|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Religious Indoctrination of Children
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
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?
No and yes. (i.e. I am denying the last part. Most people have some limits on what they'll do.)
I'd like to return to the issue about indoctrination and how we determine its presence. I and others have pointed out that individuals who appear, on discussion, to have suffered indoctrination are rare. I don't think I've ever met one. My way of squaring that with your observation on demographics was by appealing to the complexity of the situation (i.e. the continuum - that choice is influenced to some degree but without inducing a state one could readily categorize as "indoctrination").
I would think that if you want to use this theoretical division into indoctrinated/not indoctrinated you need to show how that classification can deal with these discrepant observations about the people around us.
--------------------
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 Writchey:
I have pondered this issue
Welcome to the Ship of Fools, Writchey.
And thank you very much for your interesting post.
[edit code error]
[ 23. November 2010, 10:04: Message edited by: Yorick ]
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
There is a difference of intent but not a difference of result.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
And?
I’ve been trying to discuss the principle issues around the morality of the intent here, not the result
I think the "and" is that the discussion about the morality of intent takes on a rather anaemic, theoretical quality if we agree that the results are not much different. It's a bit like a campaign against parking outside a property where there's no practical possibility of parking in the first place. "Ah, but the intent is there - they're still trying to park - can't you see them driving up and down looking for a space?"
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
I didn’t agree anything about the results, though I’m sure that would make an interesting thread in its own right.
I feel we should be able to have a perfectly full-blooded discussion about the principles around the immorality of parental indoctrination, despite the fact that certain assumptions must be made in order to do so. I’m very much looking forward to it starting, once we’ve dealt with all these tangential matters.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
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.
If a Christian parent does everything in their means to ensure their children become Christians, are they at the black extreme or not? What is the black extreme if doing everything in their means isn't the black extreme?
Does everything include intimidation, corporal punishment, etc or does it not? If it does not, why not? If it does, then surely even you admit that most Christians do not use everything in their means.
And no, we have not been discussing tangential matters. We have been discussing your assumptions. Your assumptions do not make sense. If your assumptions do not make sense, that is not tangential, however much you might like it to be.
[ 23. November 2010, 12:15: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Come, come, Dafyd. I'm sure you know I didn’t literally mean everything in their means. But, yes, it was careless of me to phrase it thus. How about this, then:
Are you trying to deny that most Christian parents want their children to become Christians, and that they use their influence 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 Dafyd:
Your assumptions do not make sense.
Oh, really?
My basic assumptions are as follows:
a) Christian parents tend to want their children to become Christians
b) All parents can influence their children to adopt their worldview
c) Christian parents tend to try to influence their children to adopt Christianity
d) People are more likely to be Christians if their parents are Christian
e) There is a causal link between deliberate parental influence and uptake of Christianity
Which of these fail(s) to make sense to you?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'd like to return to the issue about indoctrination and how we determine its presence. I and others have pointed out that individuals who appear, on discussion, to have suffered indoctrination are rare. I don't think I've ever met one. My way of squaring that with your observation on demographics was by appealing to the complexity of the situation (i.e. the continuum - that choice is influenced to some degree but without inducing a state one could readily categorize as "indoctrination").
I would think that if you want to use this theoretical division into indoctrinated/not indoctrinated you need to show how that classification can deal with these discrepant observations about the people around us.
Thank you for a very compelling challenge.
I reckon the principal reason it might be very difficult to identify those who’ve been indoctrinated into their religious faith is that they don’t often self-identify as indoctrinated. So how would you be able to tell? If you take a hundred random people from your local St.George’s on a Sunday morning (I know, I know, it’s ridiculously implausible that so many people would be there, but let’s pretend it’s Christmas or Easter every week, or something), and interviewed them about how they became Christian, how many do you think would identify as having been indoctrinated? Probably none.
The very problem with indoctrination, the moral question that this thread is all about, is that the indoctrinated person doesn’t realise their freedom of choice has been compromised.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
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.
No, you're not sorry, "I'm sorry that he was annoying me" isn't an apology, and dragging someone's spouse into an argument is so low that I'm surprised to see it, even from you.
But since you chose to drag me into it, I thought I'd let you know that I've come to the conclusion that it's not possible to engage in a rational discussion of this topic with you. It appears to me that you are not trying to have a discussion. It appears that you are simply wanting a bunch of theists to confirm you in your general feeling of smug superiority over theists. I don't have the time or the inclination to play along.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Fine.
I re-read mousethief's post, in calmer mood, and I can honestly say it annoyed the fuck out of me again. I am sorry for the cheap shot, whether you believe me or not. That's your business, as is your view of my motives and your inclination to take part in this discussion. (Oh, except that you politicised it and made it everyone else's business too, didn't you?)
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
If you take a hundred random people from your local St.George’s on a Sunday morning... how many do you think would identify as having been indoctrinated? Probably none.
I wasn't thinking of anything so credulous. I was thinking more in terms of asking things like "So why do you come here on a Sunday... what do you believe... why?".
I suspect that if you get someone who has been "indoctrinated" talking about their faith you would be able to spot there was something a bit wrong. They would come across a bit brain-washed and unable to critique themselves. Their accounts of their motivation wouldn't quite add up.
If you can't spot it on chatting, then what does this indoctrination mean? That they have a rational, personally held conviction that is their own but nevertheless represents an imposition on them? That doesn't seem credible to me. There ought to be some definable characteristic that distinguishes the product of indoctrination from the genuine article. Otherwise what does this state mean?
By the way, for the record may I comment that it's rather disingenuous to accuse Josephine of making her non-participation "everyone's business" when you were the one who first referred to her on this thread. I'd prefer to have a purgatorial discussion, but it feels odd doing that with the snarling going on in the background.
--------------------
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:
By the way, for the record may I comment that it's rather disingenuous to accuse Josephine of making her non-participation "everyone's business" when you were the one who first referred to her on this thread. I'd prefer to have a purgatorial discussion, but it feels odd doing that with the snarling going on in the background.
We have history.
But look, I'm sorry for lowering myself like that, but my bringing Josephine into it was aimed squarely at mouethief as an annoyed response to his highly objectionable post upthread, not Josephine. Although I appreciate that to do one is to do the other.
