Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[1137]

I am not missing this, I simply just don't agree. Even if a child is taught a religion at two years old, he or she will not even begin to understand it. Teaching it to them at age can do no harm (usually) if they don't even know what is being taught. If a child doesn't understand it, then I don't see how it could do him or her any harm.

Since when is religion about logic or explanation? It is about faith. Them not being able to understand is exactly the issue. They will growing up thinking "oh, if I do not behave I will suffer eternally" before even being able to truly understand or question the nature of religious thought.

 

[LuisDantas]

It really depends - completely, I dare say - of how the religion is taught.

 

[ChristineES]

Since when is religion about logic or explanation? It is about faith. Them not being able to understand is exactly the issue. They will growing up thinking "oh, if I do not behave I will suffer eternally" before even being able to truly understand or question the nature of religious thought.

You can force someone to go through the motions, but you can't make them have faith. We are not just speaking of religions that teach about hell or something, but of all religions, many that don't have a hell in their teachings. I have been speaking all along about teaching the child the faith of their parents, not about forcing them to follow it. Perhaps I didn't make that clear, but I am stating it here.

 

[thau]

Uh... what are you talking about?

People who are certain of God, heaven and hell do not risk their children's souls by not teaching them about the very thing that is most important to their lives and their happiness. To suggest we say nothing instead is truly a fool's voice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You can force someone to go through the motions, but you can't make them have faith. We are not just speaking of religions that teach about hell or something, but of all religions, many that don't have a hell in their teachings. I have been speaking all along about teaching the child the faith of their parents, not about forcing them to follow it. Perhaps I didn't make that clear, but I am stating it here.

From my perspective, I think my confusion arose from seeing one person argue against indoctrination and then seeing you respond with something about how teaching a child about religion was okay. Initially, I took this as your way of minimizing indoctrination by equating it with mere education. It sounds like that wasn't your intent.

 

[LuisDantas]

People who are certain of God, heaven and hell do not risk their children's souls by not teaching them about the very thing that is most important to their lives and their happiness. To suggest we say nothing instead is truly a fool's voice.

I don't think I would want to have anything to do with such people, much less being raised by them.

 

[1137]

As long as you maintain there is no evidence for God, then you have a point. But you are tragically wrong on that.

As long as you maintain there is no evidence for life after death, then you have a point. But because you are wrong that as well, only a very brainless or uncaring parent would abandon their children to the whims of the world (and teenage rebellion) and risk never seeing them again after death.

Your good intentions would yield tragic results, IMO.

If you have evidence of God and an afterlife, not only do you have a duty to share it but I'm sure there's also a Nobel Prize in it for you.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

... I honestly think you are either underplaying the severity of acts like rap

And not only rap, but rape is pretty bad too...

 

[Enai de a lukal]

This is good. This is not. Are statements made as if they were objective. They are not "My personal opinion is that you shouldnt hit your brother" they are "you should not hit your brother" "stop hitting your brother" "if you keep hitting your brother I will x"

Indeed. Which is why people had been misled into thinking there were such things as moral facts or truths, until a gentlemen named David Hume pointed out our error. Statements about morality are statements of preference, and disguised imperatives ("Murder is wrong" means, essentially, "I don't like murder- and don't do it)

Meet the Oxford:

Indeed. Now that you guys have become acquainted, we can dispense with the absurdity that feeding ones children or teaching them how to tie their shoes is also brainwashing.

I also wasnt talking specifically about rape but your blanket claim of not being able to imagine how psychological damage could be worse than physical, but maybe I read that wrong? I missed the word rape if it was in there

You may want to check the context. I pointed out that, even though indoctrinating ones children is distasteful and likely unethical, its ultimately not a great evil in the grand scheme of things- compared to, say, rape. Indoctrinating ones kids isn't bad as rape- a point I thought was eminently uncontroversial. Clearly I was wrong. (although I still think rape is a helluva lot worse than indoctrinating ones children)

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Saying no form of indoctrination could ever be worst than any form of rape is just a shot in the dark.

That's not what I said. I said that in general, rape is worse than indoctrination since rape nearly always involves (often extreme) psychological/emotional trauma, as well as frequently involving physical harm, whereas indoctrination at worst seems to involve psychological/emotional harm only (of course, there could be physically abusive parents who ALSO have indoctrinated their kids- but this is incidental, whereas violence is often integral to the act of rape).

Its slightly curious how you've gone from defending indoctrinating ones children to arguing that indoctrination can be worse than rape. Not a blatant contradiction, but there's certainly a tension there.

 

[thau]

I don't think I would want to have anything to do with such people, much less being raised by them.

You don't ask for much out of life, do you?

That throws me.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I never said it was indisputable... everything can be disputed, some people dispute the reality of a spherical Earth. I'm still going to teach any children I might have that the Earth is a spheroid.

The reality of getting run over by a car if you don't look first before crossing the street is not disputable in the same way that your religious beliefs are.

