Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Magic Man]

It appears that you're jumping into more assumptions than many theists. I'm an agnostic, but I do feel religious beliefs can have their value, plus who am I to point fingers and say they're wrong.

You're a rational person who can view reality, I hope. Whether or not religious beliefs can have their value is not the issue. The issue is whether they should be imposed on children.

With the above statements, you're making it out that somehow you have this firm grip on "reality" and that any and all theists simply are living in delusion. People believe for a reason, and maybe you and I may disagree with their reasoning, but I'm simply not willing to strut around thinking I have all the right answers in this area.

Then you're being too appeasing. Believing in the supernatural aspects of religion is indeed living in delusion. It's OK to point it out. I understand you want to be tactful and not offend anyone, but if we're speaking plainly, those beliefs are delusions. It's not about strutting around thinking you have all the right answers. It's about acknowledging when beliefs are obviously ridiculous. If someone was teaching their kid black people are actually aliens who were sent here by a higher spirit to teach us lessons, would you have the same reluctance to call out their belief as false? Would you feel you were strutting around thinking you have all the right answers for doing so?

 

[Me Myself]

Just a word of advice: the last sentence should be "a kid is too trusting". "Trusting" is someone who trusts others. "Trustworthy" is someone who is worthy of others' trust. (I'm assuming you're not a native English speaker, which is why I point it out.)

Now, authority is key in indoctrination, as is trust, of course, but that's part of the authority.



Then you're not telling her supposed facts; you're telling her what you believe. That's quite a bit different.



You missed the point, which was that it wasn't relevant.

I usually know that, dont know why I used "¿trustworthy wrong there. Thanks for the pointer in any case.

Check the meaning of indoctrination, you wont find the word authority. The only important part is to teach someone something with the specific desire that they do not think it well and discard any other options by default.

We humans are incapable of knowing facts beyond what we believe.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But assuming that all religious thought is nonsense reflects more bias than intelligence. As there really is no way to be certain there's a God or Gods, neither is there a way to disprove it either. IMO, kids can be taught the basics so they eventually can decide for themsleves.

I have no idea how this is at all relevant to my comments.

 

[Me Myself]

You're a rational person who can view reality, I hope. Whether or not religious beliefs can have their value is not the issue. The issue is whether they should be imposed on children.

Punishing a children for not following a religion may be called imposing.

Teaching a childreyour religion doesnt inherentlyeans this though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's never been our approach because I think it's entirely the wrong thing to do. Our kids were intentionally exposed to various religious beliefs, which is why they tend to be very open to different faiths including agnosticism and atheism. To me, teaching kids that the it's "my way or the highway" is repugnant.

And that's great. I just think your earlier post conflated two different things:

- teaching kids ABOUT religion
- raising kids IN a religion

What I was trying to get at is that you can still teach kids about religion even if you don't raise them in a religion. Also, depending on the religion and how it's presented, raising kids in a religion can sometimes be an obstacle to teaching them about religion... or at least about other religions.

Something else: there's only so much time available to a parent to raise a child. If a child shows no interest in religion, then I don't see why there would be anything wrong with focusing on other things that do interest him and letting religion be. I mean, my parents spent next to no time exposing me to dance or hunting; was this wrong? I don't think so. Even though I know people who find both activities very meaningful and beneficial to them, my passions were elsewhere.

I think part of the reaction coming from the religious on this issue is to a large degree just offense at the idea that religion is optional.

 

[Magic Man]

I usually know that, dont know why I used "¿trustworthy wrong there. Thanks for the pointer in any case.

I figured that might be the case, but just in case, I wanted to make sure.

Check the meaning of indoctrination, you wont find the word authority. The only important part is to teach someone something with the specific desire that they do not think it well and discard any other options by default.

Right, which is why authority is important. The only way to teach someone something in a way that gets them to believe it without questioning it is to have some authority over them.

We humans are incapable of knowing facts beyond what we believe.

With this as your assumption, nothing would make sense and you'd be unable to hold a conversation.

 

[Magic Man]

Punishing a children for not following a religion may be called imposing.

Teaching a childreyour religion doesnt inherentlyeans this though.

It does, if you're teaching it to them as if it's fact.

 

[metis]

And that's great. I just think your earlier post conflated two different things:

- teaching kids ABOUT religion
- raising kids IN a religion

What I was trying to get at is that you can still teach kids about religion even if you don't raise them in a religion. Also, depending on the religion and how it's presented, raising kids in a religion can sometimes be an obstacle to teaching them about religion... or at least about other religions.

