• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

Me Myself

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

It depends on how you define forcing. I may have misunderstood the OP as I said earlier, but it seems to me as if it was saying it is wrong to teach religion to your kids before they are of a more critical age and any teacng of it would be "forcing" because they want to be accepted by parents.

If you are just against people punishing their kids when they dont want to pray that is a very reasonable stance the way I see it.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Sure, but either one is indoctrination.

I think I mentioned that this was more or less the approach my parents took with me. In my case, I think it worked well. I also think it's worth considering for others. I haven't suggested that it should be the only approach.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
I think I mentioned that this was more or less the approach my parents took with me. In my case, I think it worked well. I also think it's worth considering for others. I haven't suggested that it should be the only approach.

Which approach do you mean?
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
I think I mentioned that this was more or less the approach my parents took with me. In my case, I think it worked well. I also think it's worth considering for others. I haven't suggested that it should be the only approach.

May you elaborate? Or give me an idea of the page? :D

I am not sure which approach you think it would be okay and "not forcing" for a say muslim family, catholic family, etc to teach their religion to their kids.

I hope this was just a joke, and not meant as an actual argument against what I'm saying.

That was precisely my reaction to your "I believe" as a necessary sentence starter for something to not be indoctrination.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
That was precisely my reaction to your "I believe" as a necessary sentence starter for something to not be indoctrination.

Then you aren't following along very well. When a parent tells their child that something is true, the expectation is that the child will then believe it. So, a parent telling the child God exists is indoctrination, because the expectation is that the child will then believe it, since the parent said it was true. If the parent says it's just what they believe, it's quite a bit different. The kid might still believe it, but that one small piece makes a big difference.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
It depends on how you define forcing. I may have misunderstood the OP as I said earlier, but it seems to me as if it was saying it is wrong to teach religion to your kids before they are of a more critical age and any teacng of it would be "forcing" because they want to be accepted by parents.

If you are just against people punishing their kids when they dont want to pray that is a very reasonable stance the way I see it.

The thing I'm against is actively, deliberately steering kids toward a particular religious path. As part of this, I object to any sort of ceremony where the parents declare their intention to raise the child to believe in a particular religion, such as infant baptism in the Catholic tradition.

I'm not talking about the normal process where kids tend to model their ideas about how to be based on their parents' example.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Yet even in those societies, people were able to separate religion from culture.
Not really. In fact, the separation today is more arbitrary than we might think:
Graham, J., & Haidt, J. (2010). Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral communities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 140-150.

Case in point: Marcus Aurelius' "reverse Pascal's Wager" where he considers whether gods exist and whether one should worship them.
E vivis autem discedere, si quidem Dii sunt, non est quod quis timeat; nam in malum te non conjicient; sin vero sut non sunt aut non curant res humanas, quid mea refert vivere in mundo vacuo diis aut providentia vacuo?
["Yet to go apart from others [to die], if indeed there are gods, is nothing to be feared, for the gods will not join you with evil; if in truth they are not, or if they care not for the affairs of humans, why should I care to live in a world in which gods or providence is absent?"]
Not exactly the reverse of Pascal and not exactly distinguishing religion and culture.
 

Enai de a lukal

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

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.
This seems to me to be the sort of non-distinction as what we get in discussions of determinism and free-will; the fact that there is no purely free or individual choice, in the sense that you're talking about, does not mean that more broadly speaking, engaging a young person in a critical dialogue in which they ultimately make the final evaluation gives them more control over the matter than teaching them authoritatively while they are in their early, developmental years.

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 there are always are all dependent on what we believe to be beneficial in the first place.
Sure. And as with all value-judgments, we often come to a point where the disagreement is intractable;

Person A: "I value this",
Person B: "Yeah well, I do not"

But given a framework, given certain values, then some sort of calculus can be performed (which is why I said that if you value personal freedom and self-determination, which most do, then XYZ follows).

Personally, if one wants to raise children religious I find this no better or worse than the opposite
Depends- if by "the opposite' one means atheism or an anti-religious outlook, then I absolutely agree. If young children shouldn't be indoctrinated with religion, that cuts both ways. But it would seem that simply letting the matter be (or, answering questions that arise in a "well, some people believe X, we believe Y" sort of manner) until the child is at least old enough to comprehend the relevant concepts (as young children are not) is better than the alternative, for the reasons mentioned.

but I do hope that parents would at least try to occasionally play devils advocate to try to get their children to think critically.
Indeed. That's one of the most critical pieces here- a piece that is lacking, I think, in most people's religious upbringing.

