Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Curious George]

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.



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.

And when they don't pick up their room?

 

[Me Myself]

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


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.


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.


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.


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.

Morality and language are extremely different monsters.

And you are the ones stretching the term indoctrination to what would came to beeaningless, I am merely putting your word yoga into context.

Religious teacnga can also be rationalised, just not in the ways you would like them to be. They can be rationalized in a similar way than morality: you can give explanations where they are requested, but its going toe about emotion rather than rationale anyways.

Like morals.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Morality and language are extremely different monsters.

Actually, in the relevant sense (i.e. acquisition), it looks like they may not be. There's sort of a Chomskyian revolution in ethics, and a parallel in evolutionary biology- its looking more and more like morality is not something we acquire merely through experience, but is something we come hard-wired for, at birth, just like language.

And you are the ones stretching the term indoctrination to what would came to beeaningless, I am merely putting your word yoga into context.

Ah, now we're playing "I know you are but what am I". I'll pass on that.

Religious teacnga can also be rationalised

Can they be rationalized? Sure. But that doesn't mean they can stand up well to rational scrutiny; indeed, many religious figures and authorities explicitly admit as much. But ultimately, the teachings of a revealed religion admit of no further justification than "because so-and-so says so" (and "so-and-so" can be the Bible, the Pope, Jesus, or whatever), whereas critical inspection of, say, our prohibitions against murder, or mathematics, not only tends to further confirm the claim in question, it also helps teach valuable new skills (for instance, in mathematics, at some point you have to stop simply memorizing stuff and be able to apply the equations and formulas to concrete situations- itself a critical task).

 

[Me Myself]

Actually, in the relevant sense (i.e. acquisition), it looks like they may not be. There's sort of a Chomskyian revolution in ethics, and a parallel in evolutionary biology- its looking more and more like morality is not something we acquire merely through experience, but is something we come hard-wired for, at birth, just like language.


Ah, now we're playing "I know you are but what am I". I'll pass on that.


Can they be rationalized? Sure. But that doesn't mean they can stand up well to rational scrutiny; indeed, many religious figures and authorities explicitly admit as much. But ultimately, the teachings of a revealed religion admit of no further justification than "because so-and-so says so" (and "so-and-so" can be the Bible, the Pope, Jesus, or whatever), whereas critical inspection of, say, our prohibitions against murder, or mathematics, not only tends to further confirm the claim in question, it also helps teach valuable new skills (for instance, in mathematics, at some point you have to stop simply memorizing stuff and be able to apply the equations and formulas to concrete situations- itself a critical task).

Morality cannot stand up to scrutiny either because it has to do with values.

Ultimately, if you dont gain something by sharing, you dont share.

That is why it is adviceable to associate sharing with good emotions, so that the person may experience this every time s/he shares and not be dependant on other rewards on each situation.

Ah, now we're playing "I know you are but what am I". I'll pass on that.

You started it

Can they be rationalized? Sure. But that doesn't mean they can stand up well to rational scrutiny; indeed, many religious figures and authorities explicitly admit as much. But ultimately, the teachings of a revealed religion admit of no further justification than "because so-and-so says so" (and "so-and-so" can be the Bible, the Pope, Jesus, or whatever), whereas critical inspection of, say, our prohibitions against murder, or mathematics, not only tends to further confirm the claim in question, it also helps teach valuable new skills (for instance, in mathematics, at some point you have to stop simply memorizing stuff and be able to apply the equations and formulas to concrete situations- itself a critical task).

Not at all morality has exactly the same problems. There will be individual times where it was better for the individual to be immoral. In such circumstances, the best you can do is say "Because you being a good girl would make me(the parent) happy"

Nothing seriously stops her from doing all sorts of things she may want, like stealing dessert from her brother and lie about it if she is good enough lying that the parent may believe her.

Its simplynaive to imagine morality is the best for each individual in all moments if said individual is... Well, an #%^*hole

 

[Me Myself]

I mean the reason for which I will teach morality to my kids is because I dont want them to be bad people.

Yes, depending on who you are, you will feel good doing good, but you have to exercise that and in case of raising a child, depending on what you ve got, you may have to do a lot of the leg work for hir to make the relevant associations and emotional equivalences.

