Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Magic Man]

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

An example of what?

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

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.

It's not only not a significant one; it's not even a metric. Whether or not people go to church has no bearing on whether they believe in a literal god and Jesus as the literal son of god or other such beliefs.

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?

Imposing your beliefs on others is generally something to be discouraged. I don't know why it should be different with children. I assume you'd argue against people in a position of authority pushing their religion on other adults. I just don't know why you think it's then OK to do to children. Your point about the history of science doesn't work.

What does teaching that god is literal matter if you instill critical thinking?

It matters because it's still imposing your beliefs on someone else. And usually what happens is, while critical thinking might be taught, it's not supposed to be used in regards to religious beliefs. Compartmentalization is part of the teaching.

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?

It depends. If you're referring to stuff that's not actually indoctrination, then it's different in that this is indoctrination. For instance, if you're talking about teaching your kid not to hit their sibling, that's not indoctrination. If you're talking about teaching your kid that trickle-down economics works and is great as if it's fact, that's indoctrination not really different from religious beliefs.

Read the study. Then we can discuss.

I'd rather you just point out some part of it that would be relevant here.

I never denied it.

You seem to be having a different argument than me then, because that's what you've been asking me for evidence of, and it's been the main point of my past several posts to you.

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) You did attribute that to me. It was in the very comment I was responding to:

"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."

2) You didn't say that at all. You said you were taught that the Bible is a collection of myths like Aesop's Fables. When I responded that that was different from most Christian education these days, I was saying that most Christians teach about a literal god and Jesus as literally his son.

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

No, thanks. I have no need for a discussion of the crazy idea that indoctrination is needed for scientific advancement.

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.

No arrogance here. It's the truth, though.

I said I was raised to believe that much of the bible was like mythologies or Aesop's fables.

That's not what you said, but it's become clear what the problem is here. You said you were taught Christian beliefs as myths, which is what I was responding to. Yes, most Christians teach that a lot of the Bible is myths not to be taken literally, but they also teach literal interpretations of some of the Bible, mainly the core beliefs in God and Jesus. Part of the problem was bringing Sojourner into it, because he was very clear about teaching children myths as myths, not as literal facts.

 

[Curious George]

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.

But under the current rationale it does not matter what happens later life. If we are Google to isolate teaching religion as fact and call such immoral regardless of what happens later in life, I.e. a parent explaining belief when the child is able to critically reason and find their own belief or disbelief, then why should we make an exception for notions like Santa or leprechauns?

 

[Curious George]

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.

I am completely willing to accept terms like indoctrination and brainwashing even if such terms are imprecise, as long as we then acknowledge that almost everything we do with children must also fall under these terms. Therefore, none of it is really wrong. When approaching the ethics of teaching children or "brainwashing" them, or "indoctrinating" them the ethical problems arise in method and not in teaching belief as fact to a young child and as this is true with everything else, so too is this true with religion.

 

[Curious George]

An example of what?







It's not only not a significant one; it's not even a metric. Whether or not people go to church has no bearing on whether they believe in a literal god and Jesus as the literal son of god or other such beliefs.



Imposing your beliefs on others is generally something to be discouraged. I don't know why it should be different with children. I assume you'd argue against people in a position of authority pushing their religion on other adults. I just don't know why you think it's then OK to do to children. .

.

Really? That's your argument?

Okay. Since it is completely acceptable for one adult to communicate their beliefs as facts
then it is also acceptable for an adult to do this to a child.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That's not what you said

But I was taught that much of the bible was like much of the mythology stories I learned and others were like the fables of Aesop I learned.

Try again.

An example of what?

Anything you say. Your method of argumentation debate is to claim something is true and that you've proved it. Look what you did with "fact". You claimed it was something that could be proven and that you proved it. Did you offer any proof or even evidence? No.

Whether or not people go to church has no bearing on whether they believe in a literal god and Jesus as the literal son of god or other such beliefs.

You are so stuck on literal and yet can't even read a single study to figure out how thoroughly indoctrinated you are.

Imposing your beliefs on others is generally something to be discouraged.

Basic moral reasoning is affected cultural indoctrination. Not just morality- moral reasoning. It's in the study you can't read. Moreover, fear of indoctrination can be detrimental:
"We argue that these professors fear of indoctrination and their views of teaching and learning prevented significant movement toward ESD. We argue that being consciously aware of the boundaries of acceptable pedagogical practice is essential if these professors are to move beyond providing “facts” and supporting their students in making sense of scientific information"
Qablan, A., Southerland, S. A., & Saka, Y. (2011). “My job isn’t to tell them what to think”: The Fear of Indoctrination and How it Shapes Education for Sustainable Development. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 15(2).

I assume you'd argue against people in a position of authority pushing their religion on other adults.

I wouldn't. I don't see it as different then people arguing that any other ideological position, such as political ideologies, are correct. I believe there are limits to what should be acceptable but this holds true for all ideologies.

I just don't know why you think it's then OK to do to children.

