion was to say what gods they worshipped and how. The modern conception of religion is primarily a Christian one that changed how religion was understood in India, China, and the East in general through colonialism, indoctrination, and more general cultural contact. The modern concept of religion is one of the greatest examples of indoctrination that exists.

Yet even in those societies, people were able to separate religion from culture. Case in point: Marcus Aurelius' "reverse Pascal's Wager" where he considers whether gods exist and whether one should worship them.

 

[Magic Man]

Lets try this for impartiality:

You are 5 find your mother talking in a room where there is no one. You ask her who is she talking to and she tells you she will tell you when you are old enough.

When you ask your parents about God or Buddha or w e they tell you they will talk to you about it when you are twelve.

Do you honestly believe this is neutral?

Because its obviously not. You will have curiousty and spontaneously generate ideas as to why they dont want to tell you about it. Is it so cool and a privilege of adulthood? Is it so shameful they dont want to talk about it?

Hiding your religion is just not neutral. It is naive to think it could be.

You seem to be approaching it with a false dichotomy. It's not "don't talk to your kids about religion at all or teach them that yours is the true religion that should be followed by all". There is the middle ground where you can answer your children's questions, but just do it as "This is what I'm doing and this is what I believe", rather than "You are supposed to believe this too".

 

[Me Myself]

Hiding your religion sends them the message that you dont want them to know about it yet.

Deliberately hiding your praying sends them the message praying is for adults or that you dont consider them worthy enough for praying, there are many messages that will be considered by different kids in different contexts because of you hiding your religion to your kid. None of them are neutral because neutrality wont exist towards something at seems big in your parents life.

Hiding it tends to generate curiosity which would further intensify all the inquirires and hypothesis about it.

 

[Me Myself]

You seem to be approaching it with a false dichotomy. It's not "don't talk to your kids about religion at all or teach them that yours is the true religion that should be followed by all". There is the middle ground where you can answer your children's questions, but just do it as "This is what I'm doing and this is what I believe", rather than "You are supposed to believe this too".

There is also a middleground between "this is so" and "if you dont believe me I will shun you"

It is straightforward that if you tell him something thats what you believe.

 

[Magic Man]

Hiding your religion sends them the message that you dont want them to know about it yet.

Deliberately hiding your praying sends them the message praying is for adults or that you dont consider them worthy enough for praying, there are many messages that will be considered by different kids in different contexts because of you hiding your religion to your kid. None of them are neutral because neutrality wont exist towards something at seems big in your parents life.

Hiding it tends to generate curiosity which would further intensify all the inquirires and hypothesis about it.

Has someone here advocated hiding it? If so, who?

 

[Magic Man]

There is also a middleground between "this is so" and "if you dont believe me I will shun you"

Sure, but either one is indoctrination.

 

[Me Myself]

Sure, but either one is indoctrination.

You didnt say "I believe either one is indoctrination"

So you are trying to indoctrinate me

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hiding your religion sends them the message that you dont want them to know about it yet.

Deliberately hiding your praying sends them the message praying is for adults or that you dont consider them worthy enough for praying, there are many messages that will be considered by different kids in different contexts because of you hiding your religion to your kid. None of them are neutral because neutrality wont exist towards something at seems big in your parents life.

Hiding it tends to generate curiosity which would further intensify all the inquirires and hypothesis about it.

Do you think that there's no middle ground between "forcing" and "hiding"?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

are these particularly tricky concepts for some reason? doesn't seem so

Individuality and personality psychology constitute an entire field within the social, psychological, and cognitive sciences. In particular this kind of speculation:

that choosing one's religion freely, rather than being indoctrinated at a young age, is to exercise more personal choice and individuality doesn't really seem like the point at issue here

is largely untenable. Cognitive development is fundamentally shaped by upbringing and this includes how religion is viewed. The lenses through which we see the world, including things as basic as playing games (in the game theoretic sense) and sense of direction are influenced by how we are brought up and the language we speak. Religion is part of (to varying degrees) particular worldviews. But everyone has one and nobody chooses there own (not entirely). Rather, a central tenet of social & personality psychology is that most of the choices we make are influenced by the ways in which we were brought up via mechanisms we aren't aware of and are hard to determine. Cognitive psychology, largely because of neuroscience, is not as inclined to take into account external factors in the decision making process, but the work on language since the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was first established has definitely began to bleed more fully into cognitive sciences. With the influence of particular languages on cognitive functions comes the influence of culture and upbringing on cognitive processes as well.

A central problem has been understanding how biased our view is thanks in part to sciences and experimental paradigms but also because of the typical cultural blindspot. One of the best works on this within recent years is the oft-cited "The Weirdest People in the World".

And I've yet to hear any benefit to religious indoctrination of children

Gains, benefits, good, bad, etc., only make sense within some framework. In game theory, a formalized version of morality, all benefits are beneficial only if they are defined as such first. Short of knowledge of some objective morality (whatever that might be), what benefits are all depend and always depend on what we believe to be beneficial in the first place. If one isn't religious, it doesn't generally seem like religion offers much. If one is, it does. Personally, if one wants to raise children religious I find this no better or worse than the opposite, but I do hope that parents would at least try to occasionally play devils advocate to try to get their children to think critically. I acknowledge, however, that this may be because that's how I was raised. And it was because I was raised this way that I am the only member of my immediate family who isn't catholic. We were all raised to question things and all raised Catholic, but I was the only one who decided, upon questioning my religious upbringing, that there wasn't enough for me to put my faith in (or perhaps that I don't really have much faith in anything).

individuality and freedom of thought are sacrificed, to no apparent gain.

The entirety of the sciences owe their debt to a particular religious worldview. Undoubtedly other worldviews could have resulted in this, but none did.
Galileo and the Origin of Science