Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Willamena]

Because it can't be proven, as I've said many times already.

The assertion of a negation requires the same, it requires what the assertion of the posit requires.

 

[Magic Man]

The assertion of a negation requires the same, it requires what the assertion of the posit requires.

If what you're saying is that I have to prove my claim, I already have. A fact is something known to be true, and the only way to know it's true is to be able to prove it.

If you mean something else, you'll have to clarify.

 

[Me Myself]

If what you're saying is that I have to prove my claim, I already have. A fact is something known to be true, and the only way to know it's true is to be able to prove it.

If you mean something else, you'll have to clarify.

You missed this:

The sciences don't deal with proof precisely because there is no answer to the question "when is something investigated enough?". My 2 default examples are from physics and the cognitive sciences. What we call classical physics was (and in many ways still is) the most spectacularly successful scientific framework ever. It is the epitome of the so-called "hard sciences". Then, early in the 20th century, something happened. About a hundred years before Einstein's work in 1905, Young had successfully demonstrated ("proved", for our purposes) that light was a wave. It was a relatively simple experiment that you can reproduce for yourself. There is no way for particles to exhibit interference effects. Young showed light did, and thus had to be a wave. Then, early in the 20th century Einstein showed it was composed of discrete "packets" or particles. Neither researcher did anything wrong. Both experiments were sound, but they contradicted one another. There was no way for them to be both correct and nothing wrong with either, so what was the problem? The entire framework of classical physics. Neither particles nor waves really exist and pretty much all of physics up to that point turned out to be wrong (often approximating accuracy, but wrong nonetheless).
All experiments are performed within a framework. For example, for the last 30 odd years two general theories of cognition have existed in contradiction to one another. Embodied cognition holds that even fundamentally abstract reasoning relies on sensorimotor programs. So, for example, these is no language faculty or language module but rather language is a domain general skill that relies on things like metaphorical extensions of our physical experience (embodiment) in the world. There are decades of experiments behind this view, yet it is rejected by classical cognitive scientists. Why? Because they have different starting assumptions and therefore interpret experimental results differently. I once asked the head of my lab what would happen if embodied cognition scientists finally performed good enough experiments such that there were no alternate explanations possible. He said that we'd have to suspect the tools used were the problem. Why? Because he believes the framework itself to be so supported that if we don't find the evidence we should, we aren't looking the way we should.
It's a good thing that quantum physics didn't require any very complicated experiments, because nobody wanted it and nobody liked it. It was antithetical to the entire scientific program up to that point. However, there was no way around it. We weren't dealing with massively complex systems, incredibly vast data sets (as in e.g., an fMRI scan), lots of qualitative variables, etc. We were dealing with what was quite literally at that time the simplest systems imaginable. Yet we still had contradicting results. And now the three most successful physics frameworks, classical mechanics, relativistic physics and quantum mechanics are likewise in conflict with one another.

 

[Magic Man]

You missed this:

Nope, I saw it and addressed it. But thanks.

 

[Willamena]

If what you're saying is that I have to prove my claim, I already have. A fact is something known to be true, and the only way to know it's true is to be able to prove it.

If you mean something else, you'll have to clarify.

Your claim was to know what is in Me Myself's mind. I'm curious how you proved it.

 

[Me Myself]

I'm using "proof" as shorthand for "proven beyond reasonable doubt". Technically nothing is ever 100% proven, but there's a point where we can reasonably say it is. For instance, it's possible the world is not round, but we have more than enough evidence to consider it proven.

Oh and who decides what is reasonable evidence?

This is just too ridiculous.

A parent has the authority to make that choice for himself, and then on for what he will say to his children.

What the children decide is true lies on them.

 

[Magic Man]

Your claim was to know what is in Me Myself's mind. I'm curious how you proved it.

I never claimed to know what's in his mind.

 

[Magic Man]

Oh and who decides what is reasonable evidence?

Reason and logic.

This is just too ridiculous.

Agreed. I didn't think it was that tough to acknowledge what a fact is.

A parent has the authority to make that choice for himself, and then on for what he will say to his children.

Of course they do. No one has said otherwise. I'm just making a suggestion on the best way to go about raising children.

 

[idav]

Your question is irrelevant. The point is that the religious indoctrination caused someone harm by not giving them the tools to cope with loss outside of their religious beliefs.

