Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[LegionOnomaMoi]

First, obviously since your parents did it, it must be widespread.

Not at all. But having an example is still better. You don't even have an example.

Second, I've provided corroboration for anything that needed it.

You haven't provided any corroboration for anything at all.

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



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

I provided you a source on declining church attendance. Now, admittedly that isn't the only metric or factor involved in belief and the treatment of religion in families that identify themselves as Christian, but it is a rather significant one. "Church-going" isn't a new phrase. The distinction between those who say they are Christian and those who actually go to church has a rather lengthy history you whitewash in your reply. So, if you are going to dismiss one of the central indicators in the study of religiosity of that religiosity based on (once again) your baseless assertions about religion, sociology, US culture, and blah blah blah, what the is the point of backing up anything I say to you? If you can provide what kind of evidence you would accept as indicative here, I can provide it within reason. If you're wedded to the idea that teaching a literal god somehow means harmful indoctrination without any indication that it does nor even the slightest thought that this requires evidence especially when the ******* scientific method and the birth of science itself to indicate it you are wrong, then what the **** is the point of arguing such a close-minded, sterile, ignorant, prejudiced, and hypocritical point?

The fact remains that most Christians who raise their children in Christianity do so with a literal approach to the core beliefs

Again, so what? You refuse to provide sources, you claim things are proven because you say they are proven, you refuse to provide a critical argument, and you are atheist. What does teaching that god is literal matter if you instill critical thinking? How is this form of indoctrination more complete or somehow dangerous relative to the kind that you apparently can't realize exists because a single study is too much to ask you to read?

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.

When being language and Western culture changes how one thinks relative to other cultures then being raised in a culture is about as thorough an indoctrination as is possible outside prisons and reeducation camps. Read the study. Then we can discuss.

Well, at least you've finally decided to admit that most Christians teach about God and Jesus in a literal sense

I never denied it.

Of course, now you're attributing to me the weird argument that most Christians don't teach critical thinking

No. I'm attributing to you the baseless argument that teaching a literal god could possibly matter at all. It was taught to me. I said that pages and pages ago.

1) I'm pretty sure we have a way of knowing that modern science would have developed

I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about. You aren't a scientist and you haven't studied the history of science. But I started an entire thread on this. If I'm wrong about you and you wish to debate this point, feel free here.

Muslim countries were once very advanced in science, possibly more advanced than Christian ones.

They never were. Science isn't the development of mathematics or is it inventions. See the thread linked to above.

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

It absolutely is. Again, see the thread before disagreeing please.

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.

Higher learning as a system was totally a product of the Church. Even in the US, most universities were for training priests.

None of this has any bearing on whether we should teach our children our religious beliefs as facts.

It has to do with how arrogant it is to think that those who are taught a literal god are somehow indoctrinated in ways that others aren't. It shows a blindness to the real basis for one's worldview. It shows an ignorance of what goes into a child's upbringing and to the thoroughness of cultural indoctrination.

You said except for Sojourner and you and other Christians you know

I said I was raised to believe that much of the bible was like mythologies or Aesop's fables. That's in the ******* catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. Is there a literal tree of knowledge? NO:
"396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die." The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom. "

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.

And apparently you are so ignorant of many Christian denominations including the one that has more Christians than the rest put together and more members than any other religion period (with the possible exception of Islam) that you didn't realize this is the orthodox view for them. It's been a part of Christian teaching since almost the beginning nearly 2,000 years ago. Even wiki has info on it.

 

[Me Myself]

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

That raising yout kids by your religion is at least, not inherently bad.

People are saying that a statement like "God hears you pray" is indoctrination.

I assume we agree that what is commonly referred asindoctrination causes some sort of problems in the indoctrinated.

So until someone shows a study saying that kids raised with a religion have some sort of psychological problem or show some kind of hurt, then raising them with religion is not what is commonly referred as "indoctrination".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I said I was raised to believe that much of the bible was like mythologies or Aesop's fables. That's in the ******* catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. Is there a literal tree of knowledge? NO:
"396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die." The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom. "

The Catholic Church may not teach that the tree of knowledge of good and evil literally existed, but they do teach that Adam and Eve did. The Papal bull Humani Generis proclaimed that all Catholics were required to believe that all human beings descended from one original lone male-female pair:

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

Humani Generis

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

First, you don't seem to be distinguishing between what people do and what they should do.

I'm sorry, but I have no good idea what you are talking about. What people do? And what people should do?

