Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Me Myself]

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.


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.

I wont lie, and its not like its hard to see, but this is from a very superficial search on the subject:

Religion and children - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep, wikipedia. Then again, you have presented no studies, jsut your opinion.

To the bare least, I can say you just have your opinion of something that is certainly not "obvious".

Parents percieve benefits on teacng religion to children. Apparently, so does some studies,

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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

My grad program (and lab) is practically next door to where Chomsky teaches and like pretty much all cognitive science related programs and labs in the areas is hardcore Chomskyan. I just happened to form my opinion as an undergrad before I even added cog. sci. as a minor, and now I am a closet embodied cognition supporter. I had to sit through an entire graduate seminar devoted solely to why the other side is wrong. I'm surrounded by a rather extreme bias towards the view, so the slight "bias" that is sort of guaranteed when one is introduced to a framework like Chomskyan linguistics is nothing and I have the same kind of "bias" for the other side.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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.

This is an extremely poor example, as I'm such a naturally messy person that I would tend to agree that there are no real benefits to cleaning your room. But even so, its pretty obvious that cleaning ones room makes it easier to find ones things than not cleaning ones room. And with examples of more significant choices, the practical consequences are even more obvious.

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.

No, I'm saying one thing that distinguishes (optimal) moral education, or any other kind of education, from indoctrination, is that it needn't be taught authoritatively or uncritically- one significant feature of indoctrination. I commented that there are probably good reasons why religion is often passed on via indoctrination- because for many religions, they don't stand up well to critical scrutiny, so indoctrination at an early and vulnerable age is a way around this.

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.

And I have a hard time not seeing these determinations as tainted, if one happens to find reasons for what one believed already due to their upbringing. Seems suspiciously convenient. It just looks like something would be gained, and nothing lost, by just leaving out the indoctrination at an early age, and allow children to find reasons to believe, or not to believe, with as level a playing field as possible. The ONLY reason to oppose this, so far as I can see, is that one (selfishly) wants to give preference to their own religion.

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.

Any education which simply imparts facts without engaging critical reasoning is, in my opinion, wanting, regardless of the subject matter- science, math, or religion. To use the common phrase, teaching facts without teaching the explanations or justifications for those facts is simply giving children some fish, when what we want is to teach them how to fish.

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?

If the child is too young to be able to comprehend the nuanced answer the question demands, then it probably should be avoided. I think of the topic of religion as not entirely unlike that of sex- its just a topic children aren't very well-equipped to deal with yet. So if a child asks a question about sex, what do you do? Similarly with religion, until the child is old enough to be able to understand the sort of answer that would be truly appropriate and helpful.

 

[Me Myself]

This is an extremely poor example, as I'm such a naturally messy person that I would tend to agree that there are no real benefits to cleaning your room. But even so, its pretty obvious that cleaning ones room makes it easier to find ones things than not cleaning ones room. And with examples of more significant choices, the practical consequences are even more obvious.


No, I'm saying one thing that distinguishes (optimal) moral education, or any other kind of education, from indoctrination, is that it needn't be taught authoritatively or uncritically- one significant feature of indoctrination. I commented that there are probably good reasons why religion is often passed on via indoctrination- because for many religions, they don't stand up well to critical scrutiny, so indoctrination at an early and vulnerable age is a way around this.


And I have a hard time not seeing these determinations as tainted, if one happens to find reasons for what one believed already due to their upbringing. Seems suspiciously convenient. It just looks like something would be gained, and nothing lost, by just leaving out the indoctrination at an early age, and allow children to find reasons to believe, or not to believe, with as level a playing field as possible. The ONLY reason to oppose this, so far as I can see, is that one (selfishly) wants to give preference to their own religion.


Any education which simply imparts facts without engaging critical reasoning is, in my opinion, wanting, regardless of the subject matter- science, math, or religion. To use the common phrase, teaching facts without teaching the explanations or justifications for those facts is simply giving children some fish, when what we want is to teach them how to fish.


If the child is too young to be able to comprehend the nuanced answer the question demands, then it probably should be avoided. I think of the topic of religion as not entirely unlike that of sex- its just a topic children aren't very well-equipped to deal with yet. So if a child asks a question about sex, what do you do? Similarly with religion, until the child is old enough to be able to understand the sort of answer that would be truly appropriate and helpful.

If my children ask me a question about sex I would just tell them the answer.


BTW

Religion and children - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I wont lie, and its not like its hard to see, but this is from a very superficial search on the subject:

Religion and children - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep, wikipedia. Then again, you have presented no studies, jsut your opinion.

To the bare least, I can say you just have your opinion of something that is certainly not "obvious".

Simply claiming that something is "just an opinion" is not a counter-argument. I made a claim about a matter of fact- so I could be mistaken, but we're clearly not talking about a matter of opinion at all. And if you feel that religion is still an explanatory enterprise consisting of relating information vital to survival via narratives, then by all means, I'm all ears. However, I get the feeling you're objecting to this claim not because you have any basis for thinking it false (indeed, it is pretty obvious), but because you don't like the implications.

