Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Magic Man]

In extraordinarily non-anecdotal and yet unspecified way.

Sorry, but the question is a waste of time. The vast majority of Christians believe in a literal god and teach accordingly. That's why the "Does God exist" debate is so popular. If most Christians believed in a metaphorical god, the question would be meaningless and unimportant.

 

[Magic Man]

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.)

I have to say I'm curious to know in what way you think I'm confused about how humans go about interpreting the world.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sorry, but the question is a waste of time.

Right. You have the time to say why everybody else is wrong given your "facts", ignore actual studies (not just anecdotal evidence) and declare over and over again the harms of the upbringing you claim to be so prevalent, and dismiss others observations as somehow invalid, yet you can't be troubled to provide even the slightest evidence that your own observations are based in anything more (or anything at all).

The vast majority of Christians believe in a literal god and teach accordingly.

So did my parents. You already claimed, however, that my upbringing was atypical. Try again.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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"?

People can have varying standards for what they consider sufficient support for a claim, but if the standard is so low that (if it was applied consistently) it would lead to accepting mutually exclusive claims, then it's demonstrably too low.

 

[Magic Man]

Right. You have the time to say why everybody else is wrong given your "facts", ignore actual studies (not just anecdotal evidence) and declare over and over again the harms of the upbringing you claim to be so prevalent, and dismiss others observations as somehow invalid, yet you can't be troubled to provide even the slightest evidence that your own observations are based in anything more (or anything at all).

Mostly correct. The assertion you want me to provide evidence for is such an obvious one that it's not worth taking the time on. The incorrect part is bolded.

So did my parents. You already claimed, however, that my upbringing was atypical. Try again.

No, thanks. I'll stick to things that aren't a waste of time, and you can keep wasting your time asking for evidence of something so obvious.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Mostly correct. The assertion you want me to provide evidence for is such an obvious one that it's not worth taking the time on.

You can take the time to continually denigrate and dismiss the experience of others, but can't be bothered to claim your view is based on something other than the more of the same. Right.

The incorrect part is bolded.

I know I cited at least one study just for you. You ignored it, like every other bit of evidence offered against your view. You just continue to repeat ad nauseam the same assertions you claim are fact (including the definition of fact). It's more than a little ridiculous and so dogmatic it might as well be religious.

I'll stick to things that aren't a waste of time, and you can keep wasting your time asking for evidence of something so obvious.

I'm not asking for evidence of the obvious. I'm asking for evidence that you aren't dismissing the views of others when your own is of the exact same sort. Were it obvious, you could have provided evidence you haven't done this long before we were discussing whether your sweeping statements about Christian upbringing were accurate and were just on your repetitious dogma about the definitions of "fact" and "proof".

 

[Magic Man]

You can take the time to continually denigrate and dismiss the experience of others, but can't be bothered to claim your view is based on something other than the more of the same. Right.

I can continue to point out that you're asking me to support an assertion that is obvious to anyone paying attention. Last I checked, they didn't do studies on whether Christian parents who raise their kids in the religion do it in a literal sense, mainly because it's not in question.

I know I cited at least one study just for you. You ignored it, like every other bit of evidence offered against your view. You just continue to repeat ad nauseam the same assertions you claim are fact (including the definition of fact). It's more than a little ridiculous and so dogmatic it might as well be religious.

Yeah, I'm sure that's how it went.

I'm not asking for evidence of the obvious. I'm asking for evidence that you aren't dismissing the views of others when your own is of the exact same sort. Were it obvious, you could have provided evidence you haven't done this long before we were discussing whether your sweeping statements about Christian upbringing were accurate and were just on your repetitious dogma about the definitions of "fact" and "proof".

Sorry, but the fact that the vast majority of Christian education is at least partially literal (as in a literal god and Jesus literally being his son, etc.) isn't worth taking the time to find studies or polls to support. We can see it's the case from the teachings of things like the Vatican, Catholic schools, churches, etc.

 

[Willamena]

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. ... 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.

What alternatives does "God does exist" have that are supported by any evidence?

If you're thinking of, for instance, the natural world supported by evidence, how would that be an alternative to "God does exist"?

 

[Magic Man]

What alternatives does "God does exist" have that are supported by any evidence?

If you're thinking of, for instance, the natural world supported by evidence, how would that be an alternative to "God does exist"?

I said there are alternatives equally well supported, as in Yahweh has the same amount of evidence as Allah and Zeus, the Goddess, etc.

 

[Willamena]

I said there are alternatives equally well supported, as in Yahweh has the same amount of evidence as Allah and Zeus, the Goddess, etc.

