Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Willamena]

It appears that those who have a problem with parents teaching children religious beliefs is because (they believe) that these beliefs aren't true.

No, it's just because they're religion.

 

[Me Myself]

Empathy is rational; it's just an example of logical consistency.

Presumably, the child has at least a few desires that he wants to impose on others (e.g. "my sister shouldn't hit me" or "my classmates shouldn't tease me"). Once you explore his reasons behind these restrictions he wants on the behaviour of others, you'll inevitably get to something that applies in the other direction, too, e.g.: "my classmates shouldn't tease me because it makes me feel sad, and it's bad to feel sad"; the "its bad to feel sad" part can now form the basis for why the child shouldn't do things that make others feel sad.

... and suddenly, you've demonstrated morality to the child using nothing but logical consistency and the feelings he was feeling anyway.

Empathy is emathy. The children could have problems with the empathic part of his brain and have the rational part intact.

"You wouldnt want others to trase you" is not a rational directive ,it is an emotional one.

 

[Me Myself]

It's pretty easy. I'd tell him that if he does those things, he's likely to cause trouble for himself. I'd explain to him how it's in his own best interests to treat people as he'd want to be treated.

Whar if it's not?

Its definetely not always in our best interest to be what we call moral.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Logical arguments for certain behaviors are non-subjective as without them society shall fail.

They may be logical arguments, but if they conclude that you should/ought to do such and such (or NOT do such and such), or that something is right/good/wrong/evil/whatever, then they are ultimately question-begging. One cannot validly establish any moral conclusions, or conclusions pertaining to value-judgments generally, unless one starts with such a value-judgment as a premise. But if you start with it as a premise, then any subsequent argument is redundant.

A good example is "Killing is wrong". There are obvious exceptions but generally murder is not looked kindly upon by most societies. If there was no social, moral or other form of reprecussions for such acts the society would fall apart.

That may well be, but that does not make "killing is wrong" any less a subjective value judgment, as opposed to an objective matter of fact.

Not to mention the evolutionary argument where we are born (usually) with an innate sense of morality that we have evolved to have. Very specific instences of morality such as religious views and other such cultural phenomenons are simply over specification of the overall innate morality and social contructs that have evolved in different places...

Subjective in the sense that everything is subjective. Its not subjective in the sense that we don't have any innate morality.
The New Science of Morality | Edge.org.

The argument I am proposing is that Morality is not simply relative but has baselines within our sexular human societies. They may be somewhat blured with the culture but patterns emerge that indicates non-relative morality intertwined with relative morality.

Here's the funny part about ethics though- we could have identified a naturalistic basis for morality, and yet, this STILL would not imply any particular values; in other words, it would not follow that we OUGHT to behave in accordance with our (evolutionary) moral sentiments or values.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It appears that those who have a problem with parents teaching children religious beliefs is because (they believe) that these beliefs aren't true.

No, that isn't what appears to be the case at all, at least, not for everyone. Of course, it certainly doesn't make matters any BETTER that the beliefs and teachings in question are largely untenable, but that's hardly the primary reason to object to their being forced onto young children.

 

[Me Myself]

No, that isn't what appears to be the case at all, at least, not for everyone. Of course, it certainly doesn't make matters any BETTER that the beliefs and teachings in question are largely untenable, but that's hardly the primary reason to object to their being forced onto young children.

Morality is taught incritically and you dont have a problem with that, or do you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It appears that those who have a problem with parents teaching children religious beliefs is because (they believe) that these beliefs aren't true.

You can still think that you'd be able to find someone better for your son or daughter than the person they picked to be their spouse without being in favour of arranged marriage.

 

[Magic Man]

No, not really. Like I said, what constitues a "bad" belief is going to be extremely subjective, and thus, I wouldn't want to label people bad parents just for believing what they do.

I haven't used the term "bad belief". I also haven't labeled anyone a bad parent.

I think you'd find that pretty much impossible.

I don't think so. Sure, kids will pick stuff up from their parents, but you can control it to a degree. You can certainly control what you actively teach them.

 

[Magic Man]

It appears that those who have a problem with parents teaching children religious beliefs is because (they believe) that these beliefs aren't true.

That's definitely part of it, but the bigger part is that they're beliefs. I have a problem with parents actively trying to get their kids to believe what they believe, whether it's religious or irreligious, politically conservative or liberal, etc.