It can't not be done with children. That's what education is- indoctrination. Read some research for once instead of mindlessly repeating the same drivel and backing it up by claiming it's fact because you said so.

Your point about the history of science doesn't work.

No points work with someone as religiously dogmatic as you seem to be.

It matters because it's still imposing your beliefs on someone else.

A necessary part of raising a child. Your views of science, fact, history, culture, etc., are shaped by indoctrination. Hell, it's a driving factor in socio-economics that is consistently reinforced-
Saint‐Paul, G. (2010). Endogenous Indoctrination: Occupational Choices, the Evolution of Beliefs and the Political Economy of Reforms*. The Economic Journal, 120(544), 325-353.

And usually what happens is, while critical thinking might be taught

...it apparently isn't.

it's not supposed to be used in regards to religious beliefs

Certainly, it doesn't seem you are able to think critically about religious beliefs.

It depends. If you're referring to stuff that's not actually indoctrination

...according to your definition of indoctrination, which seems to consist of telling people religious ideas are true and not much else.

For instance, if you're talking about teaching your kid not to hit their sibling, that's not indoctrination.

That's true.

If you're talking about teaching your kid that trickle-down economics works and is great as if it's fact, that's indoctrination not really different from religious beliefs.

Not true. Teaching a single fact, whether it is that god exists or that you shouldn't hit others or that trickle-down economics works is not indoctrination. Indoctrination is more systematic.

I'd rather you just point out some part of it that would be relevant here.

Again, cultural indoctrination (a product of any and all upbringing of necessity) changes not just morality but basic moral reasoning (and fixes cognitive processes in non-trivial ways).

1) You did attribute that to me. It was in the very comment I was responding to:

"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."

You've missed the point. teaching that Jesus and God are literal entities is not indoctrination by definition if one teaches something like faith through reason. The most important component of indoctrination is the systematic teaching that ideology isn't just true but is either so basic it can't be question (much like your stance on what fact is) or that it must not be questioned. Telling someone there is a god and a son of god who must be understood by study and reasoning isn't indoctrination. Imagine reeducation camps where instead of constant propaganda and psychological trickery prisoners were given economic study material. Not very effective, hence not used.

No, thanks. I have no need for a discussion of the crazy idea that indoctrination is needed for scientific advancement.

Your mind is made up. Why confuse it with the facts?

 

[idav]

I am completely willing to accept terms like indoctrination and brainwashing even if such terms are imprecise, as long as we then acknowledge that almost everything we do with children must also fall under these terms. Therefore, none of it is really wrong. When approaching the ethics of teaching children or "brainwashing" them, or "indoctrinating" them the ethical problems arise in method and not in teaching belief as fact to a young child and as this is true with everything else, so too is this true with religion.

I'm not sure method is an issue, at least not always. For example what if I tell a kid to memorize the multiplication table rather than telling the exactly how multiplication works and having them work out the table themselves. Sure one method doesn't instill critical thinking but it would have got the job done almost in an indoctrinating brainwashing manner. We also brainwash our muscles when training as an athlete to instill good habits in our muscle memory.

What we are trying to teach as fact is an issue for me. Even the santa thing but at the same time I'm not trying to make a child grow up so fast, and allow a sense of wonder to flourish a bit.

 

[Magic Man]

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?

You responded to a post that said no one had showed a benefit that religious indoctrination provides. You attempted to show that with anecdotal evidence. The example you used didn't work because you were assuming things from anecdotal evidence that couldn't accurately be gleaned from it, and because it was answering a different question. If you really want to know the effects of religious indoctrination, first you'd have to use a group that was indoctrinated and one that wasn't, and second, you'd have to do it on a larger scale than some people you know and account for other factors that could affect the results.

 

[idav]

Okay. Since it is completely acceptable for one adult to communicate their beliefs as facts
then it is also acceptable for an adult to do this to a child.

I'm starting to think adults should say "I don't know" more often. Kids ask too many dern questions!

 

[Curious George]

I'm not sure method is an issue, at least not always. For example what if I tell a kid to memorize the multiplication table rather than telling the exactly how multiplication works and having them work out the table themselves. Sure one method doesn't instill critical thinking but it would have got the job done almost in an indoctrinating brainwashing manner. We also brainwash our muscles when training as an athlete to instill good habits in our muscle memory.

What we are trying to teach as fact is an issue for me. Even the santa thing but at the same time I'm not trying to make a child grow up so fast, and allow a sense of wonder to flourish a bit.

Yes, but we taught multiplication via shock therapy this would be wrong. However it would be foolish to blame multiplication or say that teaching multiplication is wrong.

 

[Magic Man]

Try again.

You forgot to bold the part where you said "others are like Aesop's fables".

You are so stuck on literal and yet can't even read a single study to figure out how thoroughly indoctrinated you are.

