Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Curious George]

An attempt to indoctrinate the children? How so?

Because creation of policy and/or advocating or persuading parents to raise their child one way is an attempt to control the child through the parent.

If you are trying to force beliefs upon a child who cannot critically think about such beliefs then you are attempting to indoctrinate said child.

 

[Curious George]

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

Absolutely, I can. It is my opinion.

My stance is certainly encompasses that other opinions are equally as valid/invalid as mine. Moreover, my opinion demonstrates personal value judgements however, I am not so egotistical as to deny them.

 

[Koldo]

Because creation of policy and/or advocating or persuading parents to raise their child one way is an attempt to control the child through the parent.

If you are trying to force beliefs upon a child who cannot critically think about such beliefs then you are attempting to indoctrinate said child.

Considering that we are talking against a particular practice, that would entail telling parents not to do something. If not teaching something is indoctrination then parents are massively indoctrinating their children all the time...

 

[Koldo]

Absolutely, I can. It is my opinion.

My stance is certainly encompasses that other opinions are equally as valid/invalid as mine. Moreover, my opinion demonstrates personal value judgements however, I am not so egotistical as to deny them.

You can not arguee that 'this is an important decision that the child's parents ought to make'. That's what I meant. Because there is as much reason to accept this as its opposite given your stance.

 

[Curious George]

Considering that we are talking against a particular practice, that would entail telling parents not to do something.

Incorrect. You are talking about employing a belief. Doing such instills value in such a belief.

If not teaching something is indoctrination then parents are massively indoctrinating their children all the time...

Absolutely. Omission also illustrates and teaches values. Many children are incapable of critically analyzing their beliefs but this fact does not prohibit them from having such beliefs. Children learn through observation and participation. And what is not done is as important as what is done.

 

[Curious George]

You can not arguee that 'this is an important decision that the child's parents ought to make'. That's what I meant. Because there is as much reason to accept this as its opposite given your stance.

I am starting to think that you do not understand my stance.

 

[Koldo]

Incorrect. You are talking about employing a belief. Doing such instills value in such a belief.

Correct. Regardless, we are still telling parents not to do something.

Absolutely. Omission also illustrates and teaches values. Many children are incapable of critically analyzing their beliefs but this fact does not prohibit them from having such beliefs. Children learn through observation and participation. And what is not done is as important as what is done.

Really? You are taking this too far.
This means that it is impossible to don't indoctrinate children. Which renders this whole debate redundant.

 

[Koldo]

I am starting to think that you do not understand my stance.

Please do explain why you are thinking this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Once again, I think we are going to disagree because of how we view the nature of religious beliefs. I don't view it as any different than another sort of knowledge, and I'm not going to pretend knowledge at all doesn't exist until my children are old enough to properly think critically(which can go into the late teens and adulthood).

Your request that I be neutral on religion with my children is the exact same thing as you a request that I should be neutral on the idea of holocaust denial, or (again, because I like them so much) reptilian overlords, or the shape of the Earth. It is all knowledge, it is all the same sort of thing and there is no reason to treat religion differently in terms of neutrality. If anything, given its import one should find themselves far more apt to bring their child up in the correct information.

I don't think you understand my position. What I'm saying is that it's better to focus on the process than the outcome. This is by no means neutral to things like reptilian overlords or holocaust denial, because it's based entirely in logic, reason, and critical thinking, so it's diametrically opposed to ideas that are based in illogic, lack of reason, or uncritical acceptance.

I think you create a double standard for religion compared to other sectors of knowledge. Either, once again, we view religion through entirely different lenses, or you must wish the shut down of schools, the purveyors of knowledge without questioning, until the same age as you find it acceptable to influence on religion.

Did your schools try to dump knowledge into you without questioning? If so, that's unfortunate. Mine did a good job (IMO) of teaching critical thinking and the mental tools needed to evaluate new ideas. We learned some facts (lots of facts, actually), but I can't think of any cases where they were given without an opportunity to test them: when we were presented with an idea in science class, this was followed up with a lab session for us to test the idea for ourselves. Even when we learned Shakespeare's Richard III in English, we learned about other historical accounts of Richard III's life in History and were given asked lots of questions about how we should try to figure out what happened when we have conflicting accounts.

Absolutely, no disagreement there, and hopefully they'll be as confident as me.

I think you confuse the fact that I plan to raise children in the truth in their formative years with the idea that I would somehow demand they assent to it later (one can't force assent).

I think you intend to shape them into someone who will believe in the Catholic Church, no?

I'm asking, in regards to the teapot or dragon argument to ridicule.

I don't think that Russell's Teapot and Sagan's Dragon don't so much ridicule as they expose the underlying absurdity of assenting to ideas without proof: it's easy to think of an almost infinite spectrum of things that have no evidence but can't be disproven. Accepting some but not others is inconsistent and arbitrary.

What would you have the hypothetical person do? What would you do if you knew something to be true but could not demonstrate it? Would you just be quiet about it, ignore that you discovered a truth? That is what the flying teapot demands.

Frankly, I can't think of anything that I knew to be true but had no external evidence.

I mean, I was trying to think of what might fit that bill. The only thing that popped into my head was "my emotions", but I realized that even that would fail, since when I act in accordance with those emotions, those actions are external evidence for what I know.

