Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[sojourner]

Exemplifying?

It could mean either an enclosed life on a school or a monastery, or living in the woods completely free.

It could mean either being completely egoistic, or completely unselfish.

An ascetic, or an hedonist.

It could be anything at all.

Well... not anything at all -- but a lot of things. Where's the problem with that?

 

[Koldo]

You are pretending to know my motivations?

Which specific bias do you have in mind that motivates me without my acknowledgement or against my claims?

Oh, you are well aware of it.

 

[Koldo]

yeah, but that belief didn't force her to kill herself.

Oh, no. It didn't. It just corrobated to that end to the point of being essential for this particular suicide.

 

[Koldo]

Because it was the context for the suicide. There's a big difference.

What evidence do you have for that?

 

[Koldo]

Dear God!!!

Let's require everyone to show that lack of brain activity is sufficient for death to happen, too!

:sarcastic

 

[Koldo]

Even with indoctrination there is always doubt, there is no reason to think that the person really believed that they would see their loved ones. I guess depends on how much doubt or hope the person has at the time but I assume that a person having suicidal thoughts is in deep into doubt and hopelessness.

There was a suicide note.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But you said I have one:

''What matters is the logic of your argument.''

As there is no logic to it, it's not an argument. It's a misuse of logic and reason. You pick a single example

Because it was essential to this particular suicide.

Let's grant that this is true. What bearing does it have on whether religion is a form of harmful indoctrination? Well, if we look at general statistics we find that in general religion is a check against suicide. So the example is pointless.

But WAIT! There's more. Because you get a twofer here. Not only is the example a fallacious appeal, but the logic behind it's use is flawed. Clearly, the child seems to have chosen suicide via reasoning regarding a religious concept. Only this says nothing about whether or not we should teach children notions like heaven unless what the child did was consistent with what the child was taught. After all, it's possible to learn all sorts of things the wrong way and come to harm. If this is simply a matter of the child be taught incorrectly than it is the teaching method (or lack thereof) not the doctrine or concepts. And what do we find? That Christians don't teach suicide is a way to be reunited with loved ones in heaven. In fact, most of them adhere to doctrines in which one will end up in hell for this choice. So even if we were to use this ridiculous emotional appeal as a basis for anything, all we could validly conclude is that the child learned the wrong lesson and it was the lesson or teaching which is to blame not religion. You get two fallacies for the price of one: emotional appeal and category error.

 

[Koldo]

According to both the DSM and the ICD suicide is a symptom of mental illness. There is no mental illness "religion".
Go science.

Good. We have established she had a mental illness.
Now what? How does this exclude her religious belief from being an essential reason for her suicide?

 

[sojourner]

Oh, no. It didn't. It just corrobated to that end to the point of being essential for this particular suicide.

I don't think so. I think that, by the time people are so emotionally unhinged that suicide seems like a good choice, they'll find reasons wherever they can. If the girl had been atheist, she probably would have committed suicide on some other grounds. It was her grief and hopelessness over her father that was the compelling factor here -- not the religious belief that she would see him. "I will see him" is not a compelling factor for suicide. Unless one is already unhinged to the point that suicide seems like a good idea. It wasn't that belief that unhinged her.

 

[Koldo]

Well... not anything at all -- but a lot of things.

What could it not be understood as?

Where's the problem with that?

Other than being vague?

 

[sojourner]

What evidence do you have for that?

What evidence is needed that drunkenness was the context for a DUI accident?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Good. We have established she had a mental illness.
Now what? How does this exclude her religious belief from being an essential reason for her suicide?

Because mental illnesses, according to the medical sciences, are biological illnesses. According to the psychological (and correct view), things aren't so simple but there is never a single reason for mental illness and it cannot be caused by religion according to any medical theory of mental illness or according to any scientific theory (although in the latter case, it can be a key factor).

 

[sojourner]

Let's try it this way:

We both agree a child should grow up with a sense of self-worth and an ability to relate to his surroundings and people. You call that spiritual formation, and I don't.

You think to achieve that goal, it's OK for a parent to give their child one particular religious path. I'm trying to figure out why. Religion is unnecessary for a child to learn those things. Why not just teach them how to relate to other people and society in general and teach them to value themselves, and let them decide on a religion when they're old enough to make an informed decision themselves?

Because religion imparts a particular meaning to those endeavors that provides a cultural context congruent with that of the parents.

 

[Koldo]

As there is no logic to it, it's not an argument. It's a misuse of logic and reason. You pick a single example

But you said there was an argument...
Nevermind.

Let's grant that this is true. What bearing does it have on whether religion is a form of harmful indoctrination?

As a whole? None. You keep repeating the same mistake: Misunderstanding my argument.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

None.

Great. That takes care of any possible relevance your argument could have. Now there's just the category error of the use of your example if we ignore the first fallacy.

 

[sojourner]

What could it not be understood as?

Something that hinders the freedom to place a valid worth -- or that places an invalid worth -- upon someone.

Other than being vague?

It's not vague. It's multivalent. If any understanding was being obfuscated, then it would be vague. A multiplicity of understandings isn't vague.

 

[Koldo]

I don't think so. I think that, by the time people are so emotionally unhinged that suicide seems like a good choice, they'll find reasons wherever they can. If the girl had been atheist, she probably would have committed suicide on some other grounds. It was her grief and hopelessness over her father that was the compelling factor here -- not the religious belief that she would see him. "I will see him" is not a compelling factor for suicide. Unless one is already unhinged to the point that suicide seems like a good idea. It wasn't that belief that unhinged her.

What evidence do you have to support your take on this particular case?

 

[Koldo]

Because mental illnesses, according to the medical sciences, are biological illnesses. According to the psychological (and correct view), things aren't so simple but there is never a single reason for mental illness and it cannot be caused by religion according to any medical theory of mental illness or according to any scientific theory (although in the latter case, it can be a key factor).

Good. Her mental illness was not caused by a religion.
Now, my question still remains.

 

[Koldo]

Great. That takes care of any possible relevance your argument could have. Now there's just the category error of the use of your example if we ignore the first fallacy.

It is relevant for what it was intended as.
Do not blame your misunderstanding of my position on me.

 

[Magic Man]

Because religion imparts a particular meaning to those endeavors that provides a cultural context congruent with that of the parents.

So, it would be cool to to try to force the kid into the same line of work as the parents because it imparts a particular meaning to their endeavors that provides a cultural context congruent with that of the parents? I do appreciate your ability to use college-level words, but all you're really saying is that parents should teach their kids their religion because it teaches them the parents beliefs and culture. I'm still trying to figure out why that's an acceptable thing.