 

[Magic Man]

No, it's just because they're religion.

Or not.

 

[Magic Man]

Whar if it's not?

Its definetely not always in our best interest to be what we call moral.

It's possible to get something you want by acting immoral, but there's also a good chance it'll backfire on you. Acting morally won't always give you the exact results you want, but it's the path most likely to bring you those results. Treating someone kindly and politely won't always ensure that they treat you that way, but it gives you a much better chance than treating them poorly and impolitely.

 

[Me Myself]

It's possible to get something you want by acting immoral, but there's also a good chance it'll backfire on you. Acting morally won't always give you the exact results you want, but it's the path most likely to bring you those results. Treating someone kindly and politely won't always ensure that they treat you that way, but it gives you a much better chance than treating them poorly and impolitely.

In other ways, be kind to someone if you care about this person being kind to you?

Dont bully that kid if you want him to like you?

Oh yes, well, that is rational sure. Effective is another story, but it sure is rational.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Is this- you know from personal experience, but cannot prove it for all religious indoctrination? or can you actually make a case, beyond the tenuous "it limits the child's choices later by instilling a preference?"

From personal experience first and then from the argument that contradicting views of the world that are based in ancient mythology vs the scientific view of the world can cause sever reprecussions both on the societal level and on the personal level.

It also hinders the child's ability to think rationally if they learn that there are "exceptions" to the "question everything" rule. Religion isn't alone on this offense however. The "because I said so" comeback of parents is fairly damaging as well.

Sure it is. All morality must be learned, because the concepts on which they are based are learned. For instance, if your mother birthed you on a deserted island and died, but you survived by the grace of your mute, illiterate father, how could you instinctively know to love your mother? We learn all sorts of things through feelings. no one has to tell us anything. We all will come to similar conclusions because the same chemical reactions occur and create similar feelings. Take away those chemical reactions and you might very well have one of your "exceptions" on your hands. Thus, nearly everything is learned to some extent. The process of socialization is so intertwined, I am not even sure that it is possible to disentangle with one hundred percent accuracy how much is biological and how much is environmental.

Actually there were studies done on infant chimpanzees about social interaction. There were two groups. The first group was raised in an enviroment with a normal mother and the others were raised in an enviroment that was devoid of social contact but still given every possible need met (food, shelter, ect). Those without social contact died.

It leads us to believe that our social structure is not simply learned but needed for us to survive. People go insane from lonelyness and its why isolation is considered cruel and unusual punishment. That isn't learned. Its innate.

 

[Falvlun]

No, that isn't what appears to be the case at all, at least, not for everyone. Of course, it certainly doesn't make matters any BETTER that the beliefs and teachings in question are largely untenable, but that's hardly the primary reason to object to their being forced onto young children.

You can still think that you'd be able to find someone better for your son or daughter than the person they picked to be their spouse without being in favour of arranged marriage.

In nearly every other example of beliefs being foisted upon children, such as morality or school lessons, the answer was "That's not the same thing, because there are good reasons to believe that these things are true." Or "children will be able to verify these things for themselves as they grow older".

The implication is that religion isn't the same... because you don't believe that it's true, or that there are no good reasons to believe.

That's definitely part of it, but the bigger part is that they're beliefs. I have a problem with parents actively trying to get their kids to believe what they believe, whether it's religious or irreligious, politically conservative or liberal, etc.

Everything is a belief. Sure, you can argue that stuff like "Washington D.C. is the capital of the United States" isn't a belief, but fact. But if you are restricting yourself to only teaching your kid these dusty facts, then the kid is gonna be a lot more messed up than if you had given him a well-rounded, normal upbringing-- which, yes, includes teaching him what you believe is right and wrong, how to live well and get ahead, etc.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In nearly every other example of beliefs being foisted upon children, such as morality or school lessons, the answer was "That's not the same thing, because there are good reasons to believe that these things are true." Or "children will be able to verify these things for themselves as they grow older".

The implication is that religion isn't the same... because you don't believe that it's true, or that there are no good reasons to believe.

Sorry to float back in, but I was lurking, and this comment interested me to a degree.
Speaking for myself, personally, there is an element of truth in what you say. A major part of the reason I don't teach my kids to follow a religion is because I don't think the religion is true. Your comment made me stop and think because of that, and prompted the following;

1) I teach morality to my pre-school aged daughters, to a level I think they can understand. Much of it is centered around the concept of empathy, really. I don't believe in objective morality, so I couldn't really say that what I am teaching them is true in an absolute sense. Yet whilst I teach them morals, I would resist teaching them religion, even if my wife were religious. (Just for clarity, I am quite happy and have started to teach them ABOUT religion, and try to do this in an unbiased fashion).