What people? Doing what?

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.

Yeah, I'm entirely lost. As I say, I don't think people can survive in life without generalizing. Actually, I don't see how it's possible for people to use their brains without generalizing.

So....

Second, I object to generalizing based on anecdotal evidence because it is unreliable and often gives us inaccurate views.

Maybe that's where we differ. I think that all generalizing is unreliable and always gives us inaccurate views... but what choice do we have? We manipulate the world and reality using language. If we stop doing that, we stop being human, I think.

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.

But it's such an obvious point that it seems so strange to me that you've mentioned it, much less that it seems important to you. I'm just not following.

I only entered the conversation to relate my experience with my cousins. That's what I wanted to talk about, and I can't see any logical progression from my cousins to your concern about generalizing. Are you saying that I should stop thinking about my cousins and trying to draw conclusions about how their religious indoctrination may have affected them?

Or maybe we should just give up? Blame it on a bad synch maybe?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That raising yout kids by your religion is at least, not inherently bad.

How do you get that from it? I quickly scanned the article but don't see what in it supports your conclusion.

(I think this is a good example of the sort of confusion that can occur when someone substitutes a link for an argument)

 

[Me Myself]

How do you get that from it? I quickly scanned the article but don't see what in it supports your conclusion.

(I think this is a good example of the sort of confusion that can occur when someone substitutes a link for an argument)

Children raised with religion did not show any particular problem icomparison to those raised without.

As I said in the original post, it is a superficial search, but the point is that it is e kind of study I would expect from the side calling it indoctrination to support their argument (provided the study said that raising them with religion giave troubles, of course)

What I am saying is that religion is not bad for raising your children until the opposite is evidenced, and that even, there is evidence of some goodness in it.

Edit: you may confirm that I said the study didnt really evidence anything in the original post, but what I am saying is that at least it gives a posible benefit while the other side has not evidenced a harm in a statistical way (only in cases that until shown otherwise, appear to be the radical cases)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The Catholic Church may not teach that the tree of knowledge of good and evil literally existed, but they do teach that Adam and Eve did. The Papal bull Humani Generis proclaimed that all Catholics were required to believe that all human beings descended from one original lone male-female pair:



Humani Generis

1) The papal encyclical doesn't carry the same weight as the catechism or as a pope speaking ex cathedra (although, according to I think the same document it's supposed to be more authoritative than simply the pope speaking).
2) That's the same document that says there's no conflict between evolution and the RCC. If memory serves, Pope Pius held on to both by creating another definition of "man"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Children raised with religion did not show any particular problem icomparison to those raised without.

Are we reading the same article? It has a bit of stuff about positive correlations between being in a religious community and good outcomes (though it suggests several possible causes that come more from the "community" part than the "religious" part), but it also includes stuff like this:

Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer spoke of the subject in 19th century:
"And as the capacity for believing is strongest in childhood, special care is taken to make sure of this tender age. This has much more to do with the doctrines of belief taking root than threats and reports of miracles. If, in early childhood, certain fundamental views and doctrines are paraded with unusual solemnity, and an air of the greatest earnestness never before visible in anything else; if, at the same time, the possibility of a doubt about them be completely passed over, or touched upon only to indicate that doubt is the first step to eternal perdition, the resulting impression will be so deep that, as a rule, that is, in almost every case, doubt about them will be almost as impossible as doubt about one's own existence."
—Arthur Schopenhauer, On Religion: A Dialogue

Islam[10] has permitted the child marriage of older men to girls as young as 10 years of age. The Seyaj Organization for the Protection of Children describes cases of a 10 year old girl being married and raped in Yemen (Nujood Ali),[11] a 13 year old Yemeni girl dying of internal bleeding three days after marriage,[12][13] and a 12 year old girl dying in childbirth after marriage.[10][14]

Some religions prohibit blood transfusions, vaccinations, contraception, and abortions, which may lead to adverse health consequences. Membership in religious groups can moderate unhealthy behavior, provide social support, and enhance marital or financial prospects, and strengthen family bonds if the religion is shared by the whole family. Religions can also help both adults and children with self-esteem, as well as provide meaning to life and reduce anxiety, but can increase guilt over perceived misdeeds.

A detailed study in 1998 found 140 instances of deaths of children due to religion-based medical neglect. Most of these cases involved religious parents relying on prayer to cure the child's disease, and withholding medical care.

