Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Magic Man]

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.

I realize you believe that, but I've shown it to be wrong.

 

[idav]

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.

I realize all that. I was talking to someone a couple days ago and i brought up the phrase "they are in a better place" which s pretty comon but i never liked it. truth is we dont know what is after death so nothing wrong with a little hope. I try to keep discouraging opinions to myself when people are going through trying times.

 

[Me Myself]

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.

Thats just false. You cant prove otherwise either. Not always can we prove our knowledge.

If I witnessed a crime it is posible that I wouldnt be able to prove it.

By the way, are you awake?

 

[Me Myself]

I understand what you're getting at, but it's not relevant.

Thats just your belief. I find it very relevant,

By the way, are you awake?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

And I feel that even if what you teach a kid is true, if you just do it through indoctrination without giving them the tools to discern for themselves whether it actually is true, then you're setting them up to be misled by the next guy who comes along selling falsehoods as true.

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

That's unfortunate. I'm not sure what to say except that I think schools should be better than that.

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

I think my point still stands: IMO, what you describe is less rooted in critical thinking than is possible without the religious indoctrination.

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.

Is it ridicule to say that the emperor has no clothes?

No one accepts something merely because it is not disproved.

I agree, but earlier, you seemed to argue that because the Catholic faith has not been disproven, it's reasonable for you to believe in it. If there's more to your position, feel free to share. The reason why I brought up Russell's Teapot was to illustrate that merely not being disproven doesn't make a belief reasonable.

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?

How could it ever "undeniable" without other evidence? As long as we're talking about something that's not verified outside my own head, how could we exclude the possibility that I hallucinated the whole thing?

And even apart from that, a Sasquatch is something that implies physical evidence exists: wild animals have ranges for hunting and foraging, so we'd expect one to travel over some sort of area regularly. And we would also be expecting more than just one animal; a population has to have at least a few hundred individuals to be genetically viable, so there should be many more Sasquatches kicking around, not just one. There should also be Sasquatch skeletons and Sasquatch scat.

To bring this back to religion, something similar can be said for God: it would be a strange, weak sort of god that left no measurable sign. And in the Christian case, we're told to expect scads of evidence... so much that unbelievers are "without excuse". Regardless of what any individual thinks they've seen, in the Christian context, if there isn't lots of evidence available to everyone, then done thing doesn't add up.

Indeed. It is evidence.

It would be evidence if it was true. Do you want to discuss whether it is?

 

[Magic Man]

Thats just false. You cant prove otherwise either. Not always can we prove our knowledge.

If I witnessed a crime it is posible that I wouldnt be able to prove it.

By the way, are you awake?

That's true. If you witnessed a crime, you might not be able to prove it, so it wouldn't be a fact. I think that illustrates it pretty well.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That's true. If you witnessed a crime, you might not be able to prove it, so it wouldn't be a fact. I think that illustrates it pretty well.

It certainly takes any meaning from the word fact.

 

[Magic Man]

It certainly takes any meaning from the word fact.

Nope, it defines it in the most accurate way.

 

[sojourner]

Religious beliefs are one of those things that are so fundamental to the identity of the person that to impose them on someone else amounts to disrespecting his personhood.

I disagree. Spiritual formation is one of those things that is fundamental to the identity of a person, but not religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are merely structures for enabling spiritual formation.

I object to parents pretending that their babies are little Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc., and to them raising them as if their religious beliefs are a question that's been settled permanently.

Why? If a cultural context is necessary for healthy socialization, then what's wrong with the cultural context in which the parents thrive? it's as if you're saying that there's something inherently wrong with the Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim context.

A few years back, I was the coach for a robotics team at an elementary school. It was great - not only did it get the kids excited about math and science, it really helped the self-esteem of a bunch of the kids and helped forge friendships. At the end of our season, the teachers decided to throw a pizza party to celebrate the team's accomplishments. They sent a letter home to the parents telling them about the team's season and the party.

The next day (as I was told by one of the teachers later), one of the kids on the team came up to her in tears. He said that his parents wouldn't let him go to the pizza party because the pizza wouldn't be halal. Apparently, they also didn't trust their son to not eat the pizza if he attended the party but brought his own food. He was excluded from a celebration of his own success because of his parents' desire to impose their religious beliefs on him.

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

You've got it backward, though. As a teacher, your primary responsibility is to know your students and to accommodate their religious beliefs. It was wrong of you to offer a party that was in violation of the sincerely-held religious beliefs of your students -- not wrong of the parents to rear their child with sincerely-held religious beliefs. You were the cause of the conflict -- not the parents or their beliefs.

