Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Magic Man]

This is getting tiresome, Me Myself. You can admit or deny it, but a fact is something known to be true, and the only way for that to happen is for their to be proof of it. That's all there is to it.

 

[Magic Man]

You seem to be making these distinctions up as you go.

Nope, I've been quite consistent. I just explained it clearly one last time for Me Myself. You're welcome to bring up the points you've already brought up, but it's not going to change facts only being facts when there is proof of them.

 

[Me Myself]

This is getting tiresome, Me Myself. You can admit or deny it, but a fact is something known to be true, and the only way for that to happen is for their to be proof of it. That's all there is to it.

You already admitted proof to be relative and moved on to "reasonable" "proof"

You also acknowledge that a lot of things we deem today even in the scientific atmosphera to be reasonable proof for x "fact" are likely to change, as it has often done in the past.

So... You are nowhere really. Your facts has no consistent definition apart frim your head.ñ

I on the oer hand base myself on the most authoritative sources of definitions for english ebing this Oxford Dictionary and Merriam Webster.

Also, anyone use the word "fact" as meaning truth, and truth is regarded for most people to be so evewithout human acknowledgement, so even popular understanding is on my part.

Then again it would be you that would need to demonstrate that society in general agrees that it is only a fact if society in general accepts it as so.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Not that it matters, but that is the goal, to find the truth.

It's a goal, not the goal. Were it the goal we wouldn't have legal systems like those of the US, Britain, France, Australia, Canada, and I'm sure a great many other places where e.g., evidence that is quite damning will be excluded if it is not e.g., obtained in a particular way. For example, historians, journalists, even scientists in certain cases have no problem using hearsay. They will use information that was obtained illegally (look at the Nag Hammadi library, which was recovered by a murderer who sold it to try to get himself off of the hook). Courts will not do this.

More importantly, we can look to the standards required in a criminal case vs. e.g., a lawsuit. Different standards are used. In a criminal case, the very idea that one can "prove" something "beyond a reasonable doubt" implies that there are other levels of proof. If proof meant "demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt" then that's all we'd have to say about a criminal case: guilt has to be proved. We don't. We say "proved beyond a reasonable doubt". And when someone is forced to pay another person even millions of dollars, or to give up their property, or both, this standard need not be met. The courts do not use the same standards of proof in all cases. Scientists don't use proofs. And mathematicians have very specific definitions regarding what is or isn't proof.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

This is getting tiresome, Me Myself. You can admit or deny it, but a fact is something known to be true, and the only way for that to happen is for their to be proof of it. That's all there is to it.

So if it is a fact that this is what a fact is, who else knows it but you?

 

[Me Myself]

I would like Magic Man to give us proof that societyy at large says that only at which is accepted by society as large as a fact is a fact.

 

[Magic Man]

It's a goal, not the goal. Were it the goal we wouldn't have legal systems like those of the US, Britain, France, Australia, Canada, and I'm sure a great many other places where e.g., evidence that is quite damning will be excluded if it is not e.g., obtained in a particular way.

That's just an acknowledgement of the fact that people can corrupt the system. The goal is to get the truth, and to do that, we try to make sure only legitimate evidence makes it through.

 

[Magic Man]

I would like Magic Man to give us proof that societyy at large says that only at which is accepted by society as large as a fact is a fact.

I would like you both to stop this nonsense.

 

[Me Myself]

I would like you both to stop this nonsense.

Do you have proof that this is nonsense or are you trying to indoctrinate us with such belief of yours?

 

[Me Myself]

Magic Man goes against the actual definition of fact because of his beliefs of what you should not teach your kids.

 

[sojourner]

Correct, which is why the issue is indoctrination, which is what raising a kid with religion means in 90% of cases.

I disagree with that percentage.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I would like you both to stop this nonsense.

You defined fact:

a fact is something known to be true

If this is indeed true, if it is a fact that "a fact is something known to be true", then why is it not the case that there is some evidence that this definition is "known to be true" other than by you?

 

[sojourner]

You said spiritual formation is fundamental to the identity of a person, but religious beliefs aren't. Hence, you're saying religious beliefs are not necessary for spiritual formation.

No, not necessary, but conducive.

 

[Kalidas]

I don't think most people are disputing that. As I've said ad naseum, raising your child atheist is on par with raising them to be Christian/Jewish/Muslim/etc, and is problematic for the same reasons. Children are not capable of understanding the relevant issues. They are highly impressionable. And religion is usually an intimate matter of personal identity. There simply is no good reason to not leave the matter until they are old enough to come to a reasonably responsible determination for themselves; and the fact that none of the defenders of religious indoctrination have even tried to enumerate any such reasons is instructive.

Children are not capable of understanding the relevant issue? Child development degrees don't fail me now!