2) I don't teach sex education to my pre-school aged daughters. I don't teach them about safe sex, or the mechanics of pregnancy. I see these as 'fact', but still wouldn't teach them at this point of their lives, since I don't think it's helpful, or educational. Whatever wasn't simply discarded would almost certainly be misconstrued, I suppose.

So, I'm not exactly sure what my point is here, just kinda thinking out loud. But whilst 'truth' is an important facet of what I teach my girls, I can think of things that are not factual that I teach them, and other things that are factual which I avoid (for now).

If I'm going to take a stab (and this is literally an off-the-cuff guess) I would think that I personally haven't found a use for religion (and see it as problematic in peoples lives more than helpful), and I am therefore extremely reluctant to teach my girls about religion in any manner which would encourage them to follow one. In recognition of the important part religion plays in the world, I teach them ABOUT religion.

Everything is a belief. Sure, you can argue that stuff like "Washington D.C. is the capital of the United States" isn't a belief, but fact. But if you are restricting yourself to only teaching your kid these dusty facts, then the kid is gonna be a lot more messed up than if you had given him a well-rounded, normal upbringing-- which, yes, includes teaching him what you believe is right and wrong, how to live well and get ahead, etc.

I'm kinda confused by some of the arguments in the thread, which is why I've paid less attention to them than I might have. Religious people will naturally teach their children religion, I think. My issue is not with that. It's with people who demand obedience to their religious beliefs, and do their best to explicitly cull and dissent, through whatever means. I would also think that teaching young children to be anti-theists is harmful, for slightly different reasons.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Morality is taught incritically and you dont have a problem with that, or do you?

I would be opposed to teaching ANYTHING in a manner that discourages critical reflection, or involves concepts the child is unable to properly deal with at that age. And the problem remains that, religion is about the only thing that people NEED to teach uncritically; everything else that people have mentioned- such as morality, facts of science or mathematics, basic etiquette and so on- can all stand up to critical evaluation. "What's that Johnny, you want to know why we don't kill people? Well, because if you do, you spend the rest of your life in jail, and that's not fun, and if everyone were to kill people, someone might kill YOU".

On the other hand, there is reason to believe that morality is more like language than religion, that humans come naturally predisposed to develop SOME morality or other- which is not the case with religion. But that's not especially crucial here.

In nearly every other example of beliefs being foisted upon children, such as morality or school lessons, the answer was "That's not the same thing, because there are good reasons to believe that these things are true." Or "children will be able to verify these things for themselves as they grow older".

The implication is that religion isn't the same... because you don't believe that it's true, or that there are no good reasons to believe.

Once again, I can't speak for other posters, but I've never said that- and that's not entirely accurate anyways. The difference between potty-training and religious indoctrination is NOT that the former is true and the latter is not. On the other hand, that is one difference between, e.g. the multiplication tables and the dogmas of the Catholic church. Just not an especially crucial one for why the religious indoctrination of children is not a good thing. Of course, it doesn't help that we're killing a child's critical intellect with respect to an issue that may form a crucial part of their identity and worldview for the rest of their lives on the basis of stuff that isn't true- but that's hardly the most significant factor here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In nearly every other example of beliefs being foisted upon children, such as morality or school lessons, the answer was "That's not the same thing, because there are good reasons to believe that these things are true." Or "children will be able to verify these things for themselves as they grow older".

The implication is that religion isn't the same... because you don't believe that it's true, or that there are no good reasons to believe.

That was never my argument. Mine hinged on the question of who should be making choices that have major impacts on the child's life.

Sometimes (often?), a parent's life experience will mean that they're a better judge of what career their child will pick than the child himself/herself, but we can still believe that the child should be the one to choose his own career. A person can be a died-in-the-wool member of one political party, sure that its platform is unquestionably, demonstrably the best one for the good of the nation while still upholding the right for his kids to vote for whatever party they want to. Supporting freedom doesn't necessarily mean that a person doesn't have strong ideas about what the right choice is.

