When atheism is no longer atheism.

[Matthias]

In any event, I would agree that this is a red herring.

You would agree with yourself? What a novel concept! So when you say that your Christian friends don't believe such and such as proof that, really, these are extreme examples, you think your fallacy won't get called out? You're funny. And then saying its a red herring to question your logic? I mean, my friends don't belive such and such, surely that means that's the way it is for most everyone! If you actually have travelled extensively, then you've learned little from your trips if you think your friends alone are representative of religion in general.

And once again, it's irrlevant to the fact that it its the definition of indoctrination. I could care less if you think the indoctrination is more watered down than I do, it's still indoctrination. I believe it was a red herring in fact. Which is funny. You do like to project.

You mean, socialization?

Nope:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Socialization (or socialisation) is a term used by sociologists, social psychologists, anthropologists, political scientists and educationalists to refer to the lifelong process of inheriting and disseminating norms, customs and ideologies, providing an individual with the skills and habits necessary for participating within his or her own society.

Can socializtion involve indoctrination? Sure, but guess what, it's still indoctrination. Does socialization have to involve indoctrination? Nope. Are they one and the same? Nope.

2. The punishment is pretty benign in my book. What exactly does it mean? I have heard a different answer each time. This is a significant differences from the burning of one's flesh for eternity.

Honestly, I could care less how benign you personally think some subjective whackadoodle fairy tale is, it doesn't change the fact that it's indoctrination, and that threats of punishment (however benign you may think them) for not believing are all to encourage children not to question. And honestly, I wouldn't expect these punishments to scare you in the first place, they're aimed at believing children.

The majority of Christian grow up well adjusted. There are exception to rule. I know quite a few ex- Christians (as well as myself and my wife) and I can say with certainty that we are well adjusted from our childhood.

This is a completely irrelevant