All of this because it is what YOU want for hir. S/he may very well be smart enough to go around being an %^^*hole and getting away with it, not caring who s/he tramples in hir path.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Morality cannot stand up to scrutiny either because it has to do with values.

Ultimately, if you dont gain something by sharing, you dont share.

That is why it is adviceable to associate sharing with good emotions, so that the person may experience this every time s/he shares and not be dependant on other rewards on each situation.

Sure, to a certain extent, if someone just does not share a value, there is no reasoning to be done. But morality would not exist if it was not, on the whole, advantageous to the individual, and so in most cases, one can point to practical, indisputable reasons for acting morally (as with the killing example).

And perhaps we even feel like certain values are not open to dispute- that we want to inculcate certain values in our children, because we feel that, e.g. empathy, is crucial to being a good person. But there are only so many of these, and they don't get you to any robust morality, and alot of morality is nothing more than playing by the rules, and so is a matter of practicality. I think that, as far as the rest of morality goes, it is a good thing to leave the matter to your child to decide, and for many of the same reasons that I think allowing the child to develop their own religious and political views is positive.

In any case, the same cannot be said of religion- anyone who thinks that belonging to a certain religion or believing certain religious teachings is crucial to being a good person the way empathy is, for instance, then they are simply delusional and operating with a very skewed point of view.

Its simplynaive to imagine morality is the best for each individual in all moments if said individual is... Well, an #%^*hole

Will there be exceptions? Sure- but morality would not have been selected for if it did not, on the whole, convey tangible practical benefits to those who act morally. If being a selfish ******* really served us best, then it would have been the selfish ones who survived and passed on their genes, rather than the moral ones- and this did not occur.

 

[Me Myself]

Sure, to a certain extent, if someone just does not share a value, there is no reasoning to be done. But morality would not exist if it was not, on the whole, advantageous to the individual, and so in most cases, one can point to practical, indisputable reasons for acting morally (as with the killing example).

Then religion would not exist if it wasnt, on the whole, afvantageous to the individual, yet every tribe of humans that we find and every civilization of humans that we find, does have religion.

And perhaps we even feel like certain values are not open to dispute- that we want to inculcate certain values in our children, because we feel that, e.g. empathy, is crucial to being a good person. But there are only so many of these, and they don't get you to any robust morality, and alot of morality is nothing more than playing by the rules, and so is a matter of practicality. I think that, as far as the rest of morality goes, it is a good thing to leave the matter to your child to decide, and for many of the same reasons that I think allowing the child to develop their own religious and political views is positive.

Playing by the rules is moral only when you believe the rules are moral.

Come on now, you know this is deeply subjective. Very different moralities have happened in very different places.

In any case, the same cannot be said of religion- anyone who thinks that belonging to a certain religion or believing certain religious teachings is crucial to being a good person the way empathy is, for instance, then they are simply delusional and operating with a very skewed point of view.

I completely agree empathy is way more important than believe in the supernatural to be a good person.

That said, by your argument of "morality must be good in general or it wouldnt exist today and be as widespread" then we would have to say the same about religion.

All cultures believe in gods or supernatural beings. So by your logic (which I do not necessarily buy) it is inherently good to teach kids the existence of supernatural beings.

Apparently, it has kept us alife and it wouldnt have been selected if it was not, right?

Will there be exceptions? Sure- but morality would not have been selected for if it did not, on the whole, convey tangible practical benefits to those who act morally. If being a selfish ******* really served us best, then it would have been the selfish ones who survived and passed on their genes, rather than the moral ones- and this did not occur.

By your selective evolution idea, then we must keep religion and superstition, as it must be there for some reason.

 

[Falvlun]

To be honest, right now, my dad's instillation of Packer fan-dom in me is causing me greater discomfort than my religious upbringing.

It's tough being a Packer fan in Bear's country. :sad:

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And when they don't pick up their room?

I go on strike.

In truth, they're young enough that a little nagging works well enough, as long as I give them a hand. We don't let them get out more toys until they put the ones they've used away, simply so the mess doesn't get too big. And if they don't clean it up, I go on strike. If they don't have to be productive in the house, neither do I.