Parents percieve benefits on teacng religion to children. Apparently, so does some studies,

Ah ok- its true enough that any number of studies have linked certain forms of religiosity to higher mental health; which is not very much of a surprise- if nothing else, religious stories generally give us comfort and a feeling of well-being or security. But given that we're talking about young children, and suicide is not especially prevalent among this demographic, this doesn't seem very relevant here... So religious indoctrination means my 6 year old won't commit suicide? Whew! I was really worried about that!

 

[Me Myself]

Simply claiming that something is "just an opinion" is not a counter-argument. I made a claim about a matter of fact- so I could be mistaken, but we're clearly not talking about a matter of opinion at all. And if you feel that religion is still an explanatory enterprise consisting of relating information vital to survival via narratives, then by all means, I'm all ears. However, I get the feeling you're objecting to this claim not because you have any basis for thinking it false (indeed, it is pretty obvious), but because you don't like the implications.


Ah ok- its true enough that any number of studies have linked certain forms of religiosity to higher mental health; which is not very much of a surprise- if nothing else, religious stories generally give us comfort and a feeling of well-being or security. But given that we're talking about young children, and suicide is not especially prevalent among this demographic, this doesn't seem very relevant here... So religious indoctrination means my 6 year old won't commit suicide? Whew! I was really worried about that!

You said religion accomplishes nothing. Until you can evidence this, it is a mere opinion.

Until you find me studies that say that statistically speaking, children have any harm on them because they are being taught the relgion of their parents, what you have is merely an opinion and nothing more.

Also it talks about heal in general, the suicide part was merely more specific for those teens.

 

[Curious George]

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.

I would suggest the benefits are akin to any club. While certainly there is also a potential for manipulation, potential does not mean certainty. Children can find both hope and despair in religion. The supposed loss of autonomy is no greater than the loss of autonomy created by everyday "indoctrination." The harm from preventing non-abusive forms of religious "indoctrination" comes not to the child, but to society. Any model that actively tried to prevent parents would be inefficient.

Is Santa immoral too? Mermaids and fairies are stripping our children of dignity? Leprechaun and super heroes are depriving our children of rational thought. If you are going to put forth ideas on the which is a better parenting model and which is worse, then you better have a good argument. Otherwise your ramblings equate to nothing more than a cookie cutter approach to child rearing. In reality what works best depends on both the child and the parents.

 

[Me Myself]

I would suggest the benefits are akin to any club. While certainly there is also a potential for manipulation, potential does not mean certainty. Children can find both hope and despair in religion.

Statistically speaking, they tend to do better with religion actually

Religion and children - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Curious George]

Statistically speaking, they tend to do better with religion actually

Religion and children - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, but that is statistics. We may find correlation there but I am more apt to believe that many of these benefits stem from the child feeling a sense of belonging, more supportive people, more involvement in community service, etc.

I believe every benefit could theoretically be supplied somewhere else or by something else. However, parents need to do what they feel is best and that which they are most comfortable. For some, this is religion.

 

[Me Myself]

Yes, but that is statistics. We may find correlation there but I am more apt to believe that many of these benefits stem from the child feeling a sense of belonging, more supportive people, more involvement in community service, etc.

I believe every benefit could theoretically be supplied somewhere else or by something else. However, parents need to do what they feel is best and that which they are most comfortable. For some, this is religion.

I agree, but for now that is speculation.

The belief has been tossed around that religion is useless and that there iso benefit in teaching religion, so the article at least clears out there may be one.

With information succh as this it should be simply wrong to say that a parent is moraly wrong to teach his child his religion.

A parent does this thinking theest for hir children, and according to this study, s/he may be right.

So until someone presents a study showing that, statistically, there is harm, it is all mere speculation.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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."

Methinks you're falling into the trap of attributing other people's arguments to me. I certainly don't need a lecture in how to 'indoctrinate' children via the use of positive reinforcement...

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.

Cleaning their room is not neccessary. But we all live together in one house, and it behooves each of us to take some care of that dwelling. They're not up to repairing the pool or cleaning the guttering, but they can clean their room, to a degree. I am absolutely teaching a set of values to my children, and would think any parent that doesn't is doing a poor job. As an ex-teacher, I only wish parents took more time to teach their children about mutual respect and empathy.

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.

The line is simple, and has nothing to do with religion. If I teach my children absolutist thinking (let's say, black people aren't as smart as white people) than this is abusive to my children (as well as the obvious damage their attitudes could then flow on and cause). If I use fear, or even unreasonable reward as a means of coercing their behaviour, it's also abusive.

So, my friends teach their kids that there is a heaven, and that their grandparents are there. None of my business. If my friend's kid is naughty, and is then told 'God is watching, and you won't be going to heaven' then this is abusive, as it's beyond the child's ability to comprehend then difference between God's authority and their parents.

