Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Koldo]

I did not say that the text said anything. I said your conclusion about the text is wrong.

You cannot conclude that it would not have happened. The most you can conclude, given assumptions of truth and sincerity in the note and assumptions that the daughter did not omit anything else of relevance, is that the daughter wanted to see her dad again.

My conclusion about the text?

It clearly says: 'A schoolgirl has killed herself because she was desperate to be reunited with her dead father in heaven.'

 

[Koldo]

Yes let's. Because this junk is called "appeal to emotion" and is generally recognized as a being a fallacious argument. It's illogical bunk that couldn't be less relevant. "The Soviet Union murdered and killed millions and it was atheist! Atheist indoctrination kills! Spread the word!" Please.

I see no appeal to emotion on that excerpt.
You should buy a new pair of glasses.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The matter is whether or not it was a relevant ingredient in the mix on this particular case.

No, it isn't. People have butchered, slaughtered, killed, and died in the name of religion. Nobody in their right mind would deny that. They've also done all this in the name of politics, self-righteousness, power, lust, and just about every powerful human emotion that there is a name for. We could talk examples until we're all dead. It would simply be a waste of time. Apart from anything else, our knowledge of mental health issues is so problematic that currently we have no system of diagnosis other than a largely arbitrary one invented 30 years ago in the hopes that by now we'd have something biological to go on. We don't and unless we give up this system we never will.

Already this thread is pretty much contra the entirety of the relevant scientific fields and theories by ignoring what indoctrination is. We can look at studies which show the tendency of religious indoctrination to do good or to do bad (e.g.,
Graham, Jesse, and Jonathan Haidt. "Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral communities." Personality and Social Psychology Review 14.1 (2010): 140-150.). In the end, we're still left with a subjective opinion of "bad" which requires a subjective morality to define it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I see no appeal to emotion on that excerpt.
You should buy a new pair of glasses.

Then either understanding the fallacy is beyond you or a single example of a child killing themselves is irrelevant.

 

[Koldo]

Then either understanding the fallacy is beyond you or a single example of a child killing themselves is irrelevant.

Or you need to buy a new pair of glasses.

 

[Koldo]

No, it isn't. People have butchered, slaughtered, killed, and died in the name of religion. Nobody in their right mind would deny that. They've also done all this in the name of politics, self-righteousness, power, lust, and just about every powerful human emotion that there is a name for. We could talk examples until we're all dead. It would simply be a waste of time. Apart from anything else, our knowledge of mental health issues is so problematic that currently we have no system of diagnosis other than a largely arbitrary one invented 30 years ago in the hopes that by now we'd have something biological to go on. We don't and unless we give up this system we never will.

Already this thread is pretty much contra the entirety of the relevant scientific fields and theories by ignoring what indoctrination is. We can look at studies which show the tendency of religious indoctrination to do good or to do bad (e.g.,
Graham, Jesse, and Jonathan Haidt. "Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral communities." Personality and Social Psychology Review 14.1 (2010): 140-150.). In the end, we're still left with a subjective opinion of "bad" which requires a subjective morality to define it.

What exactly are you argumenting against?
Did i ever deny that people can suicide for reasons completely unrelated to religion?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What exactly are you argumenting against?

The entirety of the premise for this thread and everything resulting from it. It's completely idiotic.

Did i ever deny that people can suicide for reasons completely unrelated to religion?

No. You just reveled in an emotional appeal for reasons I can't imagine. Also, before you complain it wasn't one, look up the ******* fallacy first. Promoting a suicide said to be for specific reasons we can't know are true in the face of the hideous number of total suicides is either a fallacious appeal or an abandonment of critical argumentation. Take your pick.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

But that means that the alternative suggested is also not a generality. All parents do not teach religious beliefs as fact. Since the OP implies a generality, even if there is only one set of parents who do not teach belief as fact, that reality renders the OP moot.

Hardly. At most, a distinction needs to be made- and one that is easy enough to concede, since the sort of religious education you have in mind is likely the exception rather than the rule, at least as far as Christianity is concerned. But the OP's point, that the religious indoctrination of children after the manner so described is inappropriate and wrong, stands regardless of the frequency of such indoctrination.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You cannot escape from teaching children beliefs.

