|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Religious Indoctrination of Children
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
[quote]Originally posted by HughWillRidMee
However, if two thirds of progeny don't reject their parents' superstition it indicates that free will is, for whatever reason(s), substantially ineffective./[quote]
You might want to think on that statement a little harder ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Based on pure numbers, you can't possibly know whether someone who continues to identify with (broadly) the same religious beliefs as their parents does so out of:
a) inertia
b) inability to consider any other option due to childhood indoctrination
c) free personal choice, having looked at parental belief/teaching and the wider world, and concluded that it rings true for them also
And, in the interests of balance, you can't necessarily deduce that the 1/3 who take alternate paths did so with "perfect freedom of choice" - I know people who claim to have taken a long time to 'shake off' perceived fetters of a specific upbringing (not necessarily Christian), and to have actively struggled to do so.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
...
There is a suggestion that there is an evolutionary benefit in children believing what their parents/authority figures tell them. "Keep away from the fire/Don't go near the riverbank/Avoid climbing trees" etc. are instructions which may increase the probability of the dutiful, rather than the rebel, passing on their genes to another generation. ...
So some people are genetically programmed to be rebellious or dutiful?
Isn't such attitude taught and learned rather than inherited?
On the subject of evolution, isn't this a prime example of the indoctrination of undeveloped minds using psychological techniques like bad religion does - presenting mysteries that only a few enlightened people supposedly understand and treating any doubters as foolish?
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
morningstar
Shipmate
# 15860
|
Posted
It looks like you're making the argument from autonomy when you say that indoctrination is either morally correct or not, regardless of motive.
I might agree that indoctrination of an autonomous human being is in principle unacceptable. But why in that case jib at religious indoctrination but not also at the inculcation of any moral or philosophical doctrines at all?
I know you want to push the idea that none of this is of any relevance to the discussion; fine, except that you would make it hellishly difficult to socialise a child without introducing moral rules of some sort but hey, never mind that as long as you feel you're being morally sound!
And anyway, when does a child become an autonomous HB for the purposes of philosophical understanding?
Maybe occasionally it is necessary to find the courage to acknowledge that applying straight morality is unsatisfactory and learn to live with yourself for having to bend your (one's) precious principles.
Oh gosh, I think I've just described fallability. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posts: 116 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aravis
Shipmate
# 13824
|
Posted
In reply to Johnny S: no, I don't mean that "religious people should admit to their children that they don't really believe". I mean that religious people should explain their beliefs to their children, and give them opportunities to share these beliefs and practices (and at times that will involve saying "sorry, even if you don't want to come to church today you'll have to, because it's important to me to go, and you're not old enough yet to stay home on your own").
BUT I also believe that it is honest, reasonable, and less problematic to admit that there are people you know, like, and respect - teachers, friends, other family members - who do not share your religious beliefs.
Probably where I differ from some shipmates is that some Christians would then want to add "and we really hope that these people will come to discover the truth of our Christian faith" whereas, for various reasons, I wouldn't. But that's another debate.
Posts: 689 | From: S Wales | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
In reply to Johnny S: no, I don't mean that "religious people should admit to their children that they don't really believe". I mean that religious people should explain their beliefs to their children, and give them opportunities to share these beliefs and practices (and at times that will involve saying "sorry, even if you don't want to come to church today you'll have to, because it's important to me to go, and you're not old enough yet to stay home on your own").
BUT I also believe that it is honest, reasonable, and less problematic to admit that there are people you know, like, and respect - teachers, friends, other family members - who do not share your religious beliefs.
I don't see anyone disagreeing with that.
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
Probably where I differ from some shipmates is that some Christians would then want to add "and we really hope that these people will come to discover the truth of our Christian faith" whereas, for various reasons, I wouldn't. But that's another debate.
I really don't get that. If someone really believes that following Christ is the best way to live why wouldn't they want everyone else to become a Christian? (Notice that I'm talking about desire here and not about coercion or indoctrination.)
Again your comment (ISTM) makes it sound as if Christianity is not really that important. I don't see how anyone could believe that the Christian faith was the most important thing in the world and then not want everyone else to discover Christ for themselves.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
BUT I also believe that it is honest, reasonable, and less problematic to admit that there are people you know, like, and respect - teachers, friends, other family members - who do not share your religious beliefs.