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.

Okay, so I'll give you a free pass on the preachiness, but I'd appreciate if you can explain to me what it is I've said that makes you assume I equate religion with brainwashing?

Are you sure you're not getting the arguments from various non-theist types mashed together in your head?

For clarity sake, here is a post I made recently in another thread related to this...

Source : http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/155772-list-things-you-would-find-wrong.html#post3545301

The things that I would find wrong in a religious upbringing could also be found in a non-religious upbringing, and would also be wrong.

In my opinion, religion can be a vehicle, or an enabler for some of the things that I'd be worried about, but honestly, none of these are limited to religious upbringings, and in no way would I see them as universal to religious upbringing.

That said;

• Lack of promoting critical thought, particularly in developing a life theory, and using this to understand the world around them.
• Introduction of concepts beyond a child's understanding in a deliberate fashion.
• Use of fear as a control mechanism.
• Promotion of the idea that one group holds the truth.
• Promotion of the idea that prejudice against some parts of society is justifiable.

Is there something there you think is potentially a problem? If so, let me know and we can discuss rationally. If not, lay of with the 'astonishment' on a parent and teacher showing bias. All people have bias, and I'm more than happy to be open and discuss mine if you'd like to identify what it is.

 

[Curious George]

Methinks you're falling into the trap of attributing other people's arguments to me. I certainly don't need a lecture in how to 'indoctrinate' children via the use of positive reinforcement...

The line is simple, and has nothing to do with religion.

Very likely. I apologize.

If the bold part is your sentiment then I am not sure what triggered my posts.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Very likely. I apologize.

If the bold part is your sentiment then I am not sure what triggered my posts.

No probs at all. Sorry for being touchy. It's a long thread, and I've dropped in, dropped out a few times. Easy to get the arguments of some tangled together.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If my children ask me a question about sex I would just tell them the answer.


BTW

Religion and children - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What conclusion are you expecting people to take from that link?

 

[Magic Man]

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.

It's not about only teaching them facts; it's about only teaching them facts as facts. It's fine to teach them about different beliefs (religious, political, or otherwise).

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

I think I can name benefits.

About half of my cousins continue to follow the old faith, having accepted their parents' indoctrination from babyhood, while the other half has fallen away. So I have a sort of observational perch on the matter.

The churchers are successful, stable, married. They remind me of the young women one often meets in college -- so sure of themselves and of the world's nature that they breeze through a math or education degree without a glance backwards. Not a millisecond of their thoughttime is wasted on the nature of God or why we are here.

So far as the cousins who shrugged off the indoctrination, they're more of a mixed bag. Some successful and settled, having worked out a worldview on their own. Some in jail or wandering the streets.

So the churchers tend to enjoy the benefit of stability and the success which that can bring in physical matters, offset by rigidity of character, living an unexamined life, etc.

The non-churchers are generally more interesting, relaxed and approachable people.

I think of the whole business as a flock of tame sheep vs. a crew of wild mountain goats. Benefits and weaknesses to each way of life.

 

[Magic Man]

I think I can name benefits.

About half of my cousins continue to follow the old faith, having accepted their parents' indoctrination from babyhood, while the other half has fallen away. So I have a sort of observational perch on the matter.

The churchers are successful, stable, married. They remind me of the young women one often meets in college -- so sure of themselves and of the world's nature that they breeze through a math or education degree without a glance backwards. Not a millisecond of their thoughttime is wasted on the nature of God or why we are here.

So far as the cousins who shrugged off the indoctrination, they're more of a mixed bag. Some successful and settled, having worked out a worldview on their own. Some in jail or wandering the streets.

So the churchers tend to enjoy the benefit of stability and the success which that can bring in physical matters, offset by rigidity of character, living an unexamined life, etc.

The non-churchers are generally more interesting, relaxed and approachable people.

I think of the whole business as a flock of tame sheep vs. a crew of wild mountain goats. Benefits and weaknesses to each way of life.

1) That's anecdotal evidence and shouldn't be used for generalizations.

2) That doesn't really address the issue you were responding to. In your "study", everyone was indoctrinated; it's just that some people broke away from it later in life. The question is about the difference between not indoctrinating kid with religious beliefs and indoctrinating them with them. So, your two groups would have to be one where kids were indoctrinated and one where they weren't.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

1) That's anecdotal evidence and shouldn't be used for generalizations.

I disagree. Generalizing from our experiences and observations is the way we try to make sense of life, so it seems to me.

 

[Magic Man]

I disagree. Generalizing from our experiences and observations is the way we try to make sense of life, so it seems to me.

I didn't say people don't do it. They certainly do, and that's how they come to so many inaccurate conclusions.

 

[Falvlun]

It's not about only teaching them facts; it's about only teaching them facts as facts. It's fine to teach them about different beliefs (religious, political, or otherwise).

So, if I think that X religious beliefs are true (are facts), then why would that be wrong, in your view?