Notice how I didn't say anything about teaching children beliefs, but teaching them beliefs as truths, and doing so in a manner that (often intentionally) circumvents their critical reasoning (by doing so at a young and uncritical age, from a position of authority, with repetition, etc.).

We are unable to know what is true.

Yeah, we don't generally have much trouble knowing what is true (a truth), and what might be true (i.e. a belief). If you honestly can't distinguish between, e.g. "2+2=4", "Barack Obama is the President of the United States", "Paris is the capital of France", and so on on the one hand, and that Christ died and rose again on the third day, or that taking the Lord's name in vain is wrong, then you should probably seek the help of a mental health professional.

Of course, the problem isn't necessarily distinguishing between the two, its more a matter of having the honesty and courage to admit that your beliefs are just beliefs, and may not be true, at the end of the day. Not everyone has the stomach for this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The point is that "suicide" is not a teaching in her religion. The sanctity of life is. The suicide is a result of aberrant thinking, not religious teaching.

I once heard a host on an atheist podcast raise an interesting point: any religion that preaches that an afterlife exists that's better than life on Earth has to also have a prohibition on suicide. Otherwise, the most rational course of action is to kill oneself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's seriously your criteria for determining whether something is "brainwashing"? Brainwashed: Believing that something is true that your parents have told you.

In that case, I was "brainwashed" when my parents told me that vegetables were good for me.

I was "brainwashed" when my teacher taught me that George Washington was the first President.

This would make every single child brainwashed. After all, all of them believes something that their parents taught them.

How many people who were raised in the US can't shake the irrational fear in adulthood that George Washington will punish them after they die for immigrating to another country?

 

[Sunstone]

I pity any person whose parents and teachers taught him or her what to think, but not how to think.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The entirety of the premise for this thread and everything resulting from it. It's completely idiotic.

Well, I can certainly agree that most of what has resulted from this thread has been completely idiotic; a field of strawmen, irrelevant semantic quibbles, and desperate attempts to muddy the water. The premise of the OP, however, is quite sound. The fact that it hinges upon a value judgment is hardly problematic, as I've already noted; if you don't place any sort of premium upon intellectual integrity or personal autonomy, then the conversation is essentially over. But if you do, then that the sort of religious education I've described (which is probably the norm for Christian households in certain parts of the US, and is far from rare more generally) is inappropriate is pretty much a given.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And just to anticipate a possible objection- some chimera of an ideal for autonomy or self-determination is not relevant here, because that essentially is a limiting factor upon all human behavior- thus, its a red herring. There is little question that informing a child about what religious teachings are out there, and allowing them to choose their religious commitments for themselves when they reach an appropriate age, is to allow them to exercise more independence and self-determination than the alternative (which is being attacked here)- teaching children religious doctrines uncritically and authoritatively at a young age, so that one effectively determines the child's religious affiliation for them. You don't think independence of thought or self-determination of personal identity are especially important? Then, as I said, the conversation is over; and that pretty much says it all.

 

[sojourner]

Do you claim to know what really happened?

Do you claim to know what was her reasoning to suicide at that moment?

I am not forgetting anything. I am aware this belief is not in itself sufficient to suicide. The matter is whether or not it was a relevant ingredient in the mix on this particular case.

And, as I've shown, it was not relevant. Millions of people espouse heaven, and millions do not commit suicide based on that teaching.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The premise of the OP, however, is quite sound.

Not until there is a scientific or otherwise defensible definition of "brainwashing" or even indoctrination. This isn't a new idea:
"‘To brand any act of teaching as propaganda or indoctrination is to damn it in the eyes of the educational world.’1 So wrote Ernest Horn, Professor of Education at the State University of Iowa, 1937. Although Professor Horn did not fully agree with such a derogatory concept of indoctrination, he nonetheless indicated the low estate of the term among many American educators and educationists. If anything, indoctrination is in even greater disrepute today. But such a concept of the term is of rather recent vintage. It may be surprising to many that little over half a century ago the employment of ‘indoctrination’ was no more offensive in educational circles than the use of ‘education’. Indeed, the two terms were practically synonymous. The interaction of socio-political and educational forces in relation to indoctrination during the past fifty years provides a basic framework for the study of significant developments in concepts of education in a democratic society."
from the first essay in
Snook, I. A. (Ed.). (1972). Concepts of indoctrination: Philosophical essays (Vol. 2). Routledge.

