Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Curious George]

Not true.



Depending on the shot and medicine this could be true or not true.



Not exactly. The Santa myth isn't nearly as involved or big a part of the worldview, and it's not connected to other beliefs. It's also not believed by adults.

Saying "not true" disputes my assertion but does very little to refute it. The benefits of medicine are statically based. This means that you cannot claim them as a fact in a particular case, only a likelihood. Vaccinations also suffer this problem, further they also suffer an additional contingency. Specifically, it is not even theoretically needed without exposure in order to prevent that which the vaccine is designed to prevent.

With Santa it is still belief taught as fact. Unless you are conceding that subsequent actions also play a role and your blanket statement about not teaching belief as fact is wrong, you are going to have to find a better defense.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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?

Not under my rationale. The whole point of teaching children is to prepare them for later life (as well as their current life, of course), so it absolutely matters what happens later in life.

To be clear, I personally have some trouble justifying teaching my kids about Santa. My wife would slap me (hard) upside the head if I disabused them of the notion. They're as much her kids as mine, and compromise is important. I personally have a LOT of trouble justifying teaching my kids about God as a literal truth. My wife agrees with me in regards to that, but if she didn't we'd have major issues, since I can let Santa slide due to my belief that it won't cause long-term harm, but would have a lot more trouble with teaching her God as a literal truth.

Black and white talk about morality and immorality is okay, but reality kicks in at some point. I teach my kids about aspects of religion so they can understand the world around them. I teach them Santa is real (sorta) in respect to my wife and extended families beliefs about childhood. I save my 'bullets' for the battles I believe I need to win, basically.

 

[Curious George]

Not under my rationale. The whole point of teaching children is to prepare them for later life (as well as their current life, of course), so it absolutely matters what happens later in life.

To be clear, I personally have some trouble justifying teaching my kids about Santa. My wife would slap me (hard) upside the head if I disabused them of the notion. They're as much her kids as mine, and compromise is important. I personally have a LOT of trouble justifying teaching my kids about God as a literal truth. My wife agrees with me in regards to that, but if she didn't we'd have major issues, since I can let Santa slide due to my belief that it won't cause long-term harm, but would have a lot more trouble with teaching her God as a literal truth.

Black and white talk about morality and immorality is okay, but reality kicks in at some point. I teach my kids about aspects of religion so they can understand the world around them. I teach them Santa is real (sorta) in respect to my wife and extended families beliefs about childhood. I save my 'bullets' for the battles I believe I need to win, basically.

Yes, but you are not trying to say telling your kid God is real is a form of immoral indoctrination. Acknowledging what happens later in a child's life is to acknowledge that the process defines the morality and does not define the process with such a generalization that makes any realistic form of raising a child into an immoral act.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, but you are not trying to say telling your kid God is real is a form of immoral indoctrination. Acknowledging what happens later in a child's life is to acknowledge that the process defines the morality and does not define the process with such a generalization that makes any realistic form of raising a child into an immoral act.

Kinda. To be honest, I'm probably more along the lines of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...", although I say that with my tongue in my cheek a little.

To be honest, telling children that God is real can be part of an immoral indoctrination. Telling children that God is not real can also be part of an immoral indoctrination. In both cases it is the entirety of the context and messaging which are important. I try to be holistic in my thinking where possible, since I think isolating issues down can give a skewed vision of reality.

It's not just what happens in later life that defines the morality, it's also the current context. I'm thinking we're broadly on the same page, really.

 

[Curious George]

Kinda. To be honest, I'm probably more along the lines of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...", although I say that with my tongue in my cheek a little.

To be honest, telling children that God is real can be part of an immoral indoctrination. Telling children that God is not real can also be part of an immoral indoctrination. In both cases it is the entirety of the context and messaging which are important. I try to be holistic in my thinking where possible, since I think isolating issues down can give a skewed vision of reality.

It's not just what happens in later life that defines the morality, it's also the current context. I'm thinking we're broadly on the same page, really.

Yes, broadly.

 

[F0uad]

Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

Same thing can be said about Atheism not everybody shares your "truth", since the TS is banned i will not say more.

 

[Me Myself]

Not true.



Depending on the shot and medicine this could be true or not true.



Not exactly. The Santa myth isn't nearly as involved or big a part of the worldview, and it's not connected to other beliefs. It's also not believed by adults.

you think its okay to tell them about santa as if it was true but not that about god?

In any case, have you found any statistical evidence that says raising kid sin your religion is harmful yet?

 

[Magic Man]

Saying "not true" disputes my assertion but does very little to refute it. The benefits of medicine are statically based. This means that you cannot claim them as a fact in a particular case, only a likelihood. Vaccinations also suffer this problem, further they also suffer an additional contingency. Specifically, it is not even theoretically needed without exposure in order to prevent that which the vaccine is designed to prevent.

1) This doesn't change the fact that children need the shots, unless you want to run the risk of them getting stuff like polio.

2) You're more than welcome to explain to them the statistics and how the shots work. That's the whole point. You can explain to them the rationale behind the medicine. There is good reason to get the shots. It's not just a personal belief.