I don't see anyone disagreeing with that.
Indeed, how can you not "admit" that? They will see it every day, unless you homeschool and only ever allow them to hang with other realityphobes.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Two questions.
Firstly for Yorick. There is an element within New Atheism which is calling for it to be made illegal to bring up a child in a particular faith, using your arguments to justify their position. Is this where you stand?
Really? Surely only on the lunatic fringe - which is probably best ignored.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Actually, it doesn’t especially matter why (I don’t doubt the goodness of your will for a second). I can understand your justification for trying to inculcate your religious beliefs in your children. I agree that, strictly from your perspective, you believe it’s the right thing for you to do, and that’s all a man can do.
However, from a strictly external and neutral perspective of the academic question of the morality here, do you suppose it’s right deliberately to deprive them of the complete freedom to choose for themselves?
Yorick, the problem here is your assumption that there is a "neutral and external perspective." There is none. What you're actually proposing is that children be indoctrinated into agnosticism, and then when they reach the age of reason (whatever you decide that is--I assume 14 or so) be offered the opportunity to change their mind. The underlying assumption is that religion is a Bad Thing which impressionable children should be protected from. There is nothing neutral about this. Nor is there any neutral position available, in practice or principle.
This is in part because children are not passive blank slates--they are active investigators of the world, coming up with theories and testing them all the time, including trying to figure their parents out. So if (for example) the parents go to church every Sunday, leaving the kids with a sitter (who would, in your scheme, be a devout agnostic, or at least a thoroughgoing apathist), do you think the kids will not notice what's going on? Do you think they won't ask their parents "Why shouldn't I take Jimmy's toys if I want them?" or "What happens when people die?" There is no "neutral" response.
I do think that kids should learn that different people have different ideas about the nature of the world. I think one of the most important things we need to learn is that things that seem self-evident to us seem like utter lunacy to others (and vice versa). But children need to have a strong sense of who their parents are and how their parents see the world--without that, there's no possibility of a secure relationship--how can you trust someone who hides from you?
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
I’m sorry I’ve been unable to contribute to this thread for a few days, and thank you for all your patience in continuing to address your comments to me. I’ll try to respond as best I can but it’ll probably be a bit higgledy-piggledy, so please bear with me if I seem to have ignored your post, and if I don’t get round to any burningly urgent point please flag it for my priority.
There seems to be a general feeling that no parent can possibly be neutral in teaching their children about religion, whatever their religious beliefs may be. This is wrong. Although it may be true that religious parents cannot be neutral, agnostics and atheists can in all integrity bring up their children without trying to persuade them to adopt their beliefs. I myself have strong personal opinions about religion, but I’ve managed successfully to bring up my daughter without indoctrinating her to share them too.
I’m now willing to accept it’s realistically impossible for practicing, sincerely religious parents to avoid inculcating their beliefs in their children- whatever their intentions may be in that regard. It’s inevitable, and therefore any moral questions about their intentions are so unrealistic as to be practically meaningless. I feel this is profoundly unsatisfactory because there’s a principle point here about the effect this indoctrination variably has on people having the complete freedom to choose their own religious beliefs for themselves, which I believe should be their inviolable right. But, there it is, the ugliness of religion.
For the sake of argument, then, I’m also willing to accept that, internally at least, it may be immoral for parents not to try their very hardest deliberately to inculcate their beliefs in their children.
So it now comes down to a straight moral conflict.
Which of the following is the greater moral imperative to a religious parent?
a) to respect a person’s right to freedom of (or from) religious belief; or,
b) to respect your self-referring moral imperative to inculcate your own religious beliefs in your children.
In either case, there must be a sacrifice of principle, presenting the religious parent with a peculiar moral dilemma that, as an atheist, I have no need to worry about. Smug, moi?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I’ve managed successfully to bring up my daughter without indoctrinating her to share them too.
Is she an evangelical Christian then? Even if she is, it hardly proves the point.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Yes, she is. And, yes, I think it does, doesn't it?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
You're still acting on a faulty premise, though.