The fact that it hinges upon a value judgment is hardly problematic, as I've already noted

And I agree. The problem I have is with the fact that it is taken as given in by most of those in relevant field that indoctrination is part of being raised. You can't avoid it. The question becomes what can you avoid and why.

But if you do, then that the sort of religious education I've described (which is probably the norm for Christian households in certain parts of the US, and is far from rare more generally) is inappropriate is pretty much a given.

Not until you can define autonomy and indoctrination in a way that makes differentiating Christian beliefs and practices substantive. I've actually been kind of waiting on you for this (you and a few others, that is).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And, as I've shown, it was not relevant. Millions of people espouse heaven, and millions do not commit suicide based on that teaching.

And millions of Christians who believe in the literal truth of Matthew 6:25-34 have retirement savings. People compartmentalize.

Edit: but getting back to the topic of the thread, teaching kids to compartmentalize their beliefs isn't a good thing either.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

teaching children religious doctrines uncritically

This is key and (as I said earlier) I largely agree. But we have to teach children doctrines uncritically because critical reasoning isn't possible for children. We also have to teach them critical reasoning, but we don't regardless of religious upbringing or some other form of indoctrination. Indoctrination is a given or there wouldn't be such a thing as culture. Critical thinking is key but an indoctrination of moral relativism or communism is no better. There's literature on this too (from studies to books- some incredibly biased, like Horowitz, D. (2009). Indoctrination U.: The Left's War Against Academic Freedom. Encounter Books, and much better like Bloom, A. (2008). Closing of the American mind. Simon and Schuster). Until we have a reliable definition of indoctrination which separates that given by cultural, economic, social, political, and educational systems across the world such that we can look at religion specifically, then the entirety of this thread is an exercise in futility.

 

[sojourner]

Hardly. At most, a distinction needs to be made- and one that is easy enough to concede, since the sort of religious education you have in mind is likely the exception rather than the rule, at least as far as Christianity is concerned. But the OP's point, that the religious indoctrination of children after the manner so described is inappropriate and wrong, stands regardless of the frequency of such indoctrination.

First the OP has to prove that teaching beliefs to one's children is "inappropriate and wrong." So far, that hasn't happened. All we've heard is a lot of hyperbole, conjecture and vilification.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Not until there is a scientific or otherwise defensible definition of "brainwashing" or even indoctrination.

I can't speak for the OP, but I'm not especially concerned with hanging on to any particular label. "Brainwashing" and "indoctrination" suit my purposes, to be honest, mostly because of the pejorative connotations. But what we should call it is not really the angle I'm interested in here, rather, whether or not it is ethical or appropriate.

And I agree. The problem I have is with the fact that it is taken as given in by most of those in relevant field that indoctrination is part of being raised. You can't avoid it. The question becomes what can you avoid and why.

I don't disagree that indoctrination, broadly construed, is an integral and inseparable element of child-rearing. However, it does not follow that every particular instance of indoctrination is unavoidable, much less appropriate. And religious indoctrination certainly seems to be one case that is avoidable- nobody is holding a gun to parents heads, forcing them to do it.

Not until you can define autonomy and indoctrination in a way that makes differentiating Christian beliefs and practices substantive.

I think we've already done that, albeit piecemeal; you even touched on it yourself, with the comment about teaching kids critical thinking skills rather than any particular conclusions. And, ironically enough, there's a parallel here with my comments about secondary math/science education- I think that its more beneficial (albeit for somewhat different reasons in this case), to teach the child to fish, as it were, rather than giving them some fish; teaching children about religion, including your religion, and giving them the tools to deal with the matter themselves just seems to me to be obviously preferable to the alternative- mostly because independence of thought, intellectual integrity, and individualism are things I value extremely highly.