Anyway, I'm sorry and I promise to stop it.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
We have history.
As do we. Who doesn't?
I'm not sure what to make of your apology. Is it directed at me? I wasn't asking for one, and don't really feel personally wronged by anything on the thread so far. If you want my advice, the apology still reads as if it's overly qualified, but it's of course up to you where you send it and in what form.
But back to my discussion point - how will you identify the "indoctrinated" on a Sunday morning?
--------------------
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:
If you take a hundred random people from your local St.George’s on a Sunday morning (I know, I know, it’s ridiculously implausible that so many people would be there, but let’s pretend it’s Christmas or Easter every week, or something), and interviewed them about how they became Christian, how many do you think would identify as having been indoctrinated? Probably none.
I kind of touched on this on my last post. I agree with mdijon that you can 'spot' if something's a bit wrong, and unless you're talking about proper cultish brainwashing, then by the time someone's grown up, they have to transition into having their own faith, or it's not sustainable.
I've met people, still in their early 20's, who I would say are still 'indoctrinated' Christians. Their faith is still the faith that their parents had. When you challenge them on theology, the response is either 'it says in the bible somewhere...' or 'my parents always said'. You can spot them a mile off, and what happens is that at some point they reach a crisis, and either have to discover faith for themselves, or when one little piece collapses, the whole structure falls down and they lose faith altogether (maybe to rediscover it later for themselves).
But these people are few and far between. Usually that transition happens earlier, and is far less dramatic.
I think the problem here is that you're assuming quite a lot about a 'religious' person's mindset and experience, and I think some of those assumptions are false. There are plenty here who can give you a more accurate picture of what it is like growing up in a Christian household / church environment.
Do you have any responses to some of the questions I asked earlier, Yorick? I think there have been a few interesting points from others about the language people speak and so on compared to religion. Have you got any thoughts on them?
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Absolutely. I'm working on them, and other peoples' earlier contributions, but I'm afraid I really put the 'tit' in multitasking. Please stand by.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Speaking as a parent and grandparent, I figure that some element of heat is probably unavoidable in discussing this issue. With the occasional exception, this thread has generally remained suitably Purgatorial and I don't want to get in the way of that.
So I'm drawing a veil over the exceptions on this occasion. For the future, please remember the guidelines on personal attack.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Absolutely. I'm working on them, and other peoples' earlier contributions, but I'm afraid I really put the 'tit' in multitasking. Please stand by.
Thanks dude, know how it can be ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
I don't agree with Yorick's assumptions about the parental indoctrination of religion, but I think the language question is a complete red herring. I assert there is absolutely no moral duty to ensure that one's child is free in the choice of what language they speak with native fluency as an adult, and every moral duty to ensure that the child is able to function in the society in which they find themself. That means teaching them the prevailing language (or languages).
On Yorick's main point, I think it could be argued it's morally irresponsible to prevent a child from forming childhood connections to a faith community, and to the experience or understanding of God mediated thereby, if you as a parent believe that your faith community is a valuable or true place. That's because Josephine's description of it as a relationship rings true for me. This also doesn't negate the questioning and reaffirming or changing that an adult goes through with respect to their childhood faith. I don't agree that there is moral right to choose your religion free of past influences.
[ 23. November 2010, 16:07: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
That wasn't very clear in a way, was it? Since you'd assume that one like me who doesn't see a problem with childhood inculcation of one thing (e.g. religion) wouldn't see a problem with childhood inculcation of another thing (e.g. language). What I was trying to express, was that I was thinking that the reasons for opposing or supporting the inculcation were different enough that the language question wasn't in any way comparable to the religion question, and hence the language question was a red herring. But on reflection I suppose anything can be compared to something else, and maybe it would elucidate something about Yorick's position on religion if he explained in what way he sees it as different (if he does) from the case about language.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
You think you're a better judge of my neutrality?
Um, no. I didn't say that. Or anything near it. Or anything in the same county. I'm saying no-one is an impartial judge of their own impartiality, including you. Just because you think you were impartial is no indication that you were. Who, trying to be impartial, is going to realize that they're not? Well, maybe some. But self-delusion in this area is all but unavoidable.
So why not answer the question I posed: do you suppose there are more atheist children of Christians, or Christian children of atheists? What does this say about the effectiveness of "indoctrination" and indeed who has the intent?
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I’ve been trying to discuss the principle issues around the morality of the intent here, not the result
Yet your "evidence" is based entirely on result. You directly infer intent from result to make your point, but then want to cut off discussion of result and redirect it to intent.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
I think the language question is important from the child's point of view, and you're kind of looking at it from the parents' view. From the child's point of view, they've had no say in the language they speak, so it seems they've been "indoctrinated" into speaking that language. However, once they reach a certain age, they have every freedom to learn whatever language they want. As you say, there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with this.
Same goes for a whole host of other things: vegetarianism, sporting affiliations and so on. The question is: what puts religion in a different category to all these things?
As a Christian, I think it maybe should be in a different category, because Jesus is the reason for our existence. For yorick as an atheist, I'm not sure why he's treating it differently (which is what I'm hoping to find out from him when he gets a chance!)
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
As I understand it Yorick is asserting it is immoral not to have full freedom of choice of metaphysical belief system. That parents deliberately, as opposed to unintentially, trying to pass on their metaphysical belief system to their children are acting in an immoral way because it will shape their psyche in such away as to make fully free choice impossible once they reach the age of rationality. He asserts it is possible, at least for an atheist / agnostic, to bring up a child without intentially promoting any metaphysical system.
Lots of folk doubt that last sentence is true.
Personally, I don't accept it is morally wrong to try to pass on your metaphysical belief system to your children - but I suppose I accept limits to that. I accept that beliefs that are extreme enough to attract legal sanction should not be inculcated in children - for example, I would consider conditioning your children that sex with adult family members and the human sacrifice of unbelievers was necessary to the salvation of your soul to be child abuse. (No matter how sincerely the parent held such views). So my tolerance is culturally bound.
