Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Curious George]

No. It is not obviously better. Just because something is not true does not mean it is better to not believe it. This must be proven first. Hence, faulty logic and unsubstantiated belief.

Um...take a second and review what you just said.

I looked. Did you misunderstand?

With no reply, I am guessing that you did not understand, so I will attempt to clarify.

You have asserted that it is "obviously" better to believe a fact or hold no belief than to believe an untruth or an unsubstantiated fact.

This is a belief in itself. It is not a fact as you can clearly not demonstrate such. While believing a untruth is very different from believing a truth or holding no belief, the qualitative statement that one is better than the other is demonstrative of believing an untruth or an unsubstantiated fact.

Let us take Santa Clause as an example. Santa Clause's existence is an untruth. However, many people choose to encourage their children to believe this untruth because they believe that doing so is better than not doing so or at least that doing so is equal to not doing so. That is: they believe that their children can benefit from the experience or at least that their children will not be harmed or hindered by this choice.

Yet you feel that it is obvious and use lizards as an example. Well, I am not convinced. Even your specific example is wanting. There is nothing inherently within an irrational belief that lizard people walk amongst us that is harmful. In order for you to suggest such you will have to further distinguish your example by adding harmful results or examples from a more specified belief system.

Your blanket statements fail to achieve your goal. And repeating yourself does not make them true.

 

[Koldo]

OK, well, one is the belief that kids shouldn't be taught things as facts that aren't facts, and the other is the belief that kids should be taught things as fact, even though they aren't. The first one is obviously a better idea.

With no reply, I am guessing that you did not understand, so I will attempt to clarify.

You have asserted that it is "obviously" better to believe a fact or hold no belief than to believe an untruth or an unsubstantiated fact.

This is a belief in itself. It is not a fact as you can clearly not demonstrate such. While believing a untruth is very different from believing a truth or holding no belief, the qualitative statement that one is better than the other is demonstrative of believing an untruth or an unsubstantiated fact.

Let us take Santa Clause as an example. Santa Clause's existence is an untruth. However, many people choose to encourage their children to believe this untruth because they believe that doing so is better than not doing so or at least that doing so is equal to not doing so. That is: they believe that their children can benefit from the experience or at least that their children will not be harmed or hindered by this choice.

Yet you feel that it is obvious and use lizards as an example. Well, I am not convinced. Even your specific example is wanting. There is nothing inherently within an irrational belief that lizard people walk amongst us that is harmful. In order for you to suggest such you will have to further distinguish your example by adding harmful results or examples from a more specified belief system.

Your blanket statements fail to achieve your goal. And repeating yourself does not make them true.

There seems to be a disagreement on what is 'better' for human beings.
For the sake of clarity, I think such a term should be dropped and replaced by what it means to say to any individual who proposes it.
Either that or to say what it is 'better for' exactly.

 

[Curious George]

There seems to be a disagreement on what is 'better' for human beings.
For the sake of clarity, I think such a term should be dropped and replaced by what it means to say to any individual who proposes it.
Either that or to say what it is 'better for' exactly.

I don't agree or disagree with what is "better." I am suggesting that "better" is usually indicative of a qualitative BELIEF not a fact. And, in this case, that is precisely what is occurring.

Thus, saying it is better to raise children with religious beliefs is equal to saying that it is better to raise children without religious beliefs.

But, were we to drop the "better" and replace the term with a more specified easier to prove assertion such as raising your child without religious preference better creates an atmosphere for said child to make an independent choice" then we would still be left with the problem of whether such an amelioration ought to occur. To do so we have to make a qualitative judgement about whether this benefit is better than other detriments or whether such a benefit really matters at all.

We can get to step one- but we cannot finish the process without imposing belief. Which is ironically what many posters, whom have opposed "indoctrination" are rallying against.

 

[Magic Man]

Prove it

Oh and :

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

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.