Given that they're small enough they need me to do a lot for them, that does the trick very quickly, and with less stress than some other options. We also have a rewards board, and by far the most effective way to deal with this stuff is proactively by rewarding 'good' behaviour.

If you're trying to draw an analogy that I demand obedience on certain things, then of course I do. I am quite happy to explain and/or demonstrate the consequence or reason for that demand, obviously adjusted to their cognitive abilities.

Sorry bud, I have read enough of your stuff to know you're trying to make a point, but I'm not quite seeing what it is at this point. Happy to have another go at responding if you want to clarify though?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Then religion would not exist if it wasnt, on the whole, afvantageous to the individual, yet every tribe of humans that we find and every civilization of humans that we find, does have religion.

And religion does exist. But whereas morality is still advantageous, and for largely the same reasons, it appears religion is not- modern religion is almost more of a spandrel; a byproduct of something that was adaptive. (and this relates to the whole loss of the explanatory dimension of religion- religion has essentially retreated from the function which was its evolutionary function, and likely its very reason for existing at all)

Playing by the rules is moral only when you believe the rules are moral.

Come on now, you know this is deeply subjective. Very different moralities have happened in very different places.

The point is that the value and utility of many values needn't be taken on authority, but is a matter of practicality- it is usually beneficial to play by the rules, because otherwise there are negative consequences. And inculcating or indoctrinating your child with certain nearly universal values (such as empathy- which probably doesn't need inculcating in the first place, as it comes naturally to us) is different from inculcating a specific religious view, for a variety of reasons, many of which have been mentioned (the fact that we seem to be genetically hard-wired for morality, the fact that basic universal values like empathy don't form any crucial part of most people's individual identity or worldview- indeed, a universally shared value cannot, by definition, serve to distinguish one as an individual).

I completely agree empathy is way more important than believe in the supernatural to be a good person.

That said, by your argument of "morality must be good in general or it wouldnt exist today and be as widespread" then we would have to say the same about religion.

And that would've been true at some point- our ancestors used primitive religion as proto-science; using storytelling to communicate information vital to survival. But religion no longer performs this function, so the principle doesn't apply to religion as it exists today.

All cultures believe in gods or supernatural beings. So by your logic (which I do not necessarily buy) it is inherently good to teach kids the existence of supernatural beings.

No, this is a strawman. I'm not saying "everyone believes in X, therefore its permissible to indoctrinate your kids about X"; if that's what you think I'm claiming, I'd say you need to read my posts more carefully. I'm saying that children don't need to be indoctrinated about morality, because for the most part, morality bestows practical, tangible advantages- in other words, it can stand up to critical evaluation.

By your selective evolution idea, then we must keep religion and superstition, as it must be there for some reason.

No, that doesn't follow at all.

 

[Me Myself]

And religion does exist. But whereas morality is still advantageous, and for largely the same reasons, it appears religion is not- modern religion is almost more of a spandrel; a byproduct of something that was adaptive. (and this relates to the whole loss of the explanatory dimension of religion- religion has essentially retreated from the function which was its evolutionary function, and likely its very reason for existing at all)


The point is that the value and utility of many values needn't be taken on authority, but is a matter of practicality- it is usually beneficial to play by the rules, because otherwise there are negative consequences. And inculcating or indoctrinating your child with certain nearly universal values (such as empathy- which probably doesn't need inculcating in the first place, as it comes naturally to us) is different from inculcating a specific religious view, for a variety of reasons, many of which have been mentioned (the fact that we seem to be genetically hard-wired for morality, the fact that basic universal values like empathy don't form any crucial part of most people's individual identity or worldview- indeed, a universally shared value cannot, by definition, serve to distinguish one as an individual).


And that would've been true at some point- our ancestors used primitive religion as proto-science; using storytelling to communicate information vital to survival. But religion no longer performs this function, so the principle doesn't apply to religion as it exists today.


No, this is a strawman. I'm not saying "everyone believes in X, therefore its permissible to indoctrinate your kids about X"; if that's what you think I'm claiming, I'd say you need to read my posts more carefully. I'm saying that children don't need to be indoctrinated about morality, because for the most part, morality bestows practical, tangible advantages- in other words, it can stand up to critical evaluation.