But leaving aside those rare extremes, I don't accept that trying to get your children to share your belief system is wrong.
It is part of the transmition of family culture and identity, which is part of what makes us human. Trying not to transmit our value systems to our children is intellectually and emotionally dishonest, and the futility of the exercise also makes it pointless. This is as true for atheists and agnostics as it is for people with religious faith.
On what basis Yorick do you assert that it is immoral not to have a free choice ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Your assumptions do not make sense.
Oh, really?
My basic assumptions are as follows:
a) Christian parents tend to want their children to become Christians
b) All parents can influence their children to adopt their worldview
c) Christian parents tend to try to influence their children to adopt Christianity
d) People are more likely to be Christians if their parents are Christian
e) There is a causal link between deliberate parental influence and uptake of Christianity
Which of these fail(s) to make sense to you?
They all make sense but I am not sure that d) is accurate. My experience chimes with the anecdotal evidence presented by others on this thread that children of Christians are more likely to be agnostic/atheist than Christian. Given that the plural of anecdote is NOT data, can you provide some data to back up d)?
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Come, come, Dafyd. I'm sure you know I didn’t literally mean everything in their means. But, yes, it was careless of me to phrase it thus. How about this, then:
Are you trying to deny that most Christian parents want their children to become Christians, and that they use their influence 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.
Not much better. Ensure? How does a parent ensure anything?
It seems odd to describe parents' relation to their children as 'influence'. As if there was a way in which the child might develop without the parents' influence. How would the child develop if the parent didn't influence them?
Your phrasing keeps implying that there's no essential difference between taking children to Sunday school on the one hand and on the other hand locking children in cupboards for asking questions. You withdraw the implications when you're called on it, and then let the implications creep back in once the call has stopped.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
My basic assumptions are as follows:
a) Christian parents tend to want their children to become Christians
b) All parents can influence their children to adopt their worldview
c) Christian parents tend to try to influence their children to adopt Christianity
d) People are more likely to be Christians if their parents are Christian
e) There is a causal link between deliberate parental influence and uptake of Christianity
Which of these fail(s) to make sense to you?
Don't you assume at least one other thing: that "indoctrination" (or whatever word one cares to use) is morally wrong and your way is morally correct?
[ 23. November 2010, 22:27: Message edited by: Squibs ]
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Your assumptions do not make sense.
My basic assumptions are as follows:
a) Christian parents tend to want their children to become Christians
b) All parents can influence their children to adopt their worldview
c) Christian parents tend to try to influence their children to adopt Christianity
d) People are more likely to be Christians if their parents are Christian
e) There is a causal link between deliberate parental influence and uptake of Christianity
Which of these fail(s) to make sense to you?
B does not make sense. The parent's relation to the child is a lot stronger than just influence on the child.
You, along with other atheists, seem to think that if it weren't for the influence of nasty adult Christians human beings would just spring into being as fully formed adult atheists reciting the collected works of Richard Dawkins.
Anyway, here are some other assumptions you're making.
f) There is such a thing as complete freedom.
g) It is an unquestionable good.
h) Bringing up children to think for themselves isn't using parental influence to 'ensure' that children share their values. It isn't using parental influence to 'ensure' that children value thinking for themselves.
i) Bringing children up to be moral and/or rational can be treated as irrelevant to this discussion.
j) There is no essential difference between all the ways in which parents can bring up children in a worldview or religion or set of values. It can all be described as indoctrination.
Anyway:
f) There is no such thing.
g) And even if there were, it's not obvious that we'd like it if we had it.
h) 'Thinking for oneself' is a value just as anything else is a value. If you object to all 'indoctrination' in values, you should equally object to bringing up children to value thinking for themselves. That would be incoherent. If your position leads to an incoherent result, your position is incoherent.
i) You presumably taught your children to behave morally: not to selfishly snatch, to share toys that they weren't playing with, not to pull other children's hair or bully other children. etc. etc. Now, you've been challenged on this point in passing in this thread. Your responses have been either to dismiss this as irrelevant, implying as you did so that you think all bringing up children to hold certain values is wrong. But I'm pretty sure that you don't actually believe that, because I'm pretty sure that you did bring up your children not to be selfish.
j) This seems highly questionable. Talking to a child about God and teaching him or her to say prayers is not at all the same as hitting them if they ask difficult questions or throwing them out of the house if they announce their intention to become a fundamentalist Flying Spaghetti Monsterist. Simply saying that there's a spectrum of white to black doesn't address this. For one thing, the ideal point on a spectrum might be in the middle e.g. between overeating and not eating at all. But even that is begging a question. Hitting someone for asking questions is not an extreme form of teaching them how to pray.
Here's an analogy: having books in the house and teaching a child to read for pleasure.
1) is this influencing the child?
2) if not, why not?
3) do you think that there's a relevant difference between bringing up children to read for pleasure and bringing them up to practice a religion? If you do, what do you think the relevant difference is?
4) you could maintain that bringing up children to read for pleasure is depriving them of complete freedom and therefore wrong. Do you really want to maintain that?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
My basic assumptions are as follows:
a) Christian parents tend to want their children to become Christians
b) All parents can influence their children to adopt their worldview
c) Christian parents tend to try to influence their children to adopt Christianity
d) People are more likely to be Christians if their parents are Christian
e) There is a causal link between deliberate parental influence and uptake of Christianity
I can say that as a Christian parent, a) and c) are absolutely true in my case, and I hope b), d) and e) are true. Obviously if I think Christianity is true I am going to make every effort to teach it to my children in a way that is attractive and compelling enough that I hope they will choose it for themselves when they are adults.
Having spent my entire working life with teenagers, in and out of Christian settings, I know there are numerous other factors that influence whether or not a young person will become (and remain) a practicing Christian in adult life. Parental influence is just one factor -- a powerful one, but far from the only one and probably not the most powerful. Why would I not do my utmost to ensure that the one factor that is at least partially within my control, works in favour of my children accepting what I believe to be true?
I can't imagine why anyone would feel the least bit apologetic about that. I do understand that there are Christian parents who might place a higher value on raising their children to be open to many views and might attempt NOT to influence them as strongly, but I suspect the vast majority of Christian parents would be happy if their children accepted their views. Why is this even controversial?