Something else: there's only so much time available to a parent to raise a child. If a child shows no interest in religion, then I don't see why there would be anything wrong with focusing on other things that do interest him and letting religion be. I mean, my parents spent next to no time exposing me to dance or hunting; was this wrong? I don't think so. Even though I know people who find both activities very meaningful and beneficial to them, my passions were elsewhere.

I think part of the reaction coming from the religious on this issue is to a large degree just offense at the idea that religion is optional.

I think it can be done either way, but my wife and I chose to teach them within a religious context because we felt the morals and values that we taught them could also be reinforced. Our two daughters, one Christian and the other who's into Judaism (both were brought up Christian, but our older daughter converted to Judaism about 10 years ago and attends my synagogue), stayed involved in religion, but our son chose not to when in his mid teens (he's now 41), and that's perfectly acceptable to us.

BTW, our kids and grandkids attend each other's major religious functions, such as one of my granddaughter's bat mitzvah last Saturday whereas the others all attended, and we often discuss religion but we never argue it.

 

[Me Myself]

It does, if you're teaching it to them as if it's fact.

Which means it is only indoctrination if it is not a fact.

I can totally live with that

 

[Magic Man]

Which means it is only indoctrination if it is not a fact.

I can totally live with that

Me too. So we're agreed teaching children supernatural religious beliefs as if they're fact is indoctrination and not a good thing. :yes:

 

[Me Myself]

Me too. So we're agreed teaching children supernatural religious beliefs as if they're fact is indoctrination and not a good thing. :yes:

Of course not, because you and me disagree about several facts.

For me, consciousness in everything is a fact, you think it is not a fact.

So me teaching my kids the facts I know would not be indoctrination, because they are facts that I know and am imparting upon them.

You believe it is because you believe they are not facts.

As such, we cant objectively know if it is indoctrination or not.


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fact

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

 

[Magic Man]

Of course not, because you and me disagree about several facts.

For me, consciousness in everything is a fact, you think it is not a fact.

So me teaching my kids the facts I know would not be indoctrination, because they are facts that I know and am imparting upon them.

You believe it is because you believe they are not facts.

As such, we cant objectively know if it is indoctrination or not.


fact: definition of fact in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

Fact - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I don't know what you mean by "consciousness in everything", but:

You seem to be using "know" and "facts" wrong. You have a belief. Whether or not you believe it's a fact, rather than just a belief doesn't change whether it's actually a fact. If it's a belief, then you don't know it; you simply believe it. If it's a fact, then it should be easily provable.

 

[metis]

You're a rational person who can view reality, I hope. Whether or not religious beliefs can have their value is not the issue. The issue is whether they should be imposed on children.

Then you're being too appeasing. Believing in the supernatural aspects of religion is indeed living in delusion. It's OK to point it out. I understand you want to be tactful and not offend anyone, but if we're speaking plainly, those beliefs are delusions. It's not about strutting around thinking you have all the right answers. It's about acknowledgingand ignorance when beliefs are obviously ridiculous. If someone was teaching their kid black people are actually aliens who were sent here by a higher spirit to teach us lessons, would you have the same reluctance to call out their belief as false? Would you feel you were strutting around thinking you have all the right answers for doing so?

You're coming off as a "know-it-all" who's exhibiting at least as much uniformed bias as the most ardent theist. In order for you to supposedly know the above, you would have to know with certainty that there is no god or gods. It is you who is "delusional" because you're claiming you know that which is virtually impossible to know.

And where do you come off saying I'm too "appeasing"? Really? No, what it is is that I know my limitations, which obviously you don't. I know there are things that are beyond my ability to understand, but you apparently you don't. I didn't want my children to be arrogant and condescending, but you don't share that opinion it appears.

And what I 'impose on my children" was a sense of inquiring and not jumping to conclusions, along with a sense of morality and values. Apparently you don't share this approach. Therefore, I really don't feel we have enough in common to continue this discussion any further.

As Confucius once supposedly said: the more you know, the more you know you really don't know.

 

[Me Myself]

I don't know what you mean by "consciousness in everything", but:

You seem to be using "know" and "facts" wrong. You have a belief. Whether or not you believe it's a fact, rather than just a belief doesn't change whether it's actually a fact. If it's a belief, then you don't know it; you simply believe it. If it's a fact, then it should be easily provable.