 

[sojourner]

It isn't a trespass.


Yay, elitism. It doesn't surprise me that you reference Fowler's stages of "development".

If you think "Religion is values" or that religion is about finding our place in world and self-worth, then it is clear you don't "understand what the hell is going on".

Religion is about metamorphosis. It is about the soul changing relationship where the very real divine essence reaches out to us. A religion that is values is a sad and shriveled thing.

You may have "belief", but it seems apparent you don't have the faith.

And what is at the heart of the metamorphosis (I prefer "transformation")? what lies at the heart of that relationship change where the Divine essence reaches out to us? Value. Our own worth as it relates to the Divine that is discovered within us.

 

[sojourner]

Trying to deny a child the freedom to choose their own path on a matter of conscience is certainly disrespectful.

Trying to deny a child a definable cultural context that is not in conflict with the household in which the child is being reared is disrespectful. Children are not free to choose their own path, until they understand themselves as distinct from their parents, and until they understand that "path" as differentiated from their life.

 

[sojourner]

Belief in gods, circumcision, prayer, saints, reincarnation, rebirth, afterlife, spirit world, mediumship, dietary laws, proselytism, belief in divinely inspired texts, shatnez law, mantras, clerical celibacy, religious marriage...

It is not all about values.

Belief in the Divine is a placement of value on the universe.

Circumcision is a tangible, physical reminder of a covenantal relationship. the covenant values a relationship beyond friendship.

Prayer places a premium, or value, on connecting with our truest self.

Saints ascribe worth to individuals who more fully reflect the spiritual values that are inculcated.

Reincarnation places a value on the human soul, such that the soul is not destroyed, but further developed.

Rebirth -- see above.

Afterlife -- see above.

Spirit world places a value on the event-horizon of the human spirit.

Mediumship values the intuitive processes that connect us more deeply with the world around us.

Dietary laws -- see "circumcision."

Proselytism places a value on others, and on the deep community that may be formed through the inclusion of others, such that all individuals benefit from the connection.

Belief in divinely-inspired texts places a value on the stories, myths, lore, poetry, music, culture, and other creative processes as reflective of the community that produces and holds them.

Shatnez law -- see "circumcision" and "dietary law."

Mantras value thought-forms as highly-intuitive means to access our truest selves.

Celibacy values the relationships between clergy and community, and between clergy and God.

Marriage values the spiritual aspect of two people -- not only "living together," but becoming spiritually "one flesh." It values the deep relationship wherein both individuals benefit from each other, thus more fully reflecting the Divine.

 

[sojourner]

If someone was this easily flummoxed by religion, I'd hate to see how confusing they find the rest of life to be.

Hah! Most people are easily flummoxed by their own lives! To wit: rampant substance abuse, codependent behavior, and social and emotional maladjustment.

 

[sojourner]

Was this before or after wikipedia?

Since spiritual formation is generally more an experiential process than an intellectual encounter, I'd have to say that Wikipedia isn't real helpful here.

 

[LuisDantas]

Trying to deny a child a definable cultural context that is not in conflict with the household in which the child is being reared is disrespectful. Children are not free to choose their own path, until they understand themselves as distinct from their parents, and until they understand that "path" as differentiated from their life.

While that is certainly true, it cuts both ways. It may at least as easily serve as an argument against allowing parents to raise their children too unaware of the general trends of their society, including cultural and religious diversity.

 

[sojourner]

the point is raising a kid with an absence of religion is not equal to raising them with religion. It's better to not indoctrinate the kid.

Raising a kid with religion does not necessarily mean they are indoctrinated. Raising a kid without religion does not necessarily mean they are not indoctrinated.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Religion isn't an "interest." It's a way of life -- no better or worse than any other way of life.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Shall children also have the right to choose their own genetic heritage according to the dictates of their consciences, their own national identity according to the dictates of their consciences, and their own health dispositions according to the dictates of their consciences?

 

[sojourner]

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

Yes, but that's a little misleading, because it really doesn't have anything to do with the religion, but with the way the religion was applied. In other words: Bad parenting.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Hah! Most people are easily flummoxed by their own lives! To wit: rampant substance abuse, codependent behavior, and social and emotional maladjustment.

Yep, sounds like the type of thoroughly confused people who often end up finding religion. Easily confused people often need the consistency and certainty of dogmatic rules.