No, that doesn't follow at all.

You said that morality bestows practical tangible advantages in an individual level or it wouldnt be here.

If this claim is true, then religion would have to be the same, because clearly human civilzations everywhere are religious.

The thing is each specific moral statement will be a matter of indoctrination. Just like each specific religious statement.

Its true that kids already have emoathy, just as they already have animistic tendencies, just like it is true that they have a capacity to question and think further in logical ways.

I believe all of these are desirable, but each individual parent will disagree in matters of optimal and pertinent application. They will teach eir kids acorrding to what they believe optimal and pertinent application is.

 

[Curious George]

I go on strike.

In truth, they're young enough that a little nagging works well enough, as long as I give them a hand. We don't let them get out more toys until they put the ones they've used away, simply so the mess doesn't get too big. And if they don't clean it up, I go on strike. If they don't have to be productive in the house, neither do I.

Given that they're small enough they need me to do a lot for them, that does the trick very quickly, and with less stress than some other options. We also have a rewards board, and by far the most effective way to deal with this stuff is proactively by rewarding 'good' behaviour.

If you're trying to draw an analogy that I demand obedience on certain things, then of course I do. I am quite happy to explain and/or demonstrate the consequence or reason for that demand, obviously adjusted to their cognitive abilities.

Sorry bud, I have read enough of your stuff to know you're trying to make a point, but I'm not quite seeing what it is at this point. Happy to have another go at responding if you want to clarify though?

The point is that you are forcing your belief on them instead of letting them make up their own mind. You can try to rationalize that you are doing it for their advantage later, but so too do religious parents rationalize their indoctrination. Natural consequence are a great way to indoctrinate people, so is positive reinforcement. But when you make a choice to implement such an approach you are actively engaging in this purported "indoctrination." The final leg is the newly introduced concept of "okay that may be indoctrination, but it is different."

Bottom line, there is a value judgement at the end of the road here. And when you try to connect cleaning their room at an early age to any specific outcome, I can easily suggest that cleaning one's room is not necessary to that outcome, similar to the arguments that religious indoctrination is not. I understand that you are speaking to a the type of religious indoctrination that involves fear. But again this is methodology and not directly attributable to religion. Why attack fear based indoctrination when it is religious? Why not attack the abusive practices? And why attribute this abusive practice to religion when religion is obviously not the cause or the only scenario where such a practice takes place? It reeks of bias, and is hard for me to discern where in fact you do draw the line.

My point is equating simply telling your child X is real, when "X is real" is a belief, to indoctrination creates an attack on parental rights that no rational parent should maintain. I understand how some of the posters who have no concept of parenting might let their biases persuade them to think they are indeed objectively looking at the topic, but it astounds me that a parent and a teacher would take a similar route.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You said that morality bestows practical tangible advantages in an individual level or it wouldnt be here.

If this claim is true, then religion would have to be the same, because clearly human civilzations everywhere are religious.

Right. And religion does exist. However, morality seems to be still performing the same (evolutionary) function it always has, which is not true of religion.

The thing is each specific moral statement will be a matter of indoctrination. Just like each specific religious statement.

Its true that kids already have emoathy, just as they already have animistic tendencies, just like it is true that they have a capacity to question and think further in logical ways.

I believe all of these are desirable, but each individual parent will disagree in matters of optimal and pertinent application. They will teach eir kids acorrding to what they believe optimal and pertinent application is.

Sure, according to what they happen to value. In some families and some cultures, conformity is valued over autonomy and obedience over independence, and the conversation basically ends there- exhorting them to care about their child's individualism and right to self-determination is pointless. However, I think alot of people do care about these things, and so they're not being honest with themselves. And, at the end of the day, we've still yet to hear even a single benefit supposedly bestowed by learning about religion early in their lives as opposed to later on, much less for teaching them in an authoritative and uncritical manner as opposed to engaging them in a dialogue (in which they are the final arbiter).