Do you mean that because there are many gods, none of them are fact?

 

[Magic Man]

Do you mean that because there are many gods, none of them are fact?

No, I mean that all gods and supernatural phenomena have the same amount of evidence for them.

 

[Willamena]

No, I mean that all gods and supernatural phenomena have the same amount of evidence for them.

And what bearing does that have on them being taught as fact?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And what bearing does that have on them being taught as fact?

Not enough.

 

[Magic Man]

And what bearing does that have on them being taught as fact?

As I said, if there are so many mutually exclusive beliefs with an equal amount of evidence supporting them, they shouldn't be taught as fact.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I can continue to point out that you're asking me to support an assertion that is obvious to anyone paying attention. Last I checked, they didn't do studies on whether Christian parents who raise their kids in the religion do it in a literal sense, mainly because it's not in question.

First, again my parents certainly preached a literal Christianity and raised me to believe in it. Second, you have claimed a lot more than this (including how the majority of people raised to believe in a particular religion continue to do so) without providing the slightest bit of corroboration. Third, they absolutely study what kind of religious upbringing the general population has. A large number of Christians are raised in nominally Christian households (not just in Europe, but in the US). Fourth, you can continue to deny that you will support an assertion because it's obvious, but what is really obvious is that you have no evidence other than that of the type you've dismissed when others present it. The fact that you continue to refuse to admit this is simply evidence of dogma.

Yeah, I'm sure that's how it went.

Luckily, we can check:

Raising children involves indoctrination. Period.

Not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily. This isn't magic. It's science:
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83.

Your response to this study? Absent.

Sorry, but the fact that the vast majority of Christian education is at least partially literal

Couldn't matter less until you show that this indoctrination is somehow prima facie different than others. Dogma is dogma, as you've so aptly illustrated, and the fact that Christians generally teach that Jesus and God are literal entities doesn't mean they don't teach critical thinking. Christianity began in a rather hostile socio-cultural environment and birthed a kind of apology unseen before as well as the dogma "faith through reason" which came to fruition especially with the scholastics, the precursors to the (Christian) origins of modern science. Were it not for the Christian worldview, we have no way of knowing when or where or why modern science would have developed. Precious few cultures developed the same level of inquiry as the scholastics and none reached the level of there intellectual descendants. it was a particular form of indoctrination which taught that natural philosophy as a means to understand god was not only possible but desirable at large. The modern university was a Catholic invention. From Newton and Leibniz to Gödel, many of the greatest minds the world has ever seen not only believed in a literal god, but dedicated themselves to the sciences (including for most mathematics, which until the 20th century was universally regarded as a science) because of their belief.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of close-minded, scientifically illiterate, and dogmatic atheists whose critical thinking skills resemble that of a cult member. Stupidity and a lack of basic reasoning skills isn't a function of religion. It's a function generally of culture at large, of human nature, and of particular parenting regardless of any "literal" approach to (almost) any religion.

(as in a literal god and Jesus literally being his son, etc.)

Like my parents taught me. Yet you said my upbringing is unique.

polls to support

How on earth would polls demonstrate whether those told by their parents that god is literal and Jesus is literally his son are, in general, less able to think critically than those who aren't told this? They might reveal (in another study you can ignore) that Americans consistently overreport church attendance and things like that:
"Rather, while still relatively high, American attendance looks more similar to a number of countries in Europe, after accounting for overreporting. American religion may, however, be considered exceptional in a new way in light of these findings: Unlike the other countries examined here, American behavior continues its consistent failure to match self-reported rates. American religiosity as an outlier is a concept that may be better applied to identity and self-concept rather than behavior"
Brenner, P. S. (2011). Exceptional behavior or exceptional identity? Overreporting of church attendance in the US. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(1), 19-41.

We can see it's the case from the teachings of things like the Vatican, Catholic schools, churches, etc.

Catholics, particularly in the US, are among the most irreligious Christians around. They don't read the bible because the RCC deliberately made it unavailable for the common church-goer so that only priests who went to seminary to study could have access to it. The idea was to ensure that anybody who read the bible had the necessary experience studying to interpret it for themselves and others. This backfired in the long run as it almost turned Catholicism into a religion like Judaism, where a great many members identify themselves as Catholics without going to church, without having ever read the bible, and without generally agreeing with the Church's teachings. But don't take my word for it- here's another study you can ignore:
"The results are clear: In only two dioceses is the church attendance rate at or above the 51% rate reported by Gallup. When aggregated, the weekly Catholic attendance rate is 26.7% - approximately half the self-reported rate. Especially when we consider the upward biases operating on the count data (e.g., the pressure for priests to over-report attendance), these results provide strong confirmation of Hadaway et al.'s (1993) initial conclusions. Weekly church attendance for U.S. Catholics is much closer to 25% than to 50%.6"
Chaves, M., & Cavendish, J. C. (1994). More evidence on US Catholic church attendance. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 376-381.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I have to say I'm curious to know in what way you think I'm confused about how humans go about interpreting the world.