You use your daughter's faith as evidence that you, as an atheist, were able to bring up your child without "indoctrinating" her into your atheism (although you presumably also spoke to her about your beliefs/views on other beliefs etc. in the process).
Yet you also deny any evidential value to the vast number of atheist, agnostic, or otherly-religioned children of Christians.
So either you're getting exercised over a problem that doesn't actually exist; or you're framing the nature of "intention" differently depending on which group are in focus at the time; or you're mis-framing the problem, and the real issue is that children should be educated enough to think critically on issues, and know that they can ultimately make their own choices, which is a far wider societal/cultural issue than just parental input.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Oh, I think the problem does exist if the demographics of the uptake of religion are anything to go by (and I think they say it all), since, apostasy notwithstanding, Children of Christian parents DO strongly tend to become Christians, in significant part I presume because those parents (as they admit) are so determined to use their every influence to ensure their child is (effectively) deprived of the complete freedom of choice not to be a Christian (because it would be an abrogation of their Christian responsibility not to do so).
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Maybe she's an evangelical Christian as a provocative, rebellious gesture and it is entirely because of your attempt at indoctrination she's done so? I certainly know of atheists who view their apostasy against their parent's wishes in a similar way.
But it seems this is inconsistent. There is a bias in favour of Christianity among the children of Christian parents. Another way of saying that is that there is a bias in favour of atheisms among the children of atheists.
If that is evidence of indoctrination by Christian parents, it is equal evidence of indoctrination by atheists. On the other hand, if one anecdote (an atheist who claims to have not indoctrinated has a child who converts) can prove it is not so, then equally one anecdote (A christian parent who claims not to have indoctrinated their child who has apostasized) also proves it is not so.
Personally I think we have very great influence on our children when we least expect it, and least influence where we most expect it. They may be partially indoctrinated, but most retain freedom of choice, and after they start school and leave home the prevailing culture around them begins to exert a very strong influence.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
The parental bias is the problem. It’s wrong for any parent to indoctrinate their child into religion when this means their freedom to choose is compromised. This principle is as applicable to atheism as it is to theism, but atheist parents do not share the theistic imperative to ensure their children adopt their worldview, so, for us, there is no moral problem in deliberately not indoctrinating them (which crucial problem these little tangents fail to answer).
I feel I’m in the pleasantly superior moral position that my daughter is an admirable young theist, whose Christianity is categorically more authentic than if she’d just been indoctrinated by religious parents and it happened to ‘stick’ because it’s very sticky.
Fine. Let’s take a look at my daughter for an example, then. I assure you, she certainly isn’t rebelling against my atheism by being a Christian, but you’ll have to take my word for that. I know Christians are highly fond of comparing whose faith is Truest™, so which is more authentic, would you say? My daughter’s neutrally informed and educated, well-reasoned, mature, critically thought, personally revealed and experienced faith in Jesus Christ, or your child’s familial hereditary indoctrinated denominationally-biased received default belief?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
The parental bias is the problem. It’s wrong for any parent to indoctrinate their child into religion when this means their freedom to choose is compromised. This principle is as applicable to atheism as it is to theism, but atheist parents do not share the theistic imperative to ensure their children adopt their worldview, so, for us, there is no moral problem in deliberately not indoctrinating them (which crucial problem these little tangents fail to answer).
I feel I’m in the pleasantly superior moral position that my daughter is an admirable young theist, whose Christianity is categorically more authentic than if she’d just been indoctrinated by religious parents and it happened to ‘stick’ because it’s very sticky.
Fine. Let’s take a look at my daughter for an example, then. I assure you, she certainly isn’t rebelling against my atheism by being a Christian, but you’ll have to take my word for that. I know Christians are highly fond of comparing whose faith is Truest™, so which is more authentic, would you say? My daughter’s neutrally informed and educated, well-reasoned, mature, critically thought, personally revealed and experienced faith in Jesus Christ, or your child’s familial hereditary indoctrinated denominationally-biased received default belief?
You are quite mistaken in believing that you are in the superior moral position. You apparently only see those who are religious as being biased. You are just as biased. If one is to be consistent with your viewpoint is it also morally wrong to indoctrinate your children with respect to atheism or agnosticism as that deprives them of the same choice you claim those who indoctrinate their children with specific religious beliefs do. Not to mention, while religious parents may pray for their children who choose not to be religious, they are ok with their children's right to make their own choices once they come of age. Are there parents who reject their children if they become atheists? Yes, just as there are atheist parents who reject their children if they become Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.
