Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Speaking for myself, if I'm going to try to convince others of something I believe, then it needs to meet a higher level of support than a belief that I just believe for myself. There's a duty of care to the other person when you're trying to get someone else to accept your beliefs, IMO. This goes double when the other person is a child.

 

[Magic Man]

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

Because when it's a belief that has many alternatives that are equally well supported by evidence, it's incorrect to think of it as a fact. Think of it like how our legal system works. Things are illegal based on verifiable harm, not based on people's individual moralities (or at least that's supposed to be how it works). Same thing applies here. If all it is is a personal belief, it shouldn't be taught as fact. If it's a verifiably true piece of information, it can be taught as fact.

 

[Falvlun]

Speaking for myself, if I'm going to try to convince others of something I believe, then it needs to meet a higher level of support than a belief that I just believe for myself. There's a duty of care to the other person when you're trying to get someone else to accept your beliefs, IMO. This goes double when the other person is a child.

Because when it's a belief that has many alternatives that are equally well supported by evidence, it's incorrect to think of it as a fact. Think of it like how our legal system works. Things are illegal based on verifiable harm, not based on people's individual moralities (or at least that's supposed to be how it works). Same thing applies here. If all it is is a personal belief, it shouldn't be taught as fact. If it's a verifiably true piece of information, it can be taught as fact.

Which brings me back to my original point: It appears that your objection to teaching religious beliefs is that you don't believe that they are true.

Someone who believes a particular religion does in fact believe that it is true, that it is justifiable to believe in it, and that it is the best explanation. It's not "just a person's belief". It's their truth.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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

No, that's not what I said at all.

 

[Magic Man]

Which brings me back to my original point: It appears that your objection to teaching religious beliefs is that you don't believe that they are true.

I'm not sure how you got that out of anything I said. What I oppose it teaching beliefs as facts. You can teach beliefs as beliefs all you want.

Someone who believes a particular religion does in fact believe that it is true, that it is justifiable to believe in it, and that it is the best explanation. It's not "just a person's belief". It's their truth.

Correct, it's their truth, so it shouldn't be foisted onto anyone else.

A lot of people think their personal morality is the truth and yet don't feel the need to foist it onto everyone through the law (even though some people do attempt to do this). I'm just saying approaching teaching this to kids the same way is the best way. If you believe something, great. If that belief has no backing other than a book or the word of some authority figure, it's best to remember it's your personal belief and not something to be taught to anyone else as fact.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The supposed loss of autonomy is no greater than the loss of autonomy created by everyday "indoctrination."

I don't see how that is so, at least with the examples of other forms of "indoctrination" we've seen so far- morality, etiquette, practical how-to knowledge (like tying shoes), etc. These things generally do not play as crucial of a role in forming an individuals self-image and worldview- indeed, everyone knows how to tie their shoes, everyone agrees that murder is immoral, and so on.

Any model that actively tried to prevent parents would be inefficient.

I'm not saying it would ever be feasible, or even desirable to enforce any sort of regulations or legislation curtailing religious indoctrination. What we're talking about here is whether it is moral, or appropriate.

Is Santa immoral too? Mermaids and fairies are stripping our children of dignity? Leprechaun and super heroes are depriving our children of rational thought.

Not a good comparison. Children don't generally make it much past what, age 10 or so, without being told that these entities are fictitious. Unfortunately, nobody is ever honest enough to break the news that God is no less fictitious.

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.

Check.

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.

A vacuous motto. Yes, it depends on both the child and the parents. But that doesn't suggest, even in the slightest, that anything is gained by circumventing your childs ability to critically evaluate the religion you're pushing and come to a responsible independent decision of their own.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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

Whatever you're trying to say to me doesn't seem to be getting through.

In my view, everyone generalizes from their experiences and observations. Constantly. Every day. From scientists to voodoo doctors. If they didn't generalize, they couldn't function in the world.

Sometimes people's conclusions are accurate and sometimes inaccurate. That must be so, since one guy's conclusions often contradict the other guy's conclusions.

Anyway, I hope this clarifies my view of how people generalize from their observations and experiences. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer.

 

[Falvlun]

I'm not sure how you got that out of anything I said. What I oppose it teaching beliefs as facts. You can teach beliefs as beliefs all you want.