If you know something, it's so certain that you can prove it. If you can't prove it, it's a belief.

 

[Magic Man]

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!

What do you want me to prove? That giving children false information is a less desirable idea than not giving them false information? Sure, how would you like me to prove it? Let me know, and I'll oblige.

 

[Curious George]

What do you want me to prove? That giving children false information is a less desirable idea than not giving them false information? Sure, how would you like me to prove it? Let me know, and I'll oblige.

I want you to prove the truth of such a statement with logic.

 

[Koldo]

I don't agree or disagree with what is "better." I am suggesting that "better" is usually indicative of a qualitative BELIEF not a fact. And, in this case, that is precisely what is occurring.

Thus, saying it is better to raise children with religious beliefs is equal to saying that it is better to raise children without religious beliefs.

Beliefs can be substantiated. And then a conclusion can be made as to what is better to achieve a goal.

But, were we to drop the "better" and replace the term with a more specified easier to prove assertion such as raising your child without religious preference better creates an atmosphere for said child to make an independent choice" then we would still be left with the problem of whether such an amelioration ought to occur. To do so we have to make a qualitative judgement about whether this benefit is better than other detriments or whether such a benefit really matters at all.

These are separated matters. One thing is to say that indepedent choices can thrive at a given setting, another is to say that independent choices are desirable or desirable even in detriment of other points.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't agree or disagree with what is "better." I am suggesting that "better" is usually indicative of a qualitative BELIEF not a fact. And, in this case, that is precisely what is occurring.

Thus, saying it is better to raise children with religious beliefs is equal to saying that it is better to raise children without religious beliefs.

No. One is based on verifiable facts and the other isn't. Teaching a belief based on other beliefs but no hard evidence is qualitatively different from teaching beliefs based on known facts. One is much more apt to give an accurate picture or things.

 

[Magic Man]

I want you to prove the truth of such a statement with logic.

OK, humans desire an accurate picture of their universe. Facts are the best tools humans have for the goal of an accurate picture of the universe. Therefore giving humans facts is more desirable than giving them beliefs that are unsubstantiated.

 

[Curious George]

Beliefs can be substantiated. And then a conclusion can be made as to what is better to achieve a goal.

Sure beliefs can be substantiated. And conclusions can be made as to what is better to achieve a goal, but whether that goal is better than a different goal always entails a second step with a value judgement.

These are separated matters. One thing is to say that independent choices can thrive at a given setting, another is to say that independent choices are desirable or desirable even in detriment of other points.

Not so sure I follow.

If we tailor the argument down to a very specific argument- indoctrinating children with religious preference takes away their ability to an independent decision more so than not indoctrinating children with a religious preference.

I think that you will be hard pressed to find someone that disagrees with such a statement. However, when you say that such ought not occur then you are employing a belief.

 

[Me Myself]

OK, humans desire an accurate picture of their universe. Facts are the best tools humans have for the goal of an accurate picture of the universe. Therefore giving humans facts is more desirable than giving them beliefs that are unsubstantiated.

Thats circular logic.

Facts means something that is truthful.

Naturally, telling people things that are truthful will inform them of the true. Te issue is that you think you know what is not truthfull and play to say it is indoctrinating to tell kids that which you decided that you know is not truthful.

 

[Me Myself]

If you know something, it's so certain that you can prove it.

Thats your belief. Prove it.

If you know something, it's so certain that you can prove it. If you can't prove it, it's a belief.

It is a belief whether you can prove it or not.

 

[Curious George]

OK, humans desire an accurate picture of their universe. Facts are the best tools humans have for the goal of an accurate picture of the universe. Therefore giving humans facts is more desirable than giving them beliefs that are unsubstantiated.

Premise one is faulty it begs the question.

Humans desire truth- therefore truth is more desirable to humans?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

At what age can a child choose for their self? I believe the age of 12 was tossed out because it is roughly Piaget's age for abstract thought in development.