By arguing that humans must not generalize from our experiences and observations.

To me, it seems that we do that constantly. We get stung by a buzzing insect -- three times. We conclude (generalize) that it might be wise to avoid buzzing insects. But our neighbor, who objects to humans generalizing, continues to play with buzzing insects and suffers for it.

I notice my cousins and make generalizations about them. The country males seem to like stock-car racing. The city males seem to dress more stylishly.

I don't understand why (or how) you can object to such generalizing. To me, it seems unavoidable and the essence of trying to understand the world.

 

[Magic Man]

First, again my parents certainly preached a literal Christianity and raised me to believe in it. Second, you have claimed a lot more than this (including how the majority of people raised to believe in a particular religion continue to do so) without providing the slightest bit of corroboration.

First, obviously since your parents did it, it must be widespread. Second, I've provided corroboration for anything that needed it.

Third, they absolutely study what kind of religious upbringing the general population has.

Good, then provide one and let's test your theory.

A large number of Christians are raised in nominally Christian households (not just in Europe, but in the US).

Not at all surprising, although you should probably back that up, you know, for consistency's sake.

Fourth, you can continue to deny that you will support an assertion because it's obvious, but what is really obvious is that you have no evidence other than that of the type you've dismissed when others present it. The fact that you continue to refuse to admit this is simply evidence of dogma.

The fact remains that most Christians who raise their children in Christianity do so with a literal approach to the core beliefs, not with a metaphorically approach treating the myths as myths.

Luckily, we can check:


Your response to this study? Absent.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you thought some part of that supported your point. You're welcome to point out which part you think does that, though.

Dogma is dogma, as you've so aptly illustrated, and the fact that Christians generally teach that Jesus and God are literal entities doesn't mean they don't teach critical thinking.

Well, at least you've finally decided to admit that most Christians teach about God and Jesus in a literal sense. Of course, now you're attributing to me the weird argument that most Christians don't teach critical thinking, even though nothing I've said even implies that.

Were it not for the Christian worldview, we have no way of knowing when or where or why modern science would have developed. Precious few cultures developed the same level of inquiry as the scholastics and none reached the level of there intellectual descendants. it was a particular form of indoctrination which taught that natural philosophy as a means to understand god was not only possible but desirable at large. The modern university was a Catholic invention. From Newton and Leibniz to Gödel, many of the greatest minds the world has ever seen not only believed in a literal god, but dedicated themselves to the sciences (including for most mathematics, which until the 20th century was universally regarded as a science) because of their belief.

1) I'm pretty sure we have a way of knowing that modern science would have developed, even if we don't know for sure where or when. Christian cultures aren't even close to having a monopoly on science. Muslim countries were once very advanced in science, possibly more advanced than Christian ones.

2) Indoctrination was and is not necessary to get people interested in science.

3) Christianity had a huge role in western civilization, so it only makes sense that it would have had a huge role in the development of western education. None of this has any bearing on whether we should teach our children our religious beliefs as facts.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of close-minded, scientifically illiterate, and dogmatic atheists whose critical thinking skills resemble that of a cult member. Stupidity and a lack of basic reasoning skills isn't a function of religion. It's a function generally of culture at large, of human nature, and of particular parenting regardless of any "literal" approach to (almost) any religion.

And yet this doesn't counter anything I've said.

Like my parents taught me. Yet you said my upbringing is unique.

Huh? I think you may have miscommunicated somewhere, because what you said before was that you weren't taught this, and then you asked for evidence that most Christian upbringing was this way.

After reviewing, I said I base my view of how most Christians are raised on how most Christians are raised (meaning with a literal approach to the core beliefs, rather than a mythological one). You said except for Sojourner and you and other Christians you know, meaning you guys weren't brought up with a literal view of the beliefs. If you're now saying you were brought up the usual way with that literal interpretation, then I think we're good here.

How on earth would polls demonstrate whether those told by their parents that god is literal and Jesus is literally his son are, in general, less able to think critically than those who aren't told this?