Another reason why specifics matter here: the nature of the "knowledge" can imply predictions of its own. For instance, if what I "know" is that a deity exists, and that this deity is trying to instill faith in him in every person, then it would make no sense for him to give a message only to me. At the very least, I'd expect that there would be many other people out there who have also received revelations, and that their "knowledge" and mine would be perfectly compatible.

... and if many people with no prior relationship could all be shown to have the same knowledge that they could not have obtained by conventional means, that itself would be evidence.

Also, Occam's Razor is far from compelling. It has general application, but when dealing with specifics is very lacking.

I disagree, though this might be a matter of different perspectives on the same thing. I think it's a very useful tool, but not always perfect. If you consider anything less than perfect to be "very lacking", I suppose that's your prerogative, but I don't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

When thinking about which option is better, though, I notice that I've yet to see large numbers of people claim that a lack of religion in their upbringing caused them harm. The same can't be said for the other side:

Religious Trauma Syndrome

 

[Curious George]

When thinking about which option is better, though, I notice that I've yet to see large numbers of people claim that a lack of religion in their upbringing caused them harm. The same can't be said for the other side:

Religious Trauma Syndrome

It doesn't have to be about harm. It could simply be that people feel that children will miss out. However I am sure if you look hard enough you will find people in the world who claim such.

I don't think anyone will deny that some religious sects cross a line, and abuse their children. But specific instances are not proof for ALL religions.

 

[Me Myself]

When thinking about which option is better, though, I notice that I've yet to see large numbers of people claim that a lack of religion in their upbringing caused them harm. The same can't be said for the other side:

Religious Trauma Syndrome

Looking at the causes, it doesn't seem like it would need be exclusive to religion at all.

It seems it talks about a very specific way of enforcing religion that had caused thrauma and a way that can be replicated without religion too.

So it is not reasonable to believe it was teaching religion that caused the problem.

 

[LuisDantas]

Looking at the causes, it doesn't seem like it would need be exclusive to religion at all.

It seems it talks about a very specific way of enforcing religion that had caused thrauma and a way that can be replicated without religion too.

So it is not reasonable to believe it was teaching religion that caused the problem.

It is possible to simulate Religious Trauma Syndrome without religion... but so what?

It is also possible to have artificially induce many other dangers outside of their typical cause-effect chains. Does that many them any less significant?

 

[LuisDantas]

It doesn't have to be about harm. It could simply be that people feel that children will miss out. However I am sure if you look hard enough you will find people in the world who claim such.

I don't think anyone will deny that some religious sects cross a line, and abuse their children. But specific instances are not proof for ALL religions.

Sure. And that is very much besides the point. Why are you even bringing up this universality clause?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It doesn't have to be about harm. It could simply be that people feel that children will miss out. However I am sure if you look hard enough you will find people in the world who claim such.

If *I* look hard enough? If you want to put forward an argument, it's up to you to do the work to support it.

I've heard lots of people claim that they've been harmed by religious indoctrination. I've never once heard someone say "you know, I feel that I was really deprived by my parents not forcing a religion on me as a kid." Have you? You seem really concerned about the downside of a non-religious upbringing. The way it seems to rile you up, I can only assume that you're basing your position on something more than hypotheticals, right?

I don't think anyone will deny that some religious sects cross a line, and abuse their children. But specific instances are not proof for ALL religions.

Of course not. Not all religions teach religious indoctrination, and not all people follow the teachings of their religion. Who do you think argued this?

 

[Magic Man]

Thats circular logic.

No, it's not.

Facts means something that is truthful.

True.

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.

Yes, we know that supernatural beliefs are not facts. It is indoctrinating kids when you tell them beliefs as if they are facts.

 

[Magic Man]

Thats your belief. Prove it.

No, it's a fact. Knowledge is when something is proven. Belief is when something is not proven.

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

No, if you can prove it, it's knowledge.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

Yes, they are beliefs, and some of them are better than others because some are less likely to result in harm.

 

[metis]

There's a difference between education and indoctrination, the latter of which implies supplying only one-sided information, even if that information turned out to be true. I'm sure there are many here that want their children to be informed of religious matters but don't want their kids to just blindly follow one way of thinking. Yes, many do do the latter, and I have long had problems with that approach.

No matter which approach is used, children as they grow up tend to question much of what they were brought up with, and this isn't bad, imo. I went through this process, and my guess is that many here have also gone through it as well.

But even as an agnostic, I feel that it was best for us to bring up our children within the religious context, especially for the teaching of morals and values. Also, it tends to get kids involved with other kids who also are being brought up with these same morals and values.

However, with this being said, this is not to imply that only a theistic upbringing can teach morals and values. But both as a parent and a grandparent, it certainly can help.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Looking at the causes, it doesn't seem like it would need be exclusive to religion at all.

It seems it talks about a very specific way of enforcing religion that had caused thrauma and a way that can be replicated without religion too.

So it is not reasonable to believe it was teaching religion that caused the problem.

I only gave the link as background information. My point was just that many people claim that their childhood religious indoctrination caused them not only harm, but actual trauma. OTOH, I can't recall ever hearing anyone who wasn't indoctrinated in a religion say that they wish they had been, let alone claim that their lack of indoctrination caused them harm. Have you?