It is your belief that it's not a fact, no?

Correct, it's their truth, so it shouldn't be foisted onto anyone else.

A lot of people think their personal morality is the truth and yet don't feel the need to foist it onto everyone through the law (even though some people do attempt to do this). I'm just saying approaching teaching this to kids the same way is the best way. If you believe something, great. If that belief has no backing other than a book or the word of some authority figure, it's best to remember it's your personal belief and not something to be taught to anyone else as fact.

Isn't it merely your belief that basing a belief upon a book isn't good enough?

You believe that the book upon which they are basing their belief isn't a reliable producer of truth. But they do. Why should your belief trump theirs? Isn't this coming down to what you, personally, are considering to be "truth", "fact", and "belief"?

 

[Magic Man]

Whatever you're trying to say to me doesn't seem to be getting through.

In my view, everyone generalizes from their experiences and observations. Constantly. Every day. From scientists to voodoo doctors. If they didn't generalize, they couldn't function in the world.

Sometimes people's conclusions are accurate and sometimes inaccurate. That must be so, since one guy's conclusions often contradict the other guy's conclusions.

Anyway, I hope this clarifies my view of how people generalize from their observations and experiences. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer.

Using anecdotal evidence to form generalized conclusions is not a reliable way of determining such conclusions. That's how you get things like "Most of my friends hate the movie The Godfather, so it must not be a very well liked movie" or "All the black people I know are lazy, so all black people must be lazy". You can certainly use anecdotal evidence to form hypotheses, but they should be tested further before being assumed to be true.

 

[Magic Man]

It is your belief that it's not a fact, no?

No.

Isn't it merely your belief that basing a belief upon a book isn't good enough?

I wouldn't say "merely" a belief. But yes, it is my belief, and this doesn't do anything to discount its value.

You believe that the book upon which they are basing their belief isn't a reliable producer of truth. But they do. Why should your belief trump theirs? Isn't this coming down to what you, personally, are considering to be "truth", "fact", and "belief"?

OK, let me try giving my analogy again, since it seems to have been ignored:

We base laws on verifiable harm because it's generally accepted to be a bad idea to try to base them on people's individual moralities. Most people can understand and agree with that, even if they have strong personal moralities. It's based on the idea of not imposing beliefs on others, unless there is verifiable support for those ideas that make practical sense.

Using that same thought process indicates we should treat the education of our children the same way. If something has verifiable evidence, as in evidence that can be presented to anyone and agreed upon, teaching it as fact works. If it doesn't have that, but rather is a personal belief, then teaching it as fact isn't ideal.

Basically, in the law we make the distinction between personal beliefs and beliefs that can be agreed upon by everyone. I'm just using that same distinction in regards to how to teach children.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Using anecdotal evidence to form generalized conclusions is not a reliable way of determining such conclusions.

Couldn't agree more. So perhaps you can explain the non-anecdotal basis for conclusions such as the following:

Then, just as Sojourner, you're talking about a completely different kind of religious upbringing than most Christians in this country.

How do you know what kind of religious upbringing most Christians in the US had?

 

[Falvlun]

No.

Explain how it is "not a fact". Unless you can prove that their beliefs are not true, your belief that their beliefs are not a fact is precisely that-- a belief. Not a fact.

I wouldn't say "merely" a belief. But yes, it is my belief, and this doesn't do anything to discount its value.

No, it just makes your position full of double standards.

OK, let me try giving my analogy again, since it seems to have been ignored:

We base laws on verifiable harm because it's generally accepted to be a bad idea to try to base them on people's individual moralities. Most people can understand and agree with that, even if they have strong personal moralities. It's based on the idea of not imposing beliefs on others, unless there is verifiable support for those ideas that make practical sense.

Using that same thought process indicates we should treat the education of our children the same way. If something has verifiable evidence, as in evidence that can be presented to anyone and agreed upon, teaching it as fact works. If it doesn't have that, but rather is a personal belief, then teaching it as fact isn't ideal.

Basically, in the law we make the distinction between personal beliefs and beliefs that can be agreed upon by everyone. I'm just using that same distinction in regards to how to teach children.

Your analogy doesn't make much sense.

For one, no, laws are not based on things everyone can agree on. This is pretty self evident.