That's a mighty strong declaration.

The "choosing" of religion is no more personal or individual than the choosing of the quadratic formula.

Riiiiiight.

This patent absurdity sort of explains everything, if you fail to recognize the personal nature of choosing ones religion.

You wanted to talk about vanity and delusion earlier while you presume to know my motivations while having never met nor held a conversation with me?

Oh my bad, when we see a creature that waddles and quacks, we'd better ask IT first whether its a duck. Derp! Given that there's no ostensible benefit to the child from having been indoctrinated at a young age versus making an informed choice slightly later on in their life, this was a rather obvious observation- hardly going out on a limb there.

 

[LuisDantas]

You don't ask for much out of life, do you?

That throws me.

Are you trying to be enigmatic? I have no idea what you mean. Again.

 

[dantech]

Teaching your child to speak, to wash, to wipe, potty training, how to eat conveniently, going to school, doing their homework are all things that parents do to have their child, which is their responsibility, turn out the best way the parents can imagine. If a parent believes that the best way his child could turn out includes worshiping a being that the parents believe in as well, then they are doing the right thing.

Do you want to call it brainwashing? Go ahead, but call all of the above brainwashing as well.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Teaching your child to speak, to wash, to wipe, potty training, how to eat conveniently, going to school, doing their homework are all things that parents do to have their child, which is their responsibility, turn out the best way the parents can imagine. If a parent believes that the best way his child could turn out includes worshiping a being that the parents believe in as well

Then they are silly and naive (and wrong).

then they are doing the right thing.

No, that doesn't really follow.

Do you want to call it brainwashing? Go ahead, but call all of the above brainwashing as well.

Nah. Let's call brainwashing "brainwashing", and things that aren't brainwashing, like teaching your child to speak, to use the bathroom, to do homework, and so on, something else.

 

[dantech]

Then they are silly and naive (and wrong).


No, that doesn't really follow.


Nah. Let's call brainwashing "brainwashing", and things that aren't brainwashing, like teaching your child to speak, to use the bathroom, to do homework, and so on, something else.

Please explain, using logic, how they are not the same thing.

 

[thau]

Are you trying to be enigmatic? I have no idea what you mean. Again.

You need not probe me further as I appear to be adding nothing to the mix.

(final paraphrase) If you only care about what happens to you and your loved ones in this life only, then you are not asking for much. To deem life after death as something we need not worry about is absolute bewilderment to me. I believe the devil himself is playing a large part in diverting the masses from its importance by fancying their minds with temporal endeavors of miniscule value (by comparison). Things such as money, sex, parties, vacations, and retirement plans. And those people are going to try to tell me and my children how to live and what's of value? :O

 

[1137]

You need not probe me further as I appear to be adding nothing to the mix.

(final paraphrase) If you only care about what happens to you and your loved ones in this life only, then you are not asking for much. To deem life after death as something we need not worry about is absolute bewilderment to me. I believe the devil himself is playing a large part in diverting the masses from its importance by fancying their minds with temporal endeavors of miniscule value (by comparison). Things such as money, sex, parties, vacations, and retirement plans. And those people are going to try to tell me and my children how to live and what's of value? :O

But there's no reason to believe in life after death.

 

[LuisDantas]

You need not probe me further as I appear to be adding nothing to the mix.

(final paraphrase) If you only care about what happens to you and your loved ones in this life only, then you are not asking for much. To deem life after death as something we need not worry about is absolute bewilderment to me. I believe the devil himself is playing a large part in diverting the masses from its importance by fancying their minds with temporal endeavors of miniscule value (by comparison). Things such as money, sex, parties, vacations, and retirement plans. And those people are going to try to tell me and my children how to live and what's of value? :O

Do you think the devil has any interest in driving people to lead good, moral, worthwhile lives before death?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Please explain, using logic, how they are not the same thing.

Well, most obviously because teaching your children how to do certain things- such as tie their shoes, use the toilet, do long division and so on- do not involve inculcating any particular beliefs. Knowing how to do something is not the same as believing that thus-and-such is the case or is true. I can't brainwash you how to change a tire, but I can brainwash you into thinking that, e.g. a certain brand of tire is better than others.

Another important difference is that brainwashing is either intended, or has as a consequence, that critical evaluation is prevented- in general, we don't teach our children our religion by giving them arguments or evidence for our religion, or trying to persuade them of its truth in a critical manner; we tell them this is how things are. Critical evaluation only comes after (if at all), rather than before or during, as it should. And even if it comes after, as I've pointed out several times now, the playing field is not level- having been indoctrinated at a young age means the beliefs have become ingrained and cannot easily be dislodged, even if one is so inclined.

And the fact remains that, 10+ pages into the thread, we've seen a laundry list of reasons NOT to do it, and not a single argument listing any benefits of it. It just seems like a losing proposition; nothing is gained by it, as opposed to letting the child make an informed decision for themselves at a later and more appropriate age, and it would seem something is lost.