Here's the bottom line:

Indoctrination of children is not the best way to raise them. That includes teaching them religious beliefs as if they're facts. It's not necessary to indoctrinate children, unless you use an unnecessarily broad definition of the word "indoctrinate". Even if you want to consider things like "Don't hit your sister" indoctrination, it's still not the same as religious or political indoctrination.

 

[Magic Man]

Really? That's your argument?

Okay. Since it is completely acceptable for one adult to communicate their beliefs as facts
then it is also acceptable for an adult to do this to a child.

You seem to be ignoring the different positions of the people in the equation. If you communicate your beliefs as facts to me, it's two equals (as in we're both adults with adult reasoning ability, and neither of us has any real authority over the other). If you communicate your beliefs as fact to your child, it's an authority figure from whom the child is going to get much of his/her info about the world. That invalidates your argument.

So, we're back to the fact that we can all agree that authorities shouldn't impose religious beliefs on others, but some people think when the "others" are children, it's OK for some reason.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You forgot to bold the part where you said "others are like Aesop's fables".

I didn't forget. I figured that you'd get the comparison between Jesus' parables and Aesop's fables.

Here's the bottom line:

You have nothing to back you up, can't refer to or critically read the research on indoctrination of any type, and back up your point of view by asserting it's true. This:

Indoctrination of children is not the best way to raise them.

is nonsense. Indoctrination is inevitable. It's just a question of how to limit this as much as is possible if, like me, one believes this is the way to go.

But arguing with dogma is pointless, and nothing irritates me more than arguing with a person who is religiously dogmatic without being religious. I just don't get that kind of close-mindedness. So, welcome to the ol' ignore list.

 

[Willamena]

So, we're back to the fact that we can all agree that authorities shouldn't impose religious beliefs on others...

Can it be a fact if I don't agree with it?

 

[Magic Man]

You have nothing to back you up, can't refer to or critically read the research on indoctrination of any type, and back up your point of view by asserting it's true. This:

is nonsense. Indoctrination is inevitable. It's just a question of how to limit this as much as is possible if, like me, one believes this is the way to go.

But arguing with dogma is pointless, and nothing irritates me more than arguing with a person who is religiously dogmatic without being religious. I just don't get that kind of close-mindedness. So, welcome to the ol' ignore list.

You seem to have ignored what I actually said:

It's not necessary to indoctrinate children, unless you use an unnecessarily broad definition of the word "indoctrinate". Even if you want to consider things like "Don't hit your sister" indoctrination, it's still not the same as religious or political indoctrination.

It's probably best for you to put me on ignore, though, if you can't handle a simple honest debate.

 

[Magic Man]

Can it be a fact if I don't agree with it?

So, you think it's OK for, say, the government to start imposing laws based on religious beliefs, like banning homosexuality?

 

[Willamena]

So, you think it's OK for, say, the government to start imposing laws based on religious beliefs, like banning homosexuality?

If it's what the people want--the government is a collective body. What I think doesn't matter.

But there's no neat comparison to be made between government imposing laws and parents imposing their beliefs. They will do it regardless, even if they are teaching facts.

 

[Curious George]

You seem to be ignoring the different positions of the people in the equation. If you communicate your beliefs as facts to me, it's two equals (as in we're both adults with adult reasoning ability, and neither of us has any real authority over the other). If you communicate your beliefs as fact to your child, it's an authority figure from whom the child is going to get much of his/her info about the world. That invalidates your argument.

So, we're back to the fact that we can all agree that authorities shouldn't impose religious beliefs on others, but some people think when the "others" are children, it's OK for some reason.

Nope, you are wrong on two accounts.

First, one adult is free to tell this to another adult regardless of authority differences.
So, authority doesn't matter.

Second, if authority does come into play, it is within the adults authority to do so. We don't really recognize children as having an independent relationship from the adult. Otherwise not letting your child come and go would be a form of false imprisonment.

Your view is untenable.

 

[Magic Man]

If it's what the people want--the government is a collective body. What I think doesn't matter.

But there's no neat comparison to be made between government imposing laws and parents imposing their beliefs. They will do it regardless, even if they are teaching facts.

This doesn't actually answer the questions, though.

 

[Magic Man]

Nope, you are wrong on two accounts.

First, one adult is free to tell this to another adult regardless of authority differences.
So, authority doesn't matter.

Really? So the government is free to impose religious beliefs on people?

Second, if authority does come into play, it is within the adults authority to do so. We don't really recognize children as having an independent relationship from the adult. Otherwise not letting your child come and go would be a form of false imprisonment.

Your view is untenable.

We're talking about a philosophy for treating other people. We all agree that adults in power should not use that power to impose their religious beliefs on other adults. That's a generally accepted view, and the whole reason behind separation of church and state in the U.S. I don't see any reason for holding a double standard when it comes to how we treat children. Why is it OK to impose religious beliefs on children, but not adults?

 

[Curious George]

So, you think it's OK for, say, the government to start imposing laws based on religious beliefs, like banning homosexuality?

The relationship between parent and child is easily distinguished from that of government and citizen. Further, we have separation of church and state, not separation of church and parent.