Have you happened to have heard of the ecological theory/chart espoused by Brofenbrenner?? It talks about the development of young children. One of the main components of said chart is the Exosystems and their connecting systems known as the mesoystems. Essential our community helps shape who a child is. Now add this in with Erik Erkisons psychological stages. The first of which is trust vs mistrust, IE how well does the child trust their caregiver. This will in turn alter how a child will react to the new stimuli when they come into contact with their community. Having a strong bond with their care givers give them a strong sense of safety and an increased level of curiosity and adventure making them MORE apt to want to learn new things. So involving your child in as much about your life will help to build this bond and thus determine whether your child will grow to be securely attached or insecurely attached or detached completely

Next we will discuss Lev Vygosky and the "proximal zone of development".Psychologist Lev Vygotsky proposed that children learn through interactions with their surrounding culture. This theory, known as the socio-cultural perspective, states that the cognitive development of children and adolescents is enhanced when they work in their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD for short). To reach the ZPD, children need the help of adults or more competent individuals to support or scaffold them as they are learning new things.

Through the use of cultural norms we can help children establish a strong backbone of future learning. People are creatures of habit and structure, children are no different.

Next I will gladly discuss your idea that children are "unable to understand the relevant issue" with one of my favorite theorists Jean Piaget. There are 4 levels of cognitive development in children
sensorimotor,
preoperational,
concrete operational,
formal operational

preoperational-Concrete operation is the general age parents would take their children to church and they will be old enough to to take in the words and be "indoctrinated", age 2-11. This is the part that will begin the development of cognitive thinking. IE they begin to understand complex ideas and their general place in the world. Formal operational is right after this, this in when children begin the branch off on their own and think abstractly, using the building knowledge they had HOPEFULLY developed in the previous two stages. As stated before by Lev Vygotsky we need to help our children to "learn how to learn", the use of our culture is one of the MOST used by parents.

Next is probably my favorite Skinner, or the behaviorist. Through the use of conditioning we can condition responses to arise from an organism. Like it or not it IS a parents job to generate a positive behavior for their children so that they are capable to act as proper citizens. Some parents do believe in the use of religion to do this. Whether they talk about religion or not the conditioning of the parents WILL BE influenced by their beliefs. We learn from Skinner that intelligent beings like humans tend to learn better when things are presented in a logical way, to tell a child not to do something but never explain why will leave little impression on their growing minds (refer back to Jean Piaget). So the use of explanation (religious creed being a chief explanation tool in our world) will help create a longer lasting bond in their brain.

There is much I was unable to add due to time and just plain didn't want to make this into an essay. Want more? Do your own damn research.

 

[Magic Man]

I disagree with that percentage.

Noted.

 

[Magic Man]

No, not necessary, but conducive.

It's like pulling teeth. So, it's not necessary, which then brings us to the question I asked. How does one enable spiritual formation without religious beliefs?

 

[sojourner]

What if no religion is right for the person? Why can't the child experience the religions later without having them forced on him/her?

Sometimes I think that's the case.

They can (and do). What about religions that aren't forced on a child, but inculcated gently and with love?

 

[sojourner]

It's like pulling teeth. So, it's not necessary, which then brings us to the question I asked. How does one enable spiritual formation without religious beliefs?

This is off the top of my head, because I've approached spiritual formation from a religious standpoint. I'd say that it would be difficult -- more so than approaching it through some religious practice. I'd say that, to an extent, humanism might be able to do the trick.

 

[Magic Man]

Sometimes I think that's the case.

Then wouldn't it be better to let them decide?

They can (and do). What about religions that aren't forced on a child, but inculcated gently and with love?

Then it doesn't accomplish what you were saying - giving them the experience of the religion. And by "forced on a child" I just mean taught to them as fact.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There are 4 levels of cognitive development in children
sensorimotor,
preoperational,
concrete operational,
formal operational

I like Piaget as much as the next individual, but he's pretty outdated here.

This is the part that will begin the development of cognitive thinking.

FYI: there's no other type of thinking. Cognition is thinking and there is no non-cognitive thinking.

Next is probably my favorite Skinner, or the behaviorist.

Behaviorism is only part of the picture and generally speaking a pretty small part. Even genetic theories of behavior that are post-Behaviorist are turning out to be more and more epigenetic and involve a complex relationship between "nature" & "nurture". That said, humans aren't blank slates.

So the use of explanation (religious creed being a chief explanation tool in our world) will help create a longer lasting bond in their brain.

That doesn't seem like Skinner or Piaget talking.

Do your own damn research.

Alas, research doesn't really resolve issues like this. Frequently we can determine what outcomes will tend to be given some policy, practice, etc., but whether it is better or worse depends upon whether it is considered better or worse to begin with. That's why I bury my head in the literature and concentrate on (relatively) neat little worlds of models and theories. These are complex and problem-laden enough without having to factor in religious beliefs, morality, ethics, etc.