[ 23. November 2010, 22:54: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wisewilliam
Shipmate
# 15474
|
Posted
Primary anthropology teaches us the unavoidable fact that values are transmmited over three generations.It is a parent's duty to provide their children with a sound cultural heritage. Studies of aboriginal people's difficulties in stabilizing their cultural heritage in a a society that has suddenly become alien vividly demonstrates that embedded cultural values are essential to a development of a sound mature adult.
We edit and adapt the values of of our parents and grandparents according to changes in the society in which we live and our personal life experiences To try to bring children up without embedding a sound basis for moral and societal judgements is a form of neglect. Religion is part of many societies and individual's value system.
Young adults have no problem discarding the values they find useless. They have great difficulty establishing an underpnning of useful and usable values' something that has been denied them in the family that believes indoctrination to be evil. They are going to be indoctrinated whether it is with religion, atheism or in some kind value-free utopia.
Adaptation is difficult. Don't make it impossible. Inculcate values you know can be relied upon while keeping open their options to adapt.
--------------------
oldman
Posts: 79 | From: Dundas, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
It is part of the transmition of family culture and identity, which is part of what makes us human.
I think there's another point that you raise - morality is bound up with our belief system (religious or not). Our decision to be moral people is every bit as arbitrary as our choice of religion.
I can't imagine anyone thinking it's a good idea to give children a free choice in deciding whether they want to act morally or not. It's considered a duty of parenthood to inculcate moral values. Our children will revise those, sometimes for the better sometimes not, and in a few disasterous instances children grow up to be people who act immorally. But failure to start them off on a moral road would surely be negligent.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I can't imagine anyone thinking it's a good idea to give children a free choice in deciding whether they want to act morally or not. It's considered a duty of parenthood to inculcate moral values. Our children will revise those, sometimes for the better sometimes not, and in a few disasterous instances children grow up to be people who act immorally. But failure to start them off on a moral road would surely be negligent.
Exactly. If I may add a single thought to reinforce this? A crucial part of parenting is the letting go, allowing one's children to fly or flop as they leave childhood behind and set off on the maturity road. In order for them to do that, it is essential for them to find for themselves their own minds, their own take on personal responsibility, their own take on values, their own take on community. They learn how to fly, we learn how to let go. Neither path is easy.
It is a tricky business, this parenting.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Amen to that.
I will never forget the mixture of feelings when we dropped our youngest off at university for the first time. Immense pride at his independence and immense sadness as we let him go.
Teaching children is interesting, sometimes you meet children who have been taught completely different moral values - then there is a fine and difficult line to tread. For example, for some Muslims, drawing or depicting animal or human forms is immoral - try teaching 7 year olds without using pictures!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
They learn how to fly, we learn how to let go. Neither path is easy.
This suggests another description of the demographic link between parent and child.
Like learning how to be moral, being a Christian is a skill and an ability as much as a rationally held set of beliefs. It includes a way of life and an attitude to self, the world and God. It includes a relationship to a community. One has to learn how to do it, not simply assent to a set of propositions.
In fact, I've come across some adult converts who describe their envy for those brought up in the faith, as they feel they have to put in substantial effort as adults to develop the necessary habits and way of living.
Hence, in acquiring the skill to independently sustain oneself as a christian (or in the parrallel above as a moral person, not that these are equivalent) one is given a headstart by parental example. And therefore there's a demographic link.
[ 24. November 2010, 08:55: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Thanks all for your continued patience with me. I appreciate your questions and challenges, and I apologise if my failure to deal directly with them is pissing you off, as I’m sure it would me. This is a bone I won’t let go, so you can be confident I’ll get round to answering your points in due course. The problem is, of course, that further layers are building up on the older ones, and I’m getting a bit snowed under. I’m grateful, therefore, that some of you have tried to answer certain points for me, and this has kept the conversation from stalling.
I’m cherry-picking the following because I haven’t much time this morning, and I hope it will address some of the other questions posed. Apologies again if it seems I’m ignoring posts.
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
… I don't accept that trying to get your children to share your belief system is wrong.
It is part of the transmition of family culture and identity, which is part of what makes us human. Trying not to transmit our value systems to our children is intellectually and emotionally dishonest, and the futility of the exercise also makes it pointless. This is as true for atheists and agnostics as it is for people with religious faith.
On what basis Yorick do you assert that it is immoral not to have a free choice ?
Special pleading, I suppose.
Thank you for framing this critical question so well, btw.
Disclaimer: Please remember, we’re talking academically here about ideal principles, rather than messy reality. I happily admit that such a discussion may be so arcane as to be almost meaningless, but I feel important stuff may be learned from serious contemplation of the issues here.
I think it’s particularly important for human beings to have as much freedom as possible in their choice in adopting religious beliefs, partly because those particular sorts of beliefs tend to have a profound effect on their lives (that’s the whole point, I’m sure you’d agree). Football clubs, and partiality to Marmite, not so much (extreme fanaticism notwithstanding). Religion matters (or at least, it can). From my perspective, it’s really to do with the massively extent to which it can affect the lives of individuals and communities and innocent bystanders, and even neighbouring countries, and therefore the whole planet. From yours, I suppose it’s a rather important question of eternal salvation. In any case, the nature of religious belief is such that freedom to adopt it and practice it can therefore be especially morally important. [I’m aware this is only an unsubstantiated assertion, and I hope you’ll forgive it for the sake of uncluttering the argument, but if you are dissatisfied I can expand on this if required.] Furthermore, I understand there are internal theological reasons why freedom of choice in religion is a particular moral prerequisite (and I note that nobody has refuted my earlier claim about this), but that’s your department.
Ideally, then, all human beings should have the right to freedom to adopt and practice religion (or not). This moral and ethical ideal is absolutely primary in my concerns here.
From that primary ideal, my position regarding parental indoctrination is as follows.