The question is very relevant. Far as I can tell nothing is missing that needs to be learned from non-theism to cope with death. If anything believing in an afterlife allows for coping when atheism doesn't so it is a case of "false coping" vs. "no coping". The objection was that theists wouldn't know how to cope so what is it that atheists know that allow them to cope with death better than believers?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm using "proof" as shorthand for "proven beyond reasonable doubt".

Which is legal, not scientific. You might equally say "fact is just shorthand for things regarded as generally true by most" or some such definition. It is true that science doesn't deal in absolutes, but this isn't the real reason that "nothing is ever 100% proven'. After all, it's possible we all live in some matrix world, but that is sufficiently implausible (and pointless) to ignore. The problem is more deeply rooted. To determine whether some theory or hypothesis about the world is fact one needs to be able to separate the methods used to test the theory or hypothesis with the theory or hypothesis itself. In general, this is impossible (hence underdetermination of theory by data and other post-positivist critiques of the classical scientific paradigm). So, while for all intents and purposes statements like "the heart pumps blood" or "the earth is round" are "facts", if we required scientific theories/hypotheses to reach this level of confirmation we could throw global warming out the window, ask for a few decades more research on evolution at the least, decide that quantum physics isn't science, and basically tear down the entirety of the sciences around us.

Or we can admit that a great deal of what is generally considered to be fact is in fact likely inaccurate, wrong, incomplete/under-developed, misleading, or otherwise short of actual fact. Luckily, we don't need common discourse to meet the criteria or standards of academic discourse and we can just say "it's a fact" for things as a method of asserting that something is true. As soon as you try to defend such statements by bringing in the sciences you will run into a quagmire that currently grips the attention of philosophers of science and scientist the world over and has for a long time.

 

[Willamena]

If teaching a child there is a God is brainwashing, then so is teaching your child that there isn't a God- depending on how you look at it. Children are going to learn the religion their parents (if they follow one) are following even if the parents don't teach it to them.

If we go by what you say, what about teaching your child to say "please", "thank you", "sir and ma'am", etc? Is that brainwashing, as well?

I don't think any of us has the right to stifle what a parent teaches a child, including religion (and don't bring up abuse, that is a whole different topic) There will come a time in nearly every child's life that the child will question what the parents have taught. Despite the fact that I am a Christian and my husband says he is a Christian and my son knows my faith, he has decided for himself that he is an atheist- he is special needs, as well.

Children will learn from their parents religion, tradition, culture, manners, etc. And with a few exceptions, I see no problem with it. And what right would any of us have to tell a parent how he or she should raise his or her child?

As usual, the "correct" answer to the OP occurs right here in the 2nd post.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

As usual, the "correct" answer to the OP occurs right here in the 2nd post.

As someone who often makes the second post in threads, I concur.

 

[Levite]

Thought I would pop back in with this little gem:

I often hear people say that teaching (or forcing) religion to (or down the throats of) children is brainwashing, and all of a sudden you have a rumble on your hands. People see brainwashing as a term suggesting that they are doing something evil and harmful, and perhaps brainwashing is not the right term. However, it simply would seem unethical and questionable to push religion (ANY religion) onto children.

The problem with forcing such a solid system upon a child is a psychological one. One of the main reasons is the connection that children have with their primary caregiver. So much rides on this relationship throughout one's entire life, it affects all relationships and one's functioning in the world. If a child sees, from an extremely young age, that their shared belief in their parents religion is so important, it may stifle future questioning out of the fear of losing that connection. Of course the reverse is also true, during adolescence when a teen rebels against their parents and becomes more influenced by their peers, it may cause extreme rifts in families if the child chooses to use this fundamental connection against the parent (for example, LaVeyan Satanism make most of its profit off of this rebellion). It can, and often does, lead to regret on one side or the other.

This is hardly the only problem. Children cannot even think abstractly or question themselves and what they know until around the age of twelve. Think of, on average, how ingrained the family religion is by age twelve. I can see why families may want this, they believe they are correct and want their kids to be locked into the religion. I don't see the hate for the term "brainwashing" here, it sounds about as unethical as the process to me.

Now, many people argue that it has to do with morals and community. Well, I do not see why eternal and supernatural punishment is needed except in the case of lazy parenting. A simply understanding of punishment will suffice just as well. Condition your kids, use reinforcement and punishment and they will learn not to do what is "wrong" simply because there is punishment. There is not need to say "now Suzie, remember if you lie to mommy and daddy you will suffer for eternity", again it seems rather unethical.