You have failed utterly to prove your point, IMO.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
atheist parents do not share the theistic imperative to ensure their children adopt their worldview, so, for us, there is no moral problem in deliberately not indoctrinating them (which crucial problem these little tangents fail to answer).
Even if they were to lack a moral imperative to do so, that doesn't guarantee that they won't. They may well do, simply as a result of being parents and therefore a strong influence on their children's lives.
Secondly many atheists do feel a moral imperative to protect their children from the wrongs of religion. If you think Christianity is wrong, the least you could do is to stop your child wasting their Sunday mornings, the most is to protect them from a mistaken belief system that will lead them to rather dubious sexual ethics and some baggage that modern living could do without.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
My daughter’s neutrally informed and educated, well-reasoned, mature, critically thought, personally revealed and experienced faith in Jesus Christ, or your child’s familial hereditary indoctrinated denominationally-biased received default belief?
Depends what they believe and how they justify it surely? I agree if my son, on being asked why he believes, adopts a robotic monotone and says "father says so" then one might be concerned. But if he justifies his belief in similarly genuine terms to your daughter's, why shouldn't we take that at face value?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
You are just as biased. If one is to be consistent with your viewpoint is it also morally wrong to indoctrinate your children with respect to atheism or agnosticism as that deprives them of the same choice you claim those who indoctrinate their children with specific religious beliefs do.
Er. Hello? If you actually read what I wrote, you'd find that's exactly what I said.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Do please read the following:
For anyone who has astoundingly failed to realise this (being as I've said it again and again and again), I'm attacking atheists who indoctrinate their children as much as theists.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
And, if you've failed to realise this, I'm disagreeing with your view of how prevalent that practice is among athiests (albeit unintentional).
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Do please read the following:
For anyone who has astoundingly failed to realise this (being as I've said it again and again and again), I'm attacking atheists who indoctrinate their children as much as theists.
Got that Yorick. I still think your idea of a neutral upbringing is a fantasy though.
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I agree if my son, on being asked why he believes, adopts a robotic monotone and says "father says so" then one might be concerned. But if he justifies his belief in similarly genuine terms to your daughter's, why shouldn't we take that at face value?
(Pertinent question). I think because it is so incredibly unlikely.
I think your son could only justify his belief in those terms if, having been deliberately indoctrinated by you as a young child, he subsequently rehabilitated into an un-indoctrinated state and then came to hold those beliefs by that un-indoctrinated process. It’s impossible, isn’t it?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm disagreeing with your view of how prevalent that practice is among athiests (albeit unintentional).
Hey, I'm not saying it's prevalent at all. In fact, I'm the ONLY person I know who's taken this approach to parenthood (though I do not doubt there are others who have).
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I still disagree with your view about how prevalent it is.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I still think your idea of a neutral upbringing is a fantasy though.
It's not a fantasy: it's real. I've done it.
It's hard, but at least possible, for me as an atheist to do it, but I think it's practically impossible for theists to do it because of that moral conflict dilemma.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I think your son could only justify his belief in those terms if, having been deliberately indoctrinated by you as a young child, he subsequently rehabilitated into an un-indoctrinated state and then came to hold those beliefs by that un-indoctrinated process. It’s impossible, isn’t it?
So even if, to all external appearances and discussion, you found his expression of belief indistinguishable to your daughter's, you would disregard that because of an a priori view that this was an impossible outcome?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
You are just as biased. If one is to be consistent with your viewpoint is it also morally wrong to indoctrinate your children with respect to atheism or agnosticism as that deprives them of the same choice you claim those who indoctrinate their children with specific religious beliefs do.
Er. Hello? If you actually read what I wrote, you'd find that's exactly what I said.