Our religion is not something we’re born with (as I think someone bizarrely implied, above): it is acquired. (Yes, I know, this is in itself a matter of complicated debate, but please don’t let’s go there at this juncture. I fear we’ll never get to the issue here if we go down that path). Parental influence must be the major determinant in that acquisition process, and I seriously doubt any truth in the above disputes to the contrary (I’ll try and research data that supports my assertion about this. I reckon it’ll be easy enough to find it, when I get ten minutes. Meanwhile, I apologise, and make a Special Plea that you indulge me).
I feel we should ideally be as free from external influences as possible in our adoption of religion. This works in both directions. I feel it’s exactly equally wrong to indoctrinate someone NOT to become a Christian as it is to indoctrinate them to become one. Ideally, it should be every person’s choice to be a Christian or not, as freely as possible from coercion, persuasion, adulteration, corruption, indoctrination, brainwashing, hypnotism, and so on.
Look, I really do understand that, in the real world, our ‘choices’ are massively influenced by a plethora of all kinds of things, much of which we are completely unaware of. Only the other day, I was influenced subliminally to dream I was eating a pillow, and in the morning my giant marshmallow had gone. All our choices, from which toothpaste to buy, to whether to martyr ourselves as a living bomb, are inevitably massively externally influenced. Again, accepting this is true, I’d like to look at one particular sort of influence in academic isolation of all the others.
There are certain things about the about parental indoctrination of religion in children that categorically set it apart from the way our choices are influenced by other things. I hope this gets to the issue of why I think religious indoctrination is immoral.
I think we all agree that children are highly vulnerable to parental influence (for good and for bad), including and especially religious indoctrination; therefore it is an especially important issue.
I think we all agree that religious parents, especially, tend to believe there is a particular imperative that their children come to share their beliefs- much more so than for atheist parents (the reasons for which include that there’s no atheistic concern for the sake of their child’s immortal soul, for example). So, I hope we can agree that religious belief stands above all as a matter for particular concern regarding the influence that parents have over their child’s freedom of choice.
We do not have free choice in religion. That is a fact. However, this does not speak to the philosophical, ethical, moral principle that we should, ideally. I feel that any external influence that deliberately compromises our freedom to choose our religious belief, especially, is in principle immoral. When the state indoctrinates religion, we clearly see that as an abuse of our rights to freedom of choice. Why should parents be different, in principle?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I appreciate your questions and challenges, and I apologise if my failure to deal directly with them is pissing you off, as I’m sure it would me.
Perhaps if you spent less time writing unctuous apologies you'd spend more time addressing people's points?
quote:
I’m cherry-picking the following because I haven’t much time this morning, and I hope it will address some of the other questions posed. Apologies again if it seems I’m ignoring posts.
The problem isn't that you're ignoring the posts you don't reply. It's that you're ignoring the post that you do reply to. I can't see anything in your post that responds or even refers to Think²'s arguments. All you're doing is rephrasing your original post. Well, you're also adding your apologies for being ever so 'umble.
quote:
Our religion is not something we’re born with (as I think someone bizarrely implied, above): it is acquired. (Yes, I know, this is in itself a matter of complicated debate, but please don’t let’s go there at this juncture. I fear we’ll never get to the issue here if we go down that path).
We have already got to that issue. You got to it in your opening post. We don't need to get to that issue again. When someone offers an argument against your point, you cannot refute that argument by saying 'don't let's go there at this juncture' and then repeating the point. That's not a refutation; that's a blatant evasion.
quote:
I feel we should ideally be as free from external influences as possible in our adoption of religion.
Parents are not external influences on children.
Not even in an ideal world.
quote:
(Dafyd's italics)Ideally, it should be every person’s choice to be a Christian or not, as freely as possible from coercion, persuasion, adulteration, corruption, indoctrination, brainwashing, hypnotism, and so on.
One of those is not like the others.
You are here trying to persuade us not to indoctrinate our children. That's morally fine (or it would be if you weren't using dodgy rhetoric). It would not be fine for you to coerce us or brainwash us or hypnotise us or corrupt us. Persuasion and coercion are morally different.
(What does 'adulteration' mean here? To adulterate something is to make it impure by addition. The underlying metaphor implies that there's some pure belief or opinion already in existence that is then mixed with something foreign? I seem to need to emphasise just how wrong-headed it is to think of the relation of parent to child in that way?)
quote:
I think we all agree that children are highly vulnerable to parental influence (for good and for bad), including and especially religious indoctrination; therefore it is an especially important issue.
Children are vulnerable to parental influence? You might as well say that plants are 'highly vulnerable' to sunlight and water and soil.
'Vulnerable'? Parental influence, good or bad, is a wound?
quote:
However, this does not speak to the philosophical, ethical, moral principle that we should, ideally.
We should ideally be able to fly. Obviously, in messy reality we can't, but still there is a philosophical, ethical, and moral principle that we should and so, as far as possible, architects should build skyscrapers without floors.
We should ideally be able to survive without food, water or air. Obviously, in messy reality, we can't, but still there is a philosophical ethical and moral principle that we should and so we should feed our children as little as possible.
Ideal principles are only valid when reality can approximate to them. Ideal principles to which reality does not approximate and cannot approximate are not principles: they're ideological delusions.
quote:
When the state indoctrinates religion, we clearly see that as an abuse of our rights to freedom of choice. Why should parents be different, in principle?
Oh, where to start...
I participate in the state either as an adult or as having an adult speak for me. The state is, notionally, the creation of the people of which I am a part. If we collectively chose to recreate it we could. A child is not an adult; a child is developing towards being an adult. The issue for a child isn't whether we interfere with what the child thinks; it's how we influence how the child develops.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Birdseye
I can see my house from here!
# 5280
|
Posted
I think 'indoctrinate' sounds pretty wierd for what parents who have a real faith in God do to their children... some bloke (with a dog-collar on) used that term on me last week when I was talking about stained glass windows -my child (under two) pointed and said 'Jesus' thereby accurately identifying the artistic representation in the medium of glass... the man in the dog-collar said snippily 'ah yes, indoctrinate them young'
I thought >you t*sser -it was a picture of Jesus and she got it in one -she also subsequently identified the mammals surrounding Jesus in the same window as 'sheepies' was that also 'indoctrination'?