I think this is irrelevant, since we're talking about the parents' attempt to influence the adult the child will become. Regardless of what age you pick, the child will reach it eventually.

One could equally argue that denying a child spiritual guidance before the age of 12 is disrespectful and potentially harmful based on a number of factors.

If you think this, then feel free to go ahead and argue it.

Moreover, if you acknowledge that the actual harm is based on a number of factors then I guess Religious indoctrination is not the culprit here.

Not so fast. IMO, religious indoctrination has harmful aims. Some of the factors I had in mind were:

- some parents try to force their children into a religion but are unsuccessful. There would have been harm if they succeeded, and there may have been harm in the attempt, but is it necessarily harmful to try to do a harmful thing but fail?

- some parents pay lip-service to indoctrination but don't actually do it. For instance, there are "cultural Catholics" who get their kids baptized (and in the process, declare before the congregation and their god that they'll make the baby a little Catholic), but don't actually follow through.

Finally, this is another what should we collectively control and what should individuals control.

Yes, and I'm advocating for individual control: I say that you and I should both have the right to choose our own religious path according to the dictates of our consciences without coercion.

BTW, are you suggesting parents should not be allowed to religiously indoctrinate their children or are you just calling the one's who do bad parents?

Neither. I'm saying that all else being equal, religious indoctrination is worse than the alternative. I wouldn't necessarily say that a parent is a "bad parent" just because of this issue. For that sort of judgement, you'd need to know about all aspects of their parenting.

 

[Koldo]

Sure beliefs can be substantiated. And conclusions can be made as to what is better to achieve a goal, but whether that goal is better than a different goal always entails a second step with a value judgement.

That's correct.

Not so sure I follow.

If we tailor the argument down to a very specific argument- indoctrinating children with religious preference takes away their ability to an independent decision more so than not indoctrinating children with a religious preference.

I think that you will be hard pressed to find someone that disagrees with such a statement. However, when you say that such ought not occur then you are employing a belief.

Not necessarily. But eventually, it will indeed lead to value judgements.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What freedom? I believe in "free will" (in a certain sense), that choices are not (fully) predetermined, etc., but that there is a "freedom" to choose that would be denied if child was indoctrinated into a religious background as opposed to a non-religious background? I don't believe that.

I'm talking about "freedom" in a similar sense to a legal freedom. Think "an absence of coercion."

 

[Curious George]

Neither. I'm saying that all else being equal, religious indoctrination is worse than the alternative. I wouldn't necessarily say that a parent is a "bad parent" just because of this issue. For that sort of judgement, you'd need to know about all aspects of their parenting.

ahh, so you are just expressing your belief that one is worse than the other. Well, carry on then. I think that each parent needs to make this choice. Some will believe one path is more harmful, others will believe the other path is more harmful and still others will believe they are both neutral. But when all is said and done- these are just beliefs, which cannot be substantiated. Hence, why I think that this is an important decision that the child's parents ought to make.

 

[Curious George]

That's correct.



Not necessarily. But eventually, it will indeed lead to value judgements.

Thus, saying that that parents ought to do one over the other, that we should not allow the parents to do one or the other, or that doing so is bad or good- is merely a vocalization of a personal belief and a attempt to indoctrinate the children.

 

[Koldo]

ahh, so you are just expressing your belief that one is worse than the other. Well, carry on then. I think that each parent needs to make this choice. Some will believe one path is more harmful, others will believe the other path is more harmful and still others will believe they are both neutral. But when all is said and done- these are just beliefs, which cannot be substantiated. Hence, why I think that this is an important decision that the child's parents ought to make.

Curiously enough, you can't use that thought as an argument given your stance.

 

[Koldo]

Thus, saying that that parents ought to do one over the other, that we should not allow the parents to do one or the other, or that doing so is bad or good- is merely a vocalization of a personal belief and a attempt to indoctrinate the children.

An attempt to indoctrinate the children? How so?