Umm, not when you state the following: "Although it may be true that religious parents cannot be neutral, agnostics and atheists can in all integrity bring up their children without trying to persuade them to adopt their beliefs." It plainly shows bias on your part. Parents who are either religious or atheist "indoctrinate" their children with their own particular viewpoint partly to equip them as best they can in their opinion to make their way in the world as adults and partly with hopes that their children will remain true to that viewpoint. Both can be happy if their children choose different paths or unhappy with that outcome. You try to claim you raising your child the way you see fit is superior to that of religious parents. It is not.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Well, I would not dispute his indoctrinated faith could be 'informed and educated, well-reasoned, mature, critically thought, personally revealed and experienced faith in Jesus Christ', but that this would be despite his indoctrination, not because of it. Does that make sense? I fear we're talking past each other on this.
[CP. This was for mdijon]
[ 22. November 2010, 12:45: Message edited by: Yorick ]
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
It does make sense. It's just that earlier you seemed to be suggesting one could a priori take a view that his faith would be less genuine.
My view is that a) indoctrination of some sort is inevitable when parents bring up their children and b) it very often doesn't work very well, or has surprising results.
What my parents did to me would be viewed as indoctrination by you. Nevertheless, here I am justifying Christian views with (I hope) clear evidence that they are my own and rationally held despite indoctrination. I suspect the same could be said for most adult Christians in the UK.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
I find that hard to swallow. But anyway. If you and most Christians come to their own and rationally held faith despite parental indoctrination, how on Earth can that indoctrination be justified?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Because what you call indoctrination we call teaching them about our faith, and believe it helps them to take an informed view about whether they want it or not when they grow older.
How many Christians have you encountered who gave you the impression their faith was the product of an indoctrination process rather than their own volition?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Because what you call indoctrination we call teaching them about our faith, and believe it helps them to take an informed view about whether they want it or not when they grow older.
There’s an important distinction between teaching about faith and teaching faith with the intention of inculcating belief. I’m talking about the latter here. Are you talking about the former? If not, you seem rather shockingly to be claiming the intention to inculcate the beliefs not only makes no practical difference, but that most Christians arrive at their faith despite the intentions of their parents to inculcate them. Is that right?
quote:
How many Christians have you encountered who gave you the impression their faith was the product of an indoctrination process rather than their own volition?
It is my assumption that it generally tends to happen. Otherwise, how do you account for the demographics?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
There’s an important distinction between teaching about faith and teaching faith with the intention of inculcating belief. I’m talking about the latter here. Are you talking about the former?
The problem is that those are value judgements. What I call the former you might call the latter. Nevertheless, I do think that most attempts at either fail to indoctrinate, in the sense that individuals retain free will and critical faculties despite efforts to the contrary
quote:
Originally asked by me:
How many Christians have you encountered who gave you the impression their faith was the product of an indoctrination process rather than their own volition?
quote:
Originally responded by Yorick:
It is my assumption that it generally tends to happen.
Leave aside your assumptions and tell me what your observations are. Do you encounter many people who seem unable to critique their faith and appear to have suffered some sort of indoctrination at birth that they cannot evaluate?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
There’s an important distinction between teaching about faith and teaching faith with the intention of inculcating belief.
The problem is that those are value judgements. What I call the former you might call the latter.
What I call the deliberate inculcation of beliefs is indoctrination. If you call it ‘teaching about faith’, then our discussion is stuffed.
quote:
Leave aside your assumptions and tell me what your observations are. Do you encounter many people who seem unable to critique their faith and appear to have suffered some sort of indoctrination at birth that they cannot evaluate?
No.
I think I can see what you’re getting at here, but I’ll be interested to see how you deal with the demographic issue, and also my challenge about justifying intentional inculcation when it has the reverse effect on uptake. Allegedly.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
What I call the deliberate inculcation of beliefs is indoctrination. If you call it ‘teaching about faith’, then our discussion is stuffed.
I call the deliberate inculcation of beliefs the deliberate inculcation of beliefs and I call teaching about faith teaching about faith.
The difficulty comes when a practical example is assessed. What you interpret to be deliberate inculcation of beliefs I interpret to be teaching about faith. There will be some extreme examples we could both agree on category for, but much inbetween that is grey.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
No. I think I can see what you’re getting at here, but I’ll be interested to see how you deal with the demographic issue
What I'm getting at is a scientific method. Observed demographic issue => interpretation. We then make another observation. This doesn't square with that interpretation. What now? Either we are very poorly equipped to detect the results of indoctrination, or the previous observation may have more than one interpretation.