As I said in the original post, it is a superficial search, but the point is that it is e kind of study I would expect from the side calling it indoctrination to support their argument (provided the study said that raising them with religion giave troubles, of course)

What I am saying is that religion is not bad for raising your children until the opposite is evidenced, and that even, there is evidence of some goodness in it.

I'm not sure what you think the study that's referenced in the "Health Effects" section of the article is supposed to prove. Did you look at the study it referenced? Here's the link in case you didn't: http://ftp.iza.org/dp5215.pdf

I notice a few things about it:

- it doesn't say anything about correlations with religious indoctrination. It only looks at correlations between the health of children with the religious beliefs and practices of the child's parents.
- religious affiliation correlates negatively with mental health for 2 of the 4 age ranges (though admittedly, not to a high degree of statistical significance)
- all of the effects described are small. Look at Table 1: the scores for "overall health" range from 0.79 to 0.89, and the scores for "psychological health" range from 0.65 to 0.82. This is a problem. As explained in this article, a useful study needs not only statistical significance, but also a good "signal to noise" ratio.

 

[Me Myself]

Are we reading the same article? It has a bit of stuff about positive correlations between being in a religious community and good outcomes (though it suggests several possible causes that come more from the "community" part than the "religious" part), but it also includes stuff like this:










I'm not sure what you think the study that's referenced in the "Health Effects" section of the article is supposed to prove. Did you look at the study it referenced? Here's the link in case you didn't: http://ftp.iza.org/dp5215.pdf

I notice a few things about it:

- it doesn't say anything about correlations with religious indoctrination. It only looks at correlations between the health of children with the religious beliefs and practices of the child's parents.
- religious affiliation correlates negatively with mental health for 2 of the 4 age ranges (though admittedly, not to a high degree of statistical significance)
- all of the effects described are small. Look at Table 1: the scores for "overall health" range from 0.79 to 0.89, and the scores for "psychological health" range from 0.65 to 0.82. This is a problem. As explained in this article, a useful study needs not only statistical significance, but also a good "signal to noise" ratio.

So to the point, you have cases of specifical religions that cause harms but do not have any study showing statistical evidence that raising a child with a religion causes any harm?

I mean, the cases you provide are very punctual to specific religions and in e case of Islam, we would have to see religion vs culture variable.

As I said before, the study is an example.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1) The papal encyclical doesn't carry the same weight as the catechism or as a pope speaking ex cathedra (although, according to I think the same document it's supposed to be more authoritative than simply the pope speaking).

I'm not sure if that particular teaching is supposed to be ex cathedra. It meets at least some of the tests, but I don't know if it meets all.

In any case, there are several places where the Catechism talks about Adam and Eve (as well as Cain and Abel) as literal people.

2) That's the same document that says there's no conflict between evolution and the RCC. If memory serves, Pope Pius held on to both by creating another definition of "man"

I think this was a misunderstanding on his part. I don't think he realized that speciation happens in groups, not in lone pairs, and that monogenism doesn't work, since a lone pair can't create a viable population.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So to the point, you have cases of specifical religions that cause harms but do not have any study showing statistical evidence that raising a child with a religion causes any harm?

Right now, I don't have a point. I'm just trying to figure out what your argument is so that I can respond to it.

Again: this is why posting a link as an argument is a bad idea. You could have spared a lot of needless back-and-forth if you could have just stated your argument clearly in the first place.

 

[Curious George]

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.

And childhood memories and experiences also inform world views. You said Santa and other magical creatures are not good analogies. I explained why they were. If children can use rational thought to overcome a belief in Santa etc despite a person asserting this myth as fact, then why cannot the same processes apply to religion?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm not sure if that particular teaching is supposed to be ex cathedra.

It wasn't.

In any case, there are several places where the Catechism talks about Adam and Eve (as well as Cain and Abel) as literal people.