Realistically, I don't think anybody here is expecting anyone else to change their minds- religion and parenting are not subjects most people are open to reasoning about, as these are subjects very close to the heart for many people. Ultimately, the religious indoctrination of children is sort of like absentee parenting- its something that many of us will vehemently disagree with, and feel bad for the children because it really only harms them and not the parents; but something that will likely never change.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Bottom line, there is a value judgement at the end of the road here. And when you try to connect cleaning their room at an early age to any specific outcome, I can easily suggest that cleaning one's room is not necessary to that outcome, similar to the arguments that religious indoctrination is not.

You could easily make that suggestion- having it be at all plausible is another matter, however.

 

[Me Myself]

Right. And religion does exist. However, morality seems to be still performing the same (evolutionary) function it always has, which is not true of religion.

Thats merely your opinion.

Ob both accounts.

Sure, according to what they happen to value. In some families and some cultures, conformity is valued over autonomy and obedience over independence, and the conversation basically ends there- exhorting them to care about their child's individualism and right to self-determination is pointless. However, I think alot of people do care about these things, and so they're not being honest with themselves. And, at the end of the day, we've still yet to hear even a single benefit supposedly bestowed by learning about religion early in their lives as opposed to later on, much less for teaching them in an authoritative and uncritical manner as opposed to engaging them in a dialogue (in which they are the final arbiter).

They will alwayse the final arbiter on anything.

No one has mind controlling devices yet.

I dont expect religion to be taught any more authoritevily than morality is taught.

The bottom line is you understand most moral affirmations would be bound to change from one household to the next but its okay to teach morality.

Well, I say the same about teaching religion in general.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

However, morality seems to be still performing the same (evolutionary) function it always has, which is not true of religion.

It actually doesn't. It's more like cravings for food. It was evolutionary advantageous to really crave fats, salts, and sugars when these things were so hard to come by. They're still necessary now, but not in the same way. Likewise, the evolutionary function of "morality" (empathy, basically) was to enable social systems the size of tribes. It's primarily an extension of family ties to one's "people", and as "peoples" got bigger and bigger, this extension became less and less effective as a function of basic, universal psychology and more and more unrelated to the evolutionary basis of morality. There is a lot more that has to be instilled in the modern world, even in quite racist, sexist, and ethnocentric places/cultures.

Morality isn't an evolutionary function itself, but rather an extension of certain more general capabilities that enable family ties. It isn't advantageous for these to be too broad when tribes/peoples are competing units as was the case for tens of thousands of years (during the period which matters from an evolutionary perspective). That kind of basis for morality is no longer advantageous (in the same way cravings for sugars, fats, and salts, at the level those cravings occur, is no longer advantageous).

It's really a small matter to your point (there's still an intrinsic "morality" of sorts), but an important one nonetheless when considering what must be instilled when it comes to morality period.

 

[Curious George]

You could easily make that suggestion- having it be at all plausible is another matter, however.

nope. It would be plausible as well. Unless you have an example of the benefit someone gets from having a clean room, that no person got without having to clean their room.

BTW:

Actually, in the relevant sense (i.e. acquisition), it looks like they may not be. There's sort of a Chomskyian revolution in ethics, and a parallel in evolutionary biology- its looking more and more like morality is not something we acquire merely through experience, but is something we come hard-wired for, at birth, just like language.


Ah, now we're playing "I know you are but what am I". I'll pass on that.


Can they be rationalized? Sure. But that doesn't mean they can stand up well to rational scrutiny; indeed, many religious figures and authorities explicitly admit as much. But ultimately, the teachings of a revealed religion admit of no further justification than "because so-and-so says so" (and "so-and-so" can be the Bible, the Pope, Jesus, or whatever), whereas critical inspection of, say, our prohibitions against murder, or mathematics, not only tends to further confirm the claim in question, it also helps teach valuable new skills (for instance, in mathematics, at some point you have to stop simply memorizing stuff and be able to apply the equations and formulas to concrete situations- itself a critical task).

I am having a hard time understanding your stance now. You are agreeing that we "indoctrinate children" in various ways. However, now your reasoning for religious exception is that this is the one point which cannot stand up to critical reasoning at a later point in time. Yet prior to this point some, (I cannot remember if you were one) have acknowledged that people can find "reasons" to believe later in life. There are many members who would assert that with critical reasoning we can see "God must exist." Now, I understand that these members might utilize faulty reasoning, but they are nonetheless applying critical reasoning.