My interpretation is that the categorisation of indoctrination vs open-minded teaching about is too simplistic. There is a lot of grey inbetween and people are complicated. This ties in with my response to your first point.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I agree if my son, on being asked why he believes, adopts a robotic monotone and says "father says so" then one might be concerned. But if he justifies his belief in similarly genuine terms to your daughter's, why shouldn't we take that at face value?
(Pertinent question). I think because it is so incredibly unlikely.
There's an argument. YOU think it's unlikely therefore it doesn't happen.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I still think your idea of a neutral upbringing is a fantasy though.
It's not a fantasy: it's real. I've done it.
Yeah, you're the best judge of your own neutrality. Is this a koan?
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
atheist parents do not share the theistic imperative to ensure their children adopt their worldview, so, for us, there is no moral problem in deliberately not indoctrinating them (which crucial problem these little tangents fail to answer).
Bullcrap. I accept the antecedent but the consequent is bullshit and doesn't follow from it. Show me 100 atheists who don't indoctrinate their children into their atheism, in part because they feel it a moral imperative. I can show you reams of websites with a "wipe out all religion" theme. These people think that their kids freely choosing religion is a good thing? Your "for us" may work for a subset of atheists. But you do not speak for the whole, and thus your consequent is false when predicated of atheists as a whole. Many of them DO, in fact, feel such an imperative. Hence your moral high ground is no such thing.
quote:
I feel I’m in the pleasantly superior moral position that my daughter is an admirable young theist, whose Christianity is categorically more authentic than if she’d just been indoctrinated by religious parents and it happened to ‘stick’ because it’s very sticky.
Yeah yeah. And I'm just as stuck up because my son is an admirable young atheist whose atheism is categorically more authentic than if he'd just been indoctrinated by atheist parents and it happened to 'stick' because it's very sticky. I'd be willing to bet that there are far more atheist children of Christian parents than Christian children of atheist parents, even on a per capita basis, in the first world.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
A counter-anecdote:
I raised my daughter as a Quaker (liberal but explicitly Christian variety). She was very interested in religion from an early age, and I encouraged her to learn about all religions, while being clear about what I believe, and taking her to meeting most Sundays. She's now an atheist, though she finds herself defending Christians to her atheist friends (explaining that you don't have to be an antifeminist, homophobic, climate-change-denying right winger to be one). Her commitment to social justice and charity puts me to shame, and her capacity for critical thinking and argument is awe-inspiring. The one thing she has never been is a passive recipient of anyone else's indoctrination--which I consider my finest achievement as a parent.
If you think you can be "unbiased" and present information to your children without them figuring out what you really think... all it really proves is that you lack self-awareness.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I still think your idea of a neutral upbringing is a fantasy though.
It's not a fantasy: it's real. I've done it.
It's hard, but at least possible, for me as an atheist to do it, but I think it's practically impossible for theists to do it because of that moral conflict dilemma.
Here's the problem. A rationalist upbringing is still a biased upbringing. It assumes the particular worldview is somehow neutral, when it also argues some things are not acceptable such as non-rationalism, transcendentalism as a decision-making process etc. (Of course - this doesn't take into account non-parental influences that are also going to be as biased).
There is no such thing as a neutral world-vew.
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) x100
I really DO understand it’s impossible to avoid inculcating your beliefs in your children (to a degree), and that it’s quite impossible not to be biased (to some extent), and that you cannot be (perfectly) neutral. I’ve said so myself, many times, but no matter how many times one keeps on saying it, this completely and utterly fails to address the frigging question that I’ve been trying to ask here.
Here it is again:
We’re not talking about the fact that nobody can be neutral. We’re talking about the fact that some people deliberately intend NOT to be neutral.
Do you even see that there’s a categorical difference here?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yeah, you're the best judge of your own neutrality. Is this a koan?
You think you're a better judge of my neutrality?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Put your wife back on. She's cleverer.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
We’re not talking about the fact that nobody can be neutral. We’re talking about the fact that some people deliberately intend NOT to be neutral.