I acknowledge, however, that this may be because that's how I was raised.
As well as the larger socio-cultural context in which you find yourself- I get that. But we are always going to be situated in such a context- there is no pure birds-eye-view on the matter.

The entirety of the sciences owe their debt to a particular religious worldview.
Well, not only one particular religious view- the entirety of the sciences has been heavily influenced by ancient religion/mysticism/ancient philosophy, Christianity, and Islam, at various points in its development. Each has been crucial for science being what it is today. And if the proto-science evolutionary notion of religion is correct, it owes more than that.

But I just don't see what bearing this has on the present topic.

In any case, good contributions, even if I don't entirely agree (although that seems about par for the course between you and I).
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
May you elaborate? Or give me an idea of the page? :D

I am not sure which approach you think it would be okay and "not forcing" for a say muslim family, catholic family, etc to teach their religion to their kids.
Not forcing: "I'm going to mass. You're welcome to come with me if you like."
Forcing: "I don't care that you don't want to go to mass. You're coming with me."

Not forcing: "I'm not going to buy bacon or serve it for dinner."
Forcing: "I forbid you from having a cheeseburger when you're at the mall with your friends."

Not forcing: "whatever you believe, you'll always be our daughter."
Forcing: "if you don't believe in God, you're not welcome in my house."
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
The thing I'm against is actively, deliberately steering kids toward a particular religious path. As part of this, I object to any sort of ceremony where the parents declare their intention to raise the child to believe in a particular religion, such as infant baptism in the Catholic tradition.

I'm not talking about the normal process where kids tend to model their ideas about how to be based on their parents' example.

But we tend to steer people towards our stuff, its natural human behaviour and it is not bad in itself. I dont feel it being about religion would make it bad unless the parents tried to punish the kid when straying off it because its straying off it.

Inviting the kid to catholic or muslim events does not at all seem wrong to me. I dont think you should be stripped of that right with your kid.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
Not forcing: "I'm going to mass. You're welcome to come with me if you like."
Forcing: "I don't care that you don't want to go to mass. You're coming with me."

Not forcing: "I'm not going to buy bacon or serve it for dinner."
Forcing: "I forbid you from having a cheeseburger when you're at the mall with your friends."

Not forcing: "whatever you believe, you'll always be our daughter."
Forcing: "if you don't believe in God, you're not welcome in my house."

Those seem very reasonable stances to me :)
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Indeed. That's one of the most critical pieces here- a piece that is lacking, I think, in most people's religious upbringing.
In my opinion, biased though it is, it's not just lacking in most people's upbringing but is problematically lacking. That's why this would be my view (at the moment):

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.

Well, with the exception of blaming the wife's genes. The last time I thought it would be ok to do that, I barely escaped with my life.


Well, not only one particular religious view- the entirety of the sciences has been heavily influenced by ancient religion/mysticism/ancient philosophy, Christianity, and Islam, at various points in its development. Each has been crucial for science being what it is today. And if the proto-science evolutionary notion of religion is correct, it owes more than that.

No, not entirely. Christianity depended on Judaism for much of its religious framework, but like Islam and Judaism it would never have developed into a worldview in which science was possible without incorporating Greek philosophy as theology. It's important, however, not to mistake scientific developments like mathematics or inventions. Science is a framework which is only compatible with particular worldviews and (historically speaking) quite rare ones. There are reasons it only developed once.
But I just don't see what bearing this has on the present topic.
A past benefit. It has sense ceased being one and now tends to work against the development of science or is completely irrelevant to it, but it's important (IMO) to realize that a religious worldview was key to Western intellectual development.
In any case, good contributions, even if I don't entirely agree.
Likewise.
 

Enai de a lukal

Well-Known Member
The thing I'm against is actively, deliberately steering kids toward a particular religious path. As part of this, I object to any sort of ceremony where the parents declare their intention to raise the child to believe in a particular religion, such as infant baptism in the Catholic tradition.

I'm not talking about the normal process where kids tend to model their ideas about how to be based on their parents' example.