With Santa it is still belief taught as fact. Unless you are conceding that subsequent actions also play a role and your blanket statement about not teaching belief as fact is wrong, you are going to have to find a better defense.

I've already given a defense that this hasn't responded to. I've already said I'm not a big fan of Santa as fact. However, it's still quite a bit different when you know they're going to grow out of it anyway. You can acknowledge that difference or ignore it, but it's still going to be there and still going to be significant.

 

[Magic Man]

you think its okay to tell them about santa as if it was true but not that about god?

I think it's less bad than God because it's something you expect them to grow out of relatively early.

In any case, have you found any statistical evidence that says raising kid sin your religion is harmful yet?

Statistical evidence? I don't know. I have plenty of evidence that it is, though, namely the fact that you're imposing your views on someone else simply because you have power over them.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You responded to a post that said no one had showed a benefit that religious indoctrination provides.

Right. And I easily showed such a benefit.

The example you used didn't work because you were assuming things from anecdotal evidence that couldn't accurately be gleaned from it....

Well it seems that you were unable to accurately glean things from it, but I had no such difficulty.

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.

Ah. So all of our exchange has been about you proclaiming your belief that only scientists -- properly doing science -- can really know stuff? I can't make generalizations unless I have a proper scientific study to back me up?

I'm afraid I see that as a somewhat unsophisticated position to take regarding knowledge, but if you want to discuss it, we should probably do that somewhere other than this thread.

 

[Magic Man]

Right. And I easily showed such a benefit.

No, you didn't.

Well it seems that you were unable to accurately glean things from it, but I had no such difficulty.

No, you gleaned things from it, but they aren't necessarily accurate, hence my objection.

Ah. So all of our exchange has been about you proclaiming your belief that only scientists -- properly doing science -- can really know stuff? I can't make generalizations unless I have a proper scientific study to back me up?

You can make all the generalizations you want, but they're not going to be useful in an actual debate unless they're backed up by more than anecdotal evidence.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No, you gleaned things from it, but they aren't necessarily accurate, hence my objection.

Whoa. You aren't kidding when you speak of beliefs and facts as entirely different objects, are you. You really think you can know that truth -- as much so as any religionist. How curious.

You can make all the generalizations you want, but they're not going to be useful in an actual debate unless they're backed up by more than anecdotal evidence.

How come I've so easily won our debate then?

 

[Magic Man]

Whoa. You aren't kidding when you speak of beliefs and facts as entirely different objects, are you. You really think you can know that truth -- as much so as any religionist. How curious.

I have no idea what this means, where it came from or what it's supposed to be responding to.

How come I've so easily won our debate then?

I don't think you've been paying attention, but keep trying to "win", if it makes you happy.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I have no idea what this means, where it came from or what it's supposed to be responding to.

In your discussions with Falvlun and others you've been talking of 'belief' and 'facts' as if they are entirely discrete categories.

To my sensibilities, that means that you may be suffering some confusion about the nature of human knowledge. And that confusion may underlie the whole debate about teaching children 'religious' beliefs.

You seem to argue that it's OK to teach them 'facts' but not OK to teach them 'beliefs.'

I'm pretty sure that's a confusion. There's really no sharp line between beliefs and facts.

 

[Mycroft]

Indoctrinating your children into any belief system is not just brainwashing, it's child abuse.

 

[Magic Man]

In your discussions with Falvlun and others you've been talking of 'belief' and 'facts' as if they are entirely discrete categories.

Not necessarily, but there is a significant difference between the two.

You seem to argue that it's OK to teach them 'facts' but not OK to teach them 'beliefs.'

I'm arguing that it's OK to teach them both, as long as they're taught as such. Don't teach them one as if it's the other. It's like creationism in schools. Most people will say "You can teach it, but only in a religion or philosophy class; not in science class". Same concept here.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Not necessarily, but there is a significant difference between the two.

One man's facts are another man's beliefs.

The problem is whom to elect for King. Do we put Magic Man in charge of sorting out religious beliefs from facts -- and OKing the later for child-teaching -- or do we appoint Pat Robertson to that job.

 

[Magic Man]

One man's facts are another man's beliefs.

Yes, there are some people who like to believe facts aren't actually facts and pretend their beliefs are on equal footing with actual verified facts. There are others of us, though, who recognize beliefs and facts and that they are different.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yes, there are some people who like to believe facts aren't actually facts and pretend their beliefs are on equal footing with actual verified facts. There are others of us, though, who recognize beliefs and facts and that they are different.

Yes, and I'm pretty sure you're confused. By that, I mean that you could not defend such a position in debate.

Here's the bottom line: If I say a thing is a fact, while you declare that it is only a belief... then is it a belief or is it a fact?

 

[Magic Man]

Yes, and I'm pretty sure you're confused. By that, I mean that you could not defend such a position in debate.

I could and have.

Here's the bottom line: If I say a think is a fact, while you declare that it is only a belief... then is it a belief or is it a fact?

It depends. Does it have enough evidence to be considered a fact?