Give children a bit of credit -they can smell hypocrisy and it will out, sooner or later... you have to share what you really believe to be true, knowing that the point will come when they are able to test that for themselves. Not to share just means they'll have to start learning a bit later -which is fine, providing they never say 'but if this was so important to you and so central to your life, and so wonderful -why did you hide it from me??'
--------------------
Life is what happens whilst you're busy making other plans.
a birdseye view
Posts: 1615 | From: West Yorkshire | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
… I don't accept that trying to get your children to share your belief system is wrong.
*explanation sniped for brevity*
On what basis Yorick do you assert that it is immoral not to have a free choice ?
Special pleading, I suppose.
That's no really a justification of your premise, is it ? And it is a key point in your argument, I really think you need an explanation for its primacy. If you are not deriving your moral judgements from a religious framework, I guess that you would see your moral values as a result of logical analysis ? If so what is that analysis, if not - where does this value judgement come from ?
quote:
I think it’s particularly important for human beings to have as much freedom as possible in their choice in adopting religious beliefs,
I am going to call you on this, you are not just talking about religious beliefs - you are talking about all metaphysical beliefs and to a certain extent you are incorporating epistemiological assumptions (ie what you consider a valid way to make a truth claim).
quote:
partly because those particular sorts of beliefs tend to have a profound effect on their lives *snip* From my perspective, it’s really to do with the massively extent to which it can affect the lives of individuals and communities and innocent bystanders, and even neighbouring countries, and therefore the whole planet. From yours, I suppose it’s a rather important question of eternal salvation.
Atheism and agnosticism also have the potential to have consequences on this scale.
quote:
In any case, the nature of religious belief is such that freedom to adopt it and practice it can therefore be especially morally important. I’m aware this is only an unsubstantiated assertion
It is one of the key planks of your argument and therefore I don't think that it can stand as an unsubstantiated assertion. Also you are conflating several things in this statement.
Your primary argument is about children being brought to religion by their parents. The right to freedom of religion is a codification of protection for adults, against persecution by the state, when they are in a religious minority. You appear to be relying, by implication, on the UN declaration of human rights. If this is your source, you should probably be looking at the UN declaration of the Rights of the Child. You should bear in mind the fact that either of these declarations exist is largely related to metaphysical beliefs, and that much mention is made in the declaration to culture and the importance of the role of the parents.
You effectively claim poor outcomes for religious belief - "innocent bystanders" etc. But you do not show better outcomes for competing metaphysical belief systems, including atheism. If you wish to uniquely disenfranchise parents from passing on the faith-based part of their culture to their children on purpose, you need to show its uniquely worse for the children.
quote:
I understand there are internal theological reasons why freedom of choice in religion is a particular moral prerequisite
I believe Josephine questioned this earlier, but it is certainly not the case that all faith traditions would accept this assertation. But it has broader implications, by this logic attempting to convert adults would be immoral on the grounds that persuasion effected their freedom of choice - and almost all faith traditions contain a clear imperative to try and persuade others in some way.
quote:
Ideally, then, all human beings should have the right to freedom to adopt and practice religion (or not). This moral and ethical ideal is absolutely primary in my concerns here.
If someone of 98 who has been a methodist all their life gets dementia - should their carers continue to take them to church every Sunday or do we do nothing in case they might have changed their mind ? Or present them with an array of options they can not comprehend in case they should wish to change their mind ? Both at the begining and end of life our needs and capabilities change rapidly.
You are mistaken to ignore the developmental aspect of this. We know that for children to thrive and develop well, they need stability, boundaries care givers, opportunity to play - giving total freedom of choice to a chld of three would be physical and emotional neglect. It would stunt and damage the growth of their mind, their body, and their personality - we know this because it has been observed to happen. So therefore we do not give a child total freedom. This objectively demonstrates, that total freedom for a child is not necessarilly in all circumstances an unmitigated good.
You are mistaken to reify freedom of choice. If we give total freedom to adults, we regress to a hobbesian dog eat dog world - which we see in parts of the world where the state has broken down. So therefore we do not give an adult total freedom. This objectively demonstrates, that total freedom for an adult is not necessarilly in all circumstances an unmitigated good.
To carry your argument you need to show the value of the freedom you assert the child needs.
quote:
I feel we should ideally be as free from external influences as possible in our adoption of religion. This works in both directions. I feel it’s exactly equally wrong to indoctrinate someone NOT to become a Christian as it is to indoctrinate them to become one.
It really isn't just about Christianity - to be meaningful it has to be about *all* metaphysical belief systems.
Moreover, you "feel" this - that is not really a debating position, unless you accept gut instinct as a valid premise. In which case, the parent's gut instinct to inculcate their faith in their child is equally valid.
quote:
There are certain things about the about parental indoctrination of religion in children that categorically set it apart from the way our choices are influenced by other things. I hope this gets to the issue of why I think religious indoctrination is immoral.
It really doesn't, because that statement rest on a several things you have asked us to accept as a special plea or an unsubstantiated assertion.
quote:
I think we all agree that children are highly vulnerable to parental influence (for good and for bad), including and especially religious indoctrination; therefore it is an especially important issue.
Your word choices, "vulnerable", indocrintation", "religious" (as opposed to metaphysical) do display a huge amount of a priori assumption. You are not presenting issues - that you *assert* are matters of fact - neutrally.
quote:
I think we all agree that religious parents, especially, tend to believe there is a particular imperative that their children come to share their beliefs- much more so than for atheist parents
I don't accept this, atheists frequently have very strong views about not wanting their children to become theists. Dawkins is an extreme example of this but he is far from alone.
quote:
So, I hope we can agree that religious belief stands above all as a matter for particular concern regarding the influence that parents have over their child’s freedom of choice.
I don't accept this, but I am willing for us to focus on the question of metaphysical beliefs.
quote:
When the state indoctrinates religion, we clearly see that as an abuse of our rights to freedom of choice. Why should parents be different, in principle?
Well, for starters, the state is intended to be the servant of the people - in this case the parents.