For two, they are more about practicality and effects upon society. It doesn't have much to do with facts or truth vs personal opinion.

For three, determining what should or should not be a law doesn't have much to do with "not imposing beliefs upon others." Not to mention, various laws, both past and present, are very much about subjective morality.

And for four, even if all the above fell in your favor, I'm left scratching my head why we should be basing how to raise our children on how we make laws.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Using anecdotal evidence to form generalized conclusions is not a reliable way of determining such conclusions. That's how you get things like "Most of my friends hate the movie The Godfather, so it must not be a very well liked movie" or "All the black people I know are lazy, so all black people must be lazy". You can certainly use anecdotal evidence to form hypotheses, but they should be tested further before being assumed to be true.

Um... so you are giving us a lesson in the rudiments of the scientific method?

OK, I guess. I learned that stuff in my early teens, but maybe there's someone in the thread who needs a refresher.

 

[Curious George]

Not a good comparison. Children don't generally make it much past what, age 10 or so, without being told that these entities are fictitious. Unfortunately, nobody is ever honest enough to break the news that God is no less fictitious.

Santa Clause and other mythological creatures are absolutely apt comparisons. People, and excuse me if this does not include you, have suggested merely telling a child a belief is a fact before they can utilize critical reasoning is wrong.

Many parents tell children that Santa Clause does exist before the kid can utilize critical reasoning. If you are now changing your model to allow for teaching kids beliefs as facts until they can utilize critical reasoning at which time the truth is unveiled then you are essentially saying that it is immoral for parents to not encourage their children to think critically about religion once they have the capability of doing so. I do not think you will find many arguments against a concept which suggests it is better for parents to allow and encourage critical reflection on what the child has learned. So, you are either adding the extra age component to religion purely based on bias or to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

[Magic Man]

Couldn't agree more. So perhaps you can explain the non-anecdotal basis for conclusions such as the following:

How do you know what kind of religious upbringing most Christians in the US had?

The way I know that is by paying attention to the country.

 

[Magic Man]

No, it just makes your position full of double standards.

Not at all.

Your analogy doesn't make much sense.

For one, no, laws are not based on things everyone can agree on. This is pretty self evident.

You're right. Everyone can't agree on the idea of not murdering each other...

For two, they are more about practicality and effects upon society. It doesn't have much to do with facts or truth vs personal opinion.

For three, determining what should or should not be a law doesn't have much to do with "not imposing beliefs upon others." Not to mention, various laws, both past and present, are very much about subjective morality.

1) You'll have to explain why you believe what you do here.

2) I already acknowledged that some laws are and have been the product of personal morality, and they slowly get the ax, because people can agree to keep laws to things that have verifiable harm.

And for four, even if all the above fell in your favor, I'm left scratching my head why we should be basing how to raise our children on how we make laws.

I already explained it. We should only teach kids verifiable pieces of information as fact, and only teach them unverifiable pieces of info as belief. It's based on the same idea as how we determine laws, as I laid out already.

 

[Magic Man]

Um... so you are giving us a lesson in the rudiments of the scientific method?

OK, I guess. I learned that stuff in my early teens, but maybe there's someone in the thread who needs a refresher.

There is such a person, and it's the person who said:

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

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There is such a person, and it's the person who said:

What can I say. To my ear, you sound very much confused about how humans go about interpreting the world. I guess we'd have to talk about that before we could talk about the indoctrination of children. Let me know if it's something you want to undertake (although I'd prefer to talk about the indoctrination thing.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which brings me back to my original point: It appears that your objection to teaching religious beliefs is that you don't believe that they are true.

For me, this is a side issue. IMO, the issue of freedom should be enough to be against indoctrination of children even if you think your beliefs are correct... just as a parent can think they've found the perfect spouse for their son or daughter but still respect his or her right to choose someone else.

Someone who believes a particular religion does in fact believe that it is true, that it is justifiable to believe in it, and that it is the best explanation. It's not "just a person's belief". It's their truth.

If it's not just their belief, then it's defensible... not just as merely one explanation of many that happens to fit the facts, but as the one explanation that is more defensible than all the others. Do you think any religious belief has ever cleared this bar?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The way I know that is by paying attention to the country.

In an extraordinarily non-anecdotal and yet unspecified way.