This is true. It also refers to them metaphorically. Most importantly:

I think this was a misunderstanding on his part. I don't think he realized that speciation happens in groups

The idea was that "humans" existed before Adam in the scientific sense but were not modern humans until a first pair and that first pair (even if there were others) is the one all modern humanity can be traced back to (apparently any other pairs died off early or something). Not very well thought out, but that's why it was issued in the first place- it was a contentious issue, the idea that Adam and Eve were allegorical had been taught in the Church for hundreds of years (on and off), and increasingly large portions of the church were arguing in line with a tradition set down in particular by the scholastics. It has remained a contentious issue and the priests, including the Monseigneur who ran the church I grew up in for most of my childhood (even after I stopped attending) as well as the priests and the CCD group taught that Adam and Eve were symbolic. This is part of the catechism- they are symbolic. The issue is whether they are literal too (also a part of the catechism) and it was the very contentiousness of this debate which motived the papal encyclical. However, this is rather beside the point. If I thought the RCC was right, I'd be catholic. I don't. The point is that Christianity can trace allegorical and mythical views of the OT back practically to the beginning of Christianity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The point is that Christianity can trace allegorical and mythical views of the OT back practically to the beginning of Christianity.

Yes... about as far back as it can trace literal views of the exact same material. The spectrum of religious belief - and religious teaching of children - includes both approaches.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes... about as far back as it can trace literal views of the exact same material. The spectrum of religious belief - and religious teaching of children - includes both approaches.

This is true. But fundamentalism is on the whole a fairly recent phenomenon. Today, a great deal of religious upbringing involves telling your kids there's a god and heaven and santa. And a lesser (but unfortunately quite significant, especially in the US) involves telling children that there is a god and that the bible is the literal word of this god and that only those who believe in the literal word and obey will be saved and the rest will burn for all eternity. I wholeheartedly disagree with this practice. I would rather it didn't exist. It's not typical of most Christians (keeping in mind that the largest group of Christians are catholics and perhaps most self-identified catholics don't follow the Church or go to it), it's hard to find outside the US in large numbers, and it's generally problematic (IMO) where it is found. I taught college kids and high school kids for years in MA, including Catholic students going to parochial schools, and I can count on one hand the number of problems I had with religious indoctrination when it came to teaching critical thinking. I just had problems with kids whose parents didn't enforce this attending schools that drilled item after item into their brains. That's as indoctrinating as it got for the students I worked with. Now, MA hardly represents the US. But my mothers family, including aunts and cousins, teach high school in Colorado (I described your experience, btw, and they thought it was a great idea too so I am in your debt). Some of them are Christian but even though some of them have taught for decades they haven't had much more problems than I. I'm not denying that religious indoctrination can be a problem. I am denying that teaching your kids there is a god and about your religion is
1) somehow limiting in ways that other children aren't
2) impossible or even harder to reconcile with the critical thinking children are or should be taught

 

[Me Myself]

Right now, I don't have a point. I'm just trying to figure out what your argument is so that I can respond to it.

Again: this is why posting a link as an argument is a bad idea. You could have spared a lot of needless back-and-forth if you could have just stated your argument clearly in the first place.

I any case, the argument is that there is no evidence that religious upbringing in general causes harm.

Hopefully, this is clear by now.

Do keep in mind I was respinding to other person. so I am not implying you believe any or most religious upbringing is wrong.

Edit: put e actual correct quote now

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I any case, the argument is that there is no evidence that religious upbringing in general causes harm.

And if the thread was about "religious upbringing in general" and not religious indoctrination specifically, maybe that argument would be relevant.

 

[Me Myself]

And if the thread was about "religious upbringing in general" and not religious indoctrination specifically, maybe that argument would be relevant.

When people are saying that telling to your children "God listens to you when you pray to him" is religious indoctrination, it is completely relevant.

Thats pretty much the bulk of religious upbringing. Then again, if they want to seek specific phrasing of beliefs for their studies, they will never find evidence for their position.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And childhood memories and experiences also inform world views. You said Santa and other magical creatures are not good analogies. I explained why they were. If children can use rational thought to overcome a belief in Santa etc despite a person asserting this myth as fact, then why cannot the same processes apply to religion?

Without taking sides on this topic overall, there are clear differences between belief in Santa and belief in a literal God. My parents did not contrive to assert Santa's reality throughout my life. Other parents and children were an information source. The charade of Santa was easy enough to penetrate once my cognitive skills were sufficient, etc. A bunch of other things too which mean the cognitive dissonance involved in stopping Santa-belief would generally be for less than stopping God-belief.

 

[idav]

And childhood memories and experiences also inform world views. You said Santa and other magical creatures are not good analogies. I explained why they were. If children can use rational thought to overcome a belief in Santa etc despite a person asserting this myth as fact, then why cannot the same processes apply to religion?

It ends up being that way a bit. When teaching a kid anything it is brainwashing because they are a spnge. As they get older and start doubting santa and magic its probably a red flag for anyone that a magical god might be an issue.