I don't know, but now it's clear you're arguing something completely different than I am, and I'm not sure why. This all started by me saying that your upbringing where you were taught Christian beliefs as myths rather than as literal facts was completely different from that of most Christian kids. Nowhere was there an implication that most Christians aren't taught critical thinking.

EDIT:

Sorry, just realize what you posted the following in response to:

Catholics, particularly in the US, are among the most irreligious Christians around. They don't read the bible because the RCC deliberately made it unavailable for the common church-goer so that only priests who went to seminary to study could have access to it. The idea was to ensure that anybody who read the bible had the necessary experience studying to interpret it for themselves and others. This backfired in the long run as it almost turned Catholicism into a religion like Judaism, where a great many members identify themselves as Catholics without going to church, without having ever read the bible, and without generally agreeing with the Church's teachings. But don't take my word for it- here's another study you can ignore:
"The results are clear: In only two dioceses is the church attendance rate at or above the 51% rate reported by Gallup. When aggregated, the weekly Catholic attendance rate is 26.7% - approximately half the self-reported rate. Especially when we consider the upward biases operating on the count data (e.g., the pressure for priests to over-report attendance), these results provide strong confirmation of Hadaway et al.'s (1993) initial conclusions. Weekly church attendance for U.S. Catholics is much closer to 25% than to 50%.6"
Chaves, M., & Cavendish, J. C. (1994). More evidence on US Catholic church attendance. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 376-381.

Are you under the impression that church attendance numbers have something to do with whether people believe the core Christian beliefs literally?

 

[Magic Man]

By arguing that humans must not generalize from our experiences and observations.

To me, it seems that we do that constantly. We get stung by a buzzing insect -- three times. We conclude (generalize) that it might be wise to avoid buzzing insects. But our neighbor, who objects to humans generalizing, continues to play with buzzing insects and suffers for it.

I notice my cousins and make generalizations about them. The country males seem to like stock-car racing. The city males seem to dress more stylishly.

I don't understand why (or how) you can object to such generalizing. To me, it seems unavoidable and the essence of trying to understand the world.

First, you don't seem to be distinguishing between what people do and what they should do. As I said, people do generalize that way, no doubt about it. That sort of generalization can even come in handy, but it shouldn't be counted on for anything important.

Second, I object to generalizing based on anecdotal evidence because it is unreliable and often gives us inaccurate views. Your buzzing insect example doesn't work because that's not what we're talking about. It would be more like being stung by three bees and assuming all buzzing insects are dangerous. That's obviously inaccurate, which is my whole point.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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.

You seem to have a habit of ignoring my actual arguments or comments in lieu of attacking strawmen; if you're going to ignore or selectively forget what I actually say, I'm not sure what the point of continuing is here... I've repeated, any number of times, why I think religion is a peculiar subject matter, in that it informs and influences many aspects of a person's life or worldview, and involves sophisticated concepts most children simply cannot grasp. The relevant differences between fairy tales and fictions we tell children, and religious indoctrination, are numerous, and largely self-evident; your claim that they are "absolutely apt comparisons" strikes me as disingenuous; clearly, we're talking about apples and oranges here.

 

[OurCreed]

Islam for example, is an open minded religion. It encourages folks to question its own teachings and at the same time, lays down one very basic principle that many religious people forget about.

A verse from the Holy Qur'an.

"Let there be no compulsion (force) in matters of religion. The right path has become clear from the wrong." [2:257].

Islam teaches its followers and also gives advice to other free thinkers and readers that one CANNOT force or compel another to join a religion. A religion is basically a relationship, a relationship between man and God. In any relationship, can any human force you to commune in a relation with someone? No of course not, it's unethical and immoral, and this concept applies for religion as well.

The Qur'an, 1,400 years ago has established this basic principle, and true Muslims adhere to these teachings.

In a normal Muslim family, the mother and father nurture and raise their children with love, care, and tenderness, and teach their children the etiquette of life, just like any parent would. But the Muslim family in particular are doing it because their religion commands them to, not because they choose to. They are doing it because that is what God wants for them, not by their own will. Their own will comes second in line.

Both a Muslim and a non-religious moral family will raise their children right and teach them the proper ways of living. The child is free to choose whichever path he/she wants to take.

In the Muslim family, the parents of course have every right to teach their own religion to the child, this isn't considered brainwashing, but one thing the parents should not do, is to enforce their faith onto the child. The child must think for him/herself, ask questions, and be free to choose their own path.

Remember, go back to the Qur'anic verse, the BASIC principle that we ALL must know.

"Let there be no compulsion in religion."