Not forcing: "I'm going to mass. You're welcome to come with me if you like."
Forcing: "I don't care that you don't want to go to mass. You're coming with me."

Not forcing: "I'm not going to buy bacon or serve it for dinner."
Forcing: "I forbid you from having a cheeseburger when you're at the mall with your friends."

Not forcing: "whatever you believe, you'll always be our daughter."
Forcing: "if you don't believe in God, you're not welcome in my house."

Spot on once again, and this is perhaps an important distinction to some of the issues people have expressed here. Actively and deliberately steering your child towards your religious beliefs is what I, and I'd imagine most others here, are objecting to- as opposed to simply informing or exposing them to your beliefs.

And there probably is a natural (and excusable) tendency to want to see one's children follow in ones footsteps; oftentimes children are encouraged to take up the family business, participate in activities valued by the parents (sports, music, etc.) and so on, and this includes sharing the family's religious heritage. But this tendency needs to be recognized and held in check when it becomes selfish or restrictive, for the best interests of the child- expose the child to sports, or music, or your religion, and give them the opportunity to decide for themselves. This is a large part of what being an adult is about, and allowing your child to do so will undoubtedly help them grow and mature.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
Steering him to like your religion is no less okay to steeriring him froliking cars.

Dad tried that with me, I never felt bad for not liking them and he never lovede less for it. He was a bit disappointed because he wanted to share that with me, but that is understandable. He never punished me for not liking cars nor pretended to love me any less.
 

Enai de a lukal

Well-Known Member
In my opinion, biased though it is, it's not just lacking in most people's upbringing but is problematically lacking. That's why this would be my view (at the moment):

Kilgore Trout said:
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.

Well, with the exception of blaming the wife's genes. The last time I thought it would be ok to do that, I barely escaped with my life.
I would agree with that. And trying to give them as broad exposure to the spectrum of religious views out there as possible would probably be good too.
"Too much information" is sort of like "too much money" or "too much sex"- in other words, it doesn't exist.

No, not entirely. Christianity depended on Judaism for much of its religious framework, but like Islam and Judaism it would never have developed into a worldview in which science was possible without incorporating Greek philosophy as theology. It's important, however, not to mistake scientific developments like mathematics or inventions. Science is a framework which is only compatible with particular worldviews and (historically speaking) quite rare ones. There are reasons it only developed once.
Sure. I was thinking more of the contingent historical reasons, such as the preservation of much ancient knowledge by the Islamic world, although I was also thinking of this point about the Greeks being crucial (those crazy Greek ********- what don't we owe them?)

(on a completely and admittedly different note- how familiar are you with the atomists, Democritus and Leucippus? It never ceases to amaze me how the early Greek thinkers anticipated so many later developments in subsequent science, philosophy and mathematics... See also: Zeno, see also: Pythagoras, see also: Parmenedes, see also: Plato)

it's important (IMO) to realize that a religious worldview was key to Western intellectual development.
True enough. And similarly that its looking like religion and science evolved for very similar reasons, and are essentially shoots off the same tree.
 

thau

Well-Known Member
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.

Think of the blame your parents have been tossing back and forth over the years in your case. :)
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Is that a bad thing? For Penguim, I don't think it is.

Doesn't it point towards a weakness of religion as it exists now? Yes, I think it does. Religion should not rely on belief to such an extent.
No, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to "not get" religion, until that lack of understanding is projected as "the only correct stance" with regard to religion.

No, it's not a "weakness" of religion, because religion isn't a forced thing -- at least not in this country.

To say that "religion shouldn't rely on belief to such an extent" is to say that "people shouldn't rely on being human to such an extent." "Belief" is what religion is all about. What should religion "rely" on, if not it's own authenticity as a way to help make meaning?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
And there you go again shoving nonstandard definitions down people' throats.
What's "non-standard" about it? Values come from a part of our psyche that seeks to place us within the world and how to relate to its constituencies. Values help us to assign a concept of our worth as individuals and as members of communities.

That's precisely what religion is! A system that seeks to foster understanding about our place in the world and how to relate to its constituencies. Religion helps us assign a concept of our worth as individuals and as members of communities. That's the whole point of corporate worship, for Pete's sake!
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
And I think it's bizarre and illogical to claim that imposing no beliefs at all on a child is a form of imposing beliefs on a child.
To state that there is no God is a belief.
 
Top