You didnt check the links.

A fact may be easily provabnle but doesnt need to be.

I assume the links are not working for you so here is it:

Merriam webster:

: a thing done: as
a obsolete : feat
b : crime <accessory after the fact>
c archaic : action
2
archaic : performance, doing
3
: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4
a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact>
b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5
: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
&#8212; in fact
: in truth


In bold the meaning of fact for which religion may be pertinent. While we need evidence to be certain of somethings existence, somethings existence is not dependant upon evidence. So, if I believe in something's existence and this happens to be true, my belief is also a fact.

Likewise here in oxford:

a thing that is known or proved to be true:

Notice the proof is not necessary. Something that is known OR proved to be true.

If I cant prove it, but I do know it, it is a fact still.

Of course you could think it is justy belief and it is not a fact, and that would be your belief about the matter.

 

[Magic Man]

You're coming off as a "know-it-all" who's exhibiting at least as much uniformed bias as the most ardent theist.

I'm sure it does come off that way to you. That's not surprising at all. But I'm confident in the fact that to reasonable, rational people who aren't afraid of admitting the truth, it comes off as reasonable and rational. Also, there is no uninformed bias in my statements.

In order for you to supposedly know the above, you would have to know with certainty that there is no god or gods. It is you who is "delusional" because you're claiming you know that which is virtually impossible to know.

Sure, just like you're delusional if you think there are no lizard aliens disguised as humans plotting to take over the world.

This is what I mean. I'm sure you have no problem with admitting that that belief is silly and irrational, but yet, when I claim the same thing about similarly irrational beliefs that are considered religious, you feel justified in pretending I'm being delusional.

And where do you come off saying I'm too "appeasing"? Really? No, what it is is that I know my limitations, which obviously you don't. I know there are things that are beyond my ability to understand, but you apparently you don't. I didn't want my children to be arrogant and condescending, but you don't share that opinion it appears.

Yes, this would be the classic reaction of the "agnostic" who likes to pretend they're being open-minded by not committing to any position. Sure, technically some kind of god could be possible, some being that set the universe going, but there's pretty much no chance of a theistic (Abrahamic) god. It's not beyond out limit to say that any more than it's beyond our limit to say invisible unicorns aren't running around every major city in the country.

And what I 'impose on my children" was a sense of inquiring and not jumping to conclusions, along with a sense of morality and values. Apparently you don't share this approach. Therefore, I really don't feel we have enough in common to continue this discussion any further.

I'm not sure what your particular approach to teaching your kids has to do with religious people's approach with theirs.

 

[Magic Man]

Notice the proof is not necessary. Something that is known OR proved to be true.

If I cant prove it, but I do know it, it is a fact still.

Of course you could think it is justy belief and it is not a fact, and that would be your belief about the matter.

But you can only know something if it's proven.

 

[Curious George]

You seem to be using "know" and "facts" wrong. You have a belief. Whether or not you believe it's a fact, rather than just a belief doesn't change whether it's actually a fact. If it's a belief, then you don't know it; you simply believe it. If it's a fact, then it should be easily provable.

But you can only know something if it's proven.

You are making my job very easy.

So demonstrate to me how you "know that raising your children without religious beliefs is better than raising your children with religious beliefs."

You are making a qualitative judgement based on belief and extrapolations from specific instances. There is no way to prove your belief, or if there is you have not demonstrated such.

But if it is a fact, then you can easily prove it. Yet you haven't....How curious!

 

[Curious George]

Uh... do you mean that?

Absolutely. I am waiting for you to substantiate and demonstrate the logic behind your claim.

 

[Me Myself]

But you can only know something if it's proven.

Prove it

Oh and :

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/know

If I have had an experience that makes me aware of something I can say I know this to which I am now aware of.

Tis does not mean I can give you scientific evidence about it. Knowing something and being able to prove it are simply not the same.

 

[Me Myself]

You are making my job very easy.

So demonstrate to me how you "know that raising your children without religious beliefs is better than raising your children with religious beliefs."

You are making a qualitative judgement based on belief and extrapolations from specific instances. There is no way to prove your belief, or if there is you have not demonstrated such.

But if it is a fact, then you can easily prove it. Yet you haven't....How curious!

He also thinks no facts have anything to do with emotions. For example, no one can factually love another one.

To him, no emotion is a fact, which would be the same as saying emotions dont exist.