So, I guess it comes down to a choice. What seems ethical is to try and raise your child in a realistic and open world, sharing your ideas with them as they enter adolescence and allowing them to reflect and make the decision for themselves. The only reason to do otherwise is to lock in a child's mind with the religion you wish them to have, but if that is the route you choose stop getting ***** when people use the terms "brainwashing" or "unethical".

First of all, not all religions teach eternal punishment.

Second of all, no parent worth his or her salt is going to teach their kid not to lie by threatening them with eternal damnation: not only is that horrifying theology and bad religious education, it's ineffective parenting. It's neither going to teach the kid not to lie or to believe in your religious doctrine.

Third, and most significantly, religion can be a part of culture. In which case, if the culture is to be passed on, the religion must go with it, and acculturation happens by immersive upringing. If the kid is not told from Day One that they are a member of this culture, and given the experiences to go along with that, they will have no reason to associate with the culture when they are adults. This is how any culture works.

So, you can feel free to call it "brainwashing" or "unethical," but don't get p***** if then people call your attitude intolerant and culturally imperialist.

 

[Mister Emu]

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.

A well rounded education includes both process and fact. Also, one of the best defenses against falsehood is being grounded in the truth. Its somewhat basic psychology.

Did your schools try to dump knowledge into you without questioning? If so, that's unfortunate.

Pretty much once I was in public schools... the goal was to promote the facts that would lead to higher scores on standardized tests.

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

I intend to shape them into someone who will find the truth, so yes.

I don't think that Russell's Teapot and Sagan's Dragon don't so much ridicule

Of course it is full of ridicule. Your belief is no different than believing in a giant tea pot in space... no, no, not ridicule at all.

Accepting some but not others is inconsistent and arbitrary.

No one accepts something merely because it is not disproved.

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

Hmm... interesting.

Since you haven't experienced that, hypothetically, what if you were out in the woods by yourself and you undeniably saw a sasquatch?

... 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.

Indeed. It is evidence.

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.

Perhaps I was a little over the top there...

 

[Falvlun]

Then it's not a fact.



Then I guess the word is useless and we'll have to stop using it altogether.

You all might be interested in the thread Knowledge and Belief. Enaidealukal, me, Monk of Reason, Ambiguous Guy, and Willamena have been hashing this out for over a month now.

 

[Curious George]

Logic is the process by which conclusions are inferred from evidence. Logic isn't evidence itself.

Well in that case, yes. I have your examples which logically demonstrate belief not fact. Whereas you have your examples which some irrationally assert depicts fact.

 

[Curious George]

I'm using "proof" as shorthand for "proven beyond reasonable doubt". Technically nothing is ever 100% proven, but there's a point where we can reasonably say it is. For instance, it's possible the world is not round, but we have more than enough evidence to consider it proven.

Yet you haven't met that threshold. You haven't even shown your claim that religious indoctrination is better by a preponderance of the evidence.

 

[Magic Man]

As long as I am aware of it and it is true, I know it. Given that I know it and it is true, it is a fact.

Facts dont need to be proven, just "known" . I know it, so there.

Well, except that you don't know it. If you knew it, you'd be able to prove it. If not, it's called belief. So, it's not a fact, unless you can prove it.

 

[Magic Man]

The question is very relevant. Far as I can tell nothing is missing that needs to be learned from non-theism to cope with death. If anything believing in an afterlife allows for coping when atheism doesn't so it is a case of "false coping" vs. "no coping". The objection was that theists wouldn't know how to cope so what is it that atheists know that allow them to cope with death better than believers?

You're still missing the point. The point is in the case of teaching that there's a heaven, the child learns to cope with death that way. They take solace in the idea that they'll see their loved ones again someday. When they stop believing in the religion, though, that gets thrown out the window, and now they are left with the idea that now they'll never see their loved ones again. It has nothing to do with how non-theism copes or which is better. It's about the fact that they're given something to make them feel better, and then it's taken away.

 

[Magic Man]

Or we can admit that a great deal of what is generally considered to be fact is in fact likely inaccurate, wrong, incomplete/under-developed, misleading, or otherwise short of actual fact.

I understand what you're getting at, but it's not relevant. Sure, technically we can't be 100% sure of anything. It's possible that facts we have now will be proven false in the future. That's all true. However, we're talking about the best way to raise kids. The best way to do that is to give them the best information we have right now. The way to do that is to stick to facts, or rather stick to teaching only things we know to be facts as facts. You can teach beliefs too, but it's best to be careful not to present them as facts. Is it a perfect system? Of course not, but it's the best one we can get as humans.