Secondly, if you are using "indoctrinate" to speak of the state's action in the same way as of the parents actions, many people don't see that as an abuse of our rights of freedom of choice. There really isn't a massive campaign to disestablish the Church of England, or demand the end of prayers in the House of Commons, or remove the duty of our public broadcaster to provide religious programming, or to make state recognised marriage only available from secular officers, or remove the religous elements from rememberance day etc etc. There are a small number of people who feel strongly about it but most are tolerant of our continuing to be an explicitly Christian state. Even our minority communities of different faith traditions tend to prefer theism to secularism.
If you are using "indoctrination" to speak of a state's actions persecuting a religious or atheist minority - you would need to be drawing a comparison with child abuse in the service of religious "indoctrination".
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
An article in Christianity Today.
Some highlights:
First 2 from the American Religious Identification Survey (link on page linked to above):
quote:
The percentage of Americans claiming "no religion" almost doubled in about two decades, climbing from 8.1 percent in 1990 to 15 percent in 2008.
quote:
The Nones were most numerous among the young: a whopping 22 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds claimed no religion, up from 11 percent in 1990.
This from the 2009 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life:
quote:
They reported that "young Americans are dropping out of religion at an alarming rate of five to six times the historic rate (30 to 40 percent have no religion today, versus 5 to 10 percent a generation ago)."
This not from any study, but the opinion of the author:
quote:
Third, a tectonic shift has occurred in the broader culture. Past generations may have rebelled for a season, but they still inhabited a predominantly Judeo-Christian culture. For those reared in pluralistic, post-Christian America, the cultural gravity that has pulled previous generations back to the faith has weakened or dissipated altogether.
"De-churching" -- people who grow up in the church and then leave it -- is accelerating in the US (which has a much larger base of church-goers than the UK). It's not static. As atheism grows more and more respectable in the larger culture, I predict it will probably accelerate even more. As I said above, 20-year-old data is too old. Much has changed in the last 20 years as far as children leaving their parents' faith is concerned.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Writchey
Apprentice
# 16020
|
Posted
Yorick writes:
quote:
I reckon the principal reason it might be very difficult to identify those who’ve been indoctrinated into their religious faith is that they don’t often self-identify as indoctrinated.
I invite you to google: "Leaving <insert religion>"
There are countless, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of personal narratives apostates or prospective apostates post to web sites established to lend mutual support to people de-converting. They pour their heart out seeking validation and many find the act of documenting their journey (many think in these terms) is liberating and helps them cope. Apostates are my best allies in my quest to foment an international effort to end hereditary religion.
Perhaps the most poignant narratives come from people swept up as children by the insular sects like JWs, pentacostals, mormons, Catholics and the like.
In my conversation with parents on the Amazon.com forum, I found I could always quiet down the most vociferous posters by playing back some of the posts apostates contributed to a self help web site. The amazing thing is the disconnect between active believers and apostates and the reason I believe this exists is the fact that active believers are deliberately conditioned to treat apostates as lepers. It is part of the memeplex protecting religion. A careful search of sacred texts reveals many exhortations to shun apostates and avoid non-believers. Life time friends edge away and eventually disappear. No surprise here.
Once people are exposed to the hurt religion inflicts on the psyches and family relationships of some people, they might begin to question whether consigning their innocent toddlers to the mind control program of religion is such a noble idea.
Posts: 15 | From: Glendale, AZ | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I can see what you are saying Writchey, but it's not my experience.
My lovely Methodist Church is more than understanding. We have many non-chistians involved in our activities.
I am positively proud that both my sons grew up Atheist - I take it as proof we didn't indoctrinate them.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
Apostates are my best allies in my quest to foment an international effort to end hereditary religion.
Writchey
See Commandment 8
Given that you haven't posted all that often you may have missed this. Many of us are involved in campaigns, quests if you like, of various kinds (I am) but this space hasn't been created to be used in the overt pursuit of any specific agenda.
quote:
Perhaps the most poignant narratives come from people swept up as children by the insular sects like JWs, pentacostals, mormons, Catholics and the like.
Again, this is advice to an Apprentice. We have Shipmates who belong to all of those "insular sects" and who, quite rightly, aren't going to take kindly to such crude generalisations. And crude generalisations like those hardly do your credibility any good. Keep on expressing your opinions in this way and you are very likely to be called to account in Hell (the Board that is).
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
[ 26. November 2010, 00:16: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call two posts crusading.
There have been many comments on this thread suggesting there can be nothing immoral in parents deliberately influencing their children to become religious. One of the dangers, however, is that the child may decide, when they become capable of making an informed decision, to abandon the religion. Clearly, this can be a very painful experience for them (and others), as Writchey points out.
This is a striking example of the risks of influencing children to adopt a religion before they develop the maturity to make that choice freely for themselves. When they do, many will remain religious by their (pseudo-)choice, but, for those who choose to leave the flock, the separation process can clearly be harmful.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Writchey
Apprentice
# 16020
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
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: 15 | From: Glendale, AZ | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
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.
… Is there a difference in this matter between religion and say: vegetarianism, the language you speak, or supporting a football team?
Sorry for the delay.
Your three ‘types’ make very interesting characterisations. Although I do wonder if your experiences are statistically representative, I’ve no doubt your observations are very perceptive.
Evidence of childhood indoctrination is very difficult to identify, as discussed upthread. If the person themselves doesn’t even know it, I’m sure it’s hard for others to do so. Some say indoctrinees give off a certain smell, but this does not sound like a reliable method for determining the extent to which a person’s upbringing has influenced their adoption of religious belief. A great deal of parental influence is not consciously felt, and of course the very young child is in no position to make a critical judgement of whether they’re being taught about belief or being taught to believe. Which is kind of the whole point, really.
It’s practically impossible, therefore, when looking at any individual adult Christian who was deliberately influenced to adopt religion by his parents, to determine the extent to which his later ‘free’ choices are conditioned or otherwise affected by his early indoctrination. He may feel he’s making his own free decisions, and ‘claiming his faith for himself’, but perhaps his choices are the result of deeper unconscious processes resulting from his juvenile indoctrination.
That’s the really nasty thing about indoctrination. It deprives people of choice, even if they think it doesn’t.
I’ll get back to your football/vegetarian/language point a.s.a.p.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call two posts crusading.