I get that. But I don't think that adequately summarizes your position on this thread, and I think my post above still stands. In that vein, I think you are still being too binary about this. There are some people who very deliberately set out to do everything in their power, fair or foul, to ensure their children take certain decisions in later life. There are some who set out to be scrupulously even-handed.
Most people will be somewhere on the continuum between, and will have varying degrees of self-deception about their motives. To add to the scatter of final outcomes, parents will realise these ideals to varying degrees.
In practice, some people who accept that they are conflicted and will be very happy if their child is a christian might do better than others who claim to simply be interested in fairness.
It's a complex picture, and I think you're guilty of simplifying it too much.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I find that hard to swallow. But anyway. If you and most Christians come to their own and rationally held faith despite parental indoctrination, how on Earth can that indoctrination be justified?
Thinking of my own experience in youth groups and church, people I grew up with and other young people I see who have grown up in church fall into 3 broad categories.
1. Around 5-10% become hard-line militant atheists. Often they're the ones that were the most enthusiastic evangelistic Christians in their early teens. My guess is that they wanted to look like they had all the answers when they were growing up, but never quite got it, and have continued that trend into their atheism.
2. Of the rest, around half become agnostic / nominal Christians. Happy to go to church at Christmas, and grateful that they had church/youth group to make some friends / have their social circle when they were younger.
3. The final half of the rest retain their Christianity into adulthood. And there's one unifying factor in their testimony: At some point, they had to stop having their parents' faith, and discover their own faith for themselves. Seriously, Yorick, I don't think I've ever met an adult Christian (who has grown up in Church) whose testimony doesn't contain something like that in it, myself included.
To suggest that most, or even some adults maintain their Christianity because it was indoctrinated from youth to me doesn't resonate, because I don't think it's sustainable. Unless that faith becomes something that person claims for themselves, they'll either rebel (category 1), or more likely, drift away (category 2) once they become adults and are able to make their own decisions.
As for your general question as to the morality of indoctrinating children, I do broadly agree with you. It's why my daughter's not Christened. Not so much for the theology of infant baptism, but because we want it to be her choice ultimately. But, as I said before, parents can't help influencing their kids on all sorts of matters, and I'd love to hear your response (when you've got time!) to some of the points raised earlier in the thread. Is there a difference in this matter between religion and say: vegetarianism, the language you speak, or supporting a football team?
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Put your wife back on. She's cleverer.
You said before you were concerned this debate wouldn't be possible in purgatory. I must say I think it's been working well up to now and it would be a shame if it stopped working.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Writchey
Apprentice
# 16020
|
Posted
I have pondered this issue and spent over a year talking to parents on an Amazon.com forum that grew to over 5000 posts and over 400 participants. We covered a lot of ground and I used what I learned as fodder for several blog posts on my End Hereditary Religion blog.
There is a lot of hypocrisy around the issue of indoctrinating young children in religion. Surprised? Religious parents know they are taking advantage of their children and they work valiantly to find justification for their actions.
Here is how a famous Quaker leader defined the purpose of indoctrination back in 1954:
quote:
It is the general policy in each religious faith to endeavor to teach children the essentials of the faith and to surround them with such a climate of indoctrination that they will have no inclination and almost no capacity to question it or to depart from it. This is such an old, deep rooted tradition in nearly all religions that we accept it as natural, and we do not realize how it may perpetuate error and maintain barriers between peoples. This purpose of indoctrination commonly is furthered by the influences of parents and of the religious community, and in many cases by the prevailing social atmosphere. Where such influences are fairly cumulative, a natural result is that a very strong sense of inner assurance is developed concerning whatever faith is involved. It often is immune to any contrary influence.