 

[Me Myself]

I would be opposed to teaching ANYTHING in a manner that discourages critical reflection, or involves concepts the child is unable to properly deal with at that age. And the problem remains that, religion is about the only thing that people NEED to teach uncritically; everything else that people have mentioned- such as morality, facts of science or mathematics, basic etiquette and so on- can all stand up to critical evaluation. "What's that Johnny, you want to know why we don't kill people? Well, because if you do, you spend the rest of your life in jail, and that's not fun, and if everyone were to kill people, someone might kill YOU".

I didnt say discourage critical reflection, I said morality in itself is not about critical thinking anf wont be taught by critical thinking, but at its base, it is emotional influence.

Telling him if he kills he goes to jail is not teacng him morality IMHO, just teaching him what will actually happen if he kills. Nt killingecause of being afraid of jail is not morality IMHO.

Telling im if others kill might kill him has nothing to do with the subject of him killing, so its not a real argument, someone might kill him regardless.

On the other hand, there is reason to believe that morality is more like language than religion, that humans come naturally predisposed to develop SOME morality or other- which is not the case with religion. But that's not especially crucial here.

The specific morality taught would still be indoctrination though, because you are putting in him morality instead of letting m develop a morality of his own, when different moralities does have different ways of understanding the same situations.

And if religion hadnt developed on it's own, then one would have to think it came from some non human source, so I dont think you wanna go there

 

[Me Myself]

That was never my argument. Mine hinged on the question of who should be making choices that have major impacts on the child's life.

Sometimes (often?), a parent's life experience will mean that they're a better judge of what career their child will pick than the child himself/herself, but we can still believe that the child should be the one to choose his own career. A person can be a died-in-the-wool member of one political party, sure that its platform is unquestionably, demonstrably the best one for the good of the nation while still upholding the right for his kids to vote for whatever party they want to. Supporting freedom doesn't necessarily mean that a person doesn't have strong ideas about what the right choice is.

There is nothing wrong with a parent "choosing" a carreer for hi children as ling as he doesnt force hir to actually take it when s/he actually goes to make a carreer of hirself.

If the child gets to teens and decides to get a different carreer than what the parent/s expected, and s/he has that choice rspected, I see nothing wrong with such scenario at all.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I didnt say discourage critical reflection

You said "incritically", presumably meaning "uncritically", which is pretty much the same thing as "discouraging critical reflection".

I said morality in itself is not about critical thinking anf wont be taught by critical thinking, but at its base, it is emotional influence.

Sure, morality is not "about" critical reasoning- it is "about" conduct- just like science, math, etiquette, or anything else one would teach a child is not "about" critical reasoning. But teaching morality doesn't preclude critical reasoning, whereas religious indoctrination generally does.

Telling him if he kills he goes to jail is not teacng him morality IMHO

Of course not, telling him killing is wrong is "teaching him morality". The point is that, unlike religious indoctrination, teaching morality can admit of critical reflection, because most morals and values can stand up to critical inspection. I think one reason religious indoctrination occurs, and proceeds as it does, is because people are aware (even if not on a conscious level) that religious teachings do NOT stand up well to critical inspection.

And similarly for everything else that people have (erroneously) touted as examples of indoctrination- the practical things we teach our kids (like tying their shoes or using the toilet), as well as their education (science, math, whatever) needn't be taught authoritatively or uncritically. We don't tell them that 9x9=81 because we say so (or because the Bible does, or God does)- we can show them so that they can see for themselves.

The specific morality taught would still be indoctrination though, because you are putting in him morality instead of letting m develop a morality of his own, when different moralities does have different ways of understanding the same situations.

No, not really. Moral education would be comparable to basic linguistic education- and so if teaching them some basic mores and values is "indoctrination", then so is teaching them to speak at all. Clearly, we're now stretching the term "indoctrination" so broadly as to render it essentially meaningless. In any case, morality as such is basically a social convention, and so teaching children matters of universal morality (such as the prohibition against killing) is simply teaching children to play by the rules of the game in which they are inevitably part- once again, this is practical no less than teaching a child to tie their shoes or use the toilet. A child who cannot successfully play by the rules of their society cannot function. The same cannot be said of learning religion.

And if religion hadnt developed on it's own, then one would have to think it came from some non human source, so I dont think you wanna go there

The point is that a moral view is inevitable, whereas a religious one is not; so holding up morality as an example of indoctrination doesn't really work, because its going to happen one way or the other as a matter of nature- which is not true of religion. But this really is a side issue.