Further, we could look at the way our scientific facts work to give us a better understanding. In science we often tell children "facts." Only later to we bring up the need to test these facts. Thus we encourage children to think critically. However, there is definitely a point when we give just theoretical "facts" as answers. This process is well accepted. A person could arguably use this same process for religion and still fall in violation of your anti-religious indoctrination. So, why the exception to religion. The answer you gave is wanting.

Religion is about the only thing that people NEED to teach uncritically

People do not NEED to teach religion void of critical thinking. In fact, when teaching religion to adults and teens, many people do in fact engage critical thinking skills. I have seen religious groups that encourage teens to "question everything" with the assurance that the answers are already provided. If one could use critical thinking to simply debunk all religions then it would have been done.

Let us look at a scenario:

Young child sees parent praying.

Young child: "Mommy, who are you talking to"
Parent: to God, honey.
Young child: Who's God?

Now should the parent launch into a lecture about his beliefs vs. others beliefs? Should they just ignore the question? Should they simply describe who they believe God is?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

its looking more and more like morality is not something we acquire merely through experience, but is something we come hard-wired for, at birth, just like language.

I've resisted this as much as possible, as it is utterly unrelated to this topic or your point, but it's also something very much related to what I do (and is the work of some co-workers e.g., Pinker), so I can't resist. However, I will hide it just to reinforce how unimportant it is and say right off that the view that language is hardwired is still a held theory by many.

Spoiler: DON'T READ

The view that language is intrinsic was first proposed without any real evidence and the evidence that came later has largely been refuted. It's hard to say, but probably the majority of linguists and at least a substantial minority fall into a camp which holds that language itself isn't intrinsic. Rather, domain general cognitive processes give rise to the ability to learn languages. There are still plenty of scientist, including (still) Chomsky, Jackendoff, Pinker, Foder, and other "big names" who believe that something like a language module or faculty exists.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I've resisted this as much as possible, as it is utterly unrelated to this topic or your point, but it's also something very much related to what I do (and is the work of some co-workers e.g., Pinker), so I can't resist. However, I will hide it just to reinforce how unimportant it is and say right off that the view that language is hardwired is still a held theory by many.

Spoiler: DON'T READ

The view that language is intrinsic was first proposed without any real evidence and the evidence that came later has largely been refuted. It's hard to say, but probably the majority of linguists and at least a substantial minority fall into a camp which holds that language itself isn't intrinsic. Rather, domain general cognitive processes give rise to the ability to learn languages. There are still plenty of scientist, including (still) Chomsky, Jackendoff, Pinker, Foder, and other "big names" who believe that something like a language module or faculty exists.

No, that's true enough, and a good point. And RE morality, it is also true that the more specific evolutionary function does not exist- but in a more general sense, its still a matter of facilitating mutually-advantageous behavioral strategies.

As you say, the pertinent (to my point anyways) features here are that morality seems to be intrinsic in a manner religion is not, and that moral conduct has direct, tangible, practical advantages religious participation does not have. One would actually be harming ones children by not teaching them morality (i.e. "playing by the rules"), which would not be true of religion, at least not in the same sense.

(as an aside, I'll admit I'm probably slightly biased towards the Chomskyian approach, as the school I attended was very much a stronghold for that sort of view- one of my philosophy professors was a close friend of Chomsky, and was shameless in his endorsement of Chomsky's views)

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Thats merely your opinion.

Well, no, not really. Whether religion is still an explanatory enterprise relating information vital to survival or not isn't really a matter of opinion- and it seems pretty obvious that it is not.

They will alwayse the final arbiter on anything.

No one has mind controlling devices yet.

That's not what I mean, and this is the same silly pseudo-distinction we've seen a number of times now. No, nobody has mind control. But its hardly deniable that one finds it much harder to be a final arbiter on a matter that has become ingrained, from being taught to you repetitively throughout your formative years when you do not question most anything you are taught by your parents or other authority figures.

And we still can't forget that nobody can name a single benefit to early religious indoctrination, as opposed to religious education at an appropriate age- at best, it is a null result and at worst, a negative one.