Take it to the Styx, if you want, Yorick. But not here.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Sorry for the delay..
Not at all!
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It’s practically impossible, therefore, when looking at any individual adult Christian who was deliberately influenced to adopt religion by his parents, to determine the extent to which his later ‘free’ choices are conditioned or otherwise affected by his early indoctrination. He may feel he’s making his own free decisions, and ‘claiming his faith for himself’, but perhaps his choices are the result of deeper unconscious processes resulting from his juvenile indoctrination.
I think that's a good point, and I think again it goes wider than religion. Watching someone like Derren Brown at work makes you wonder how many of our 'free' choices are really free. And that goes even deeper than indoctrination, and is more about all kinds of conditioning. Many of the choices we make are due to subconscious factors that we're not really aware of. But I still think that there us always, underneath it all, free will. Thinking of Derren brown, there was an episode where he used many external factors to influence each of a group of people to rob a bank van (with a fake gun). All but one of the succumbed, and the one that didn't afterwards said he had this incredible urge to do it, but made the conscious decision not to give in to those urges.
I understand where you're coming from in terms of the objective morality of raising children, but as others have said, if there's no practical outworking then it's a futile exercise. I think the most important thing in terms of my own daughter is that she knows she's loved and accepted both by mummy and daddy, and by God. As she grows up, as long as she knows that love is unconditional, I hope that she'll free to make any choices she wants and know that doesn't change that love. Of course I'll influence her towards being a Christian - we pray with her before bedtime and she comes to church. But I still don't think that's indoctrination, because she's still a child. If when she's 18, we're still 'making' her come to church and pray, then something will be wrong there. However, I hope she will be doing those things out of her own choice.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I understand where you're coming from in terms of the objective morality of raising children, but as others have said, if there's no practical outworking then it's a futile exercise.
I don’t think we should so readily dismiss it as futile. It was very difficult for me to avoid inculcating my daughter with my atheistic worldview, and I’m all too aware of how easy it would have been to serve my own agenda in persuading her of the ‘truth’ of my opinions before she was mature enough to question them critically. Each one of us, as a Christian parent or an atheist, has a degree of choice in how we present our beliefs to our children. Yes, we can easily indoctrinate them, both deliberately and also accidentally, but if we are very determined and careful, we can minimise this.
Boogie knows what I’m talking about.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I don’t think we should so readily dismiss it as futile. It was very difficult for me to avoid inculcating my daughter with my atheistic worldview, and I’m all too aware of how easy it would have been to serve my own agenda in persuading her of the ‘truth’ of my opinions before she was mature enough to question them critically. Each one of us, as a Christian parent or an atheist, has a degree of choice in how we present our beliefs to our children. Yes, we can easily indoctrinate them, both deliberately and also accidentally, but if we are very determined and careful, we can minimise this.
Boogie knows what I’m talking about.
Many children when they hit a certain age begin to think their parents are, if not the most clueless beings on the planet, then perhaps just wrong or behind the times on most issues and question everything their parents ever taught them. This is part of the process of becoming independent and forming their own beliefs and opinions. Regardless, it is the moral imperative of the parent to instill/teach whatever values and beliefs they think are necessary to best equip the child for adult life - no matter whether the child adopts the same values, religious, political or any other belief system or opinions. Children are not programmable robots as you seem to believe when it comes to religion. Unless there is physical harm done to a child - as a few of both atheist and "religious" seem prone to - there is absolutely no reason, except prejudice, to attempt to prohibit the teaching of a specific religion or even atheism if that is what the parent deems best for their child. You have overwhelming failed to prove your case and have also side stepped most points made by others that disagree with you.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It was very difficult for me to avoid inculcating my daughter with my atheistic worldview, and I’m all too aware of how easy it would have been to serve my own agenda in persuading her of the ‘truth’ of my opinions before she was mature enough to question them
Ok, I think it would be helpful to understand the practical outworking of this in your own experience. How did you practice these principles? If she asked you a question, how did you answer? Did you take her to church? Or a mosque or temple, so she could see things firsthand and decide for herself?
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Writchey
Apprentice
# 16020
|
Posted
Barnabas writes:
quote:
We have Shipmates who belong to all of those "insular sects" and who, quite rightly, aren't going to take kindly to such crude generalisations.
Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind and isn't one person's crude generalization another's honest expression? There was no malicious intent behind what I said so from where I stand your post is simply an attempt to silence my voice. Is this what honest dialog is about -- silencing critics?
I wanted to be upfront with people and state that I have a considered view of childhood religious indoctrination and that I am actively working to end the practice. Did you see any language inviting people to join me?
What about item 5 in your list. Religious people, it seems to me, are quick to take offense. I could be wrong, but this really is a commonplace so far as I can see.
After carefully reading many contributions of people to this topic the bottom line comes down to the question of ethics and how parents abuse the power they have over their children, based on no better reason than nobody stops them and the practice of indoctrination is supported by religious institutions. They must support childhood indoctrination because they fear for their continued existence if they had to depend upon converting adults with full critical mental faculties. Can anyone honestly refute this assertion?
The institutions are so bold today that their leaders shamelessly pitch their indoctrination programs in these terms. Shall I cite examples for you? We need not go all the way back to Ignatius Loyola, we can start with Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict if you like. Franklin Graham, son of Billy, wanted to create evangelists in the public school system. His goal was one trained child evangelist in every classroom in our country. Rather stunning is it not?
May I continue?
Posts: 15 | From: Glendale, AZ | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Evidence of childhood indoctrination is very difficult to identify, as discussed upthread. If the person themselves doesn’t even know it, I’m sure it’s hard for others to do so. Some say indoctrinees give off a certain smell, but this does not sound like a reliable method...
I'm not done with this point. What does indoctrination mean in terms of end result? If I have a rational, mature, well considered faith that I have the tools to critique and discard if changing circumstance and evidence demand it of me, what does it mean to say that was the result of indoctrination? If this state is really undetectable then does it even exist?
It almost seems like an article of faith for you. We can't see it, we can't detect it by observation, we can't prove it is there, yet you are sure it exists.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