Most people abhor the tactics used by cults to indoctrinate people and I think this abhorrence arises from the fact that we don't approve of one group of people taking advantage of another group of people to further their own goals. Ethically, this just does not pass the smell test because it turns people into instruments and is dehumanizing. The situation with institutionalized methods of indoctrinating children is not so very different. Children are being used as instruments in a scheme to propagate religion down through the generations.
quote:
Parents that consign their children to a belief in God argue that their children can choose not to believe in God or Jesus or to believe in a different god when they reach maturity, usually meaning 18 years of age. They argue that secular humanists teach their children not to believe in god so how is it wrong for Christians to teach children to believe? In the first place this is a tu quoque fallacy that totally misses the point. The issue is insisting a child subscribe to a specific supernatural belief system with the intent to determine their belief system for life. Religious parent's arguments are fallacious because the time, techniques and sustained effort they go to, have no corollaries in the secular world. Furthermore, secularists favor guiding their children to think for themselves and derive their own answers to what constitutes truth or beauty. -- Parents are hypocrites
[URL= http://www.endhereditaryreligion.com/2009/02/parents-are-hypocrites/
There is no possibility that parents can avoid influencing their children, nor should that be a goal. However, there is a tremendous difference between influencing a child and indoctrinating them. If it were the case that children can easily slip their bonds that would be one thing, but the fact is leaving a religion or even changing a religion can be a terrible experience for some people and can take years.
Dale McGowan has produced a video on this topic that contains many insights for parents to ponder.
Dale McGowan video
Posts: 15 | From: Glendale, AZ | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Here it is again:
We’re not talking about the fact that nobody can be neutral. We’re talking about the fact that some people deliberately intend NOT to be neutral.
Do you even see that there’s a categorical difference here?
There is a difference of intent but not a difference of result. If the outcome of the intent is impossible, then surely it is foolish, and possibly damaging to the child if the unintended influence has a greater sway, to continue to pursue that intent.
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Here it is again:
We’re not talking about the fact that nobody can be neutral. We’re talking about the fact that some people deliberately intend NOT to be neutral.
Do you even see that there’s a categorical difference here?
And we keep telling you that every parent passes on their bias - and you have a prejudice that seems to believe that all religious parents are deliberately passing on that bias while non religious parents such as yourself are better able at keeping that bias out of their teaching of their children - which is pure balderdash. Many of us also disagree with your assertion that it is immoral to teach children specific religious beliefs. Get over it.
You are blinded to your own bias and how you passed that on to your own children, perhaps as all parents are. The results are the same for the children of all religious and non religious parents so I don't think it matters one way or the other.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Put your wife back on. She's cleverer.
You said before you were concerned this debate wouldn't be possible in purgatory. I must say I think it's been working well up to now and it would be a shame if it stopped working.
Fair point, and I'm sorry. I really shouldn't let mousethief's invective annoy me.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
If you and most Christians come to their own and rationally held faith despite parental indoctrination, how on Earth can that indoctrination be justified?
Every person has to become a Christian on their own, not through their parents' faith. That is why so many who were raised in a Christian home and taught the faith become agnostics or atheists. I am one of those who for the first part of their adult life was somewhere between an agnostic and an atheist. I became a Christian through my own study and then experience of God. Strong enough I spent 5 years as a missionary in countries where that could result in imprisonment. About half the kids I grew up with who were raised as Christians are either agnostics or atheists and a very few became members of another religion entirely.
Parents teach their children the faith as a way of passing on morals and other life skills that will help their children be good citizens and make their way in adult life successfully, whether they are Christians or not. Christian parents also recognize that at some point during their children's childhood they will be exposed to other faiths and those who don't believe in God at all and will challenge what their parents taught them as they become independent. It's not a done deal as you suggest. Again I ask, why is it such a huge problem for you? How on earth can you justify your position?
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's a complex picture, and I think you're guilty of simplifying it too much.
Of course we’re dealing with a certain band of the spectrum here, and (as always) there are inherent problems with translating a hypothetical discussion about principles to the real world complexities of individual lives.
Nevertheless.
Are you trying to deny that most Christian parents want their children to become Christians, and that they do everything in their means to ensure they do? Although there may not be all that many at the black or white extremes, they surely occupy a very big grey band on this spectrum.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
We’re not talking about the fact that nobody can be neutral. We’re talking about the fact that some people deliberately intend NOT to be neutral.
Do you even see that there’s a categorical difference here?
There is a difference of intent but not a difference of result.
And?
I’ve been trying to discuss the principle issues around the morality of the intent here, not the result (though we don’t seem to have progressed that far yet, because so many people seem determined to avoid the actual question by repeatedly asserting that atheists are just as bad, that nobody can help it, that religion is lovely, that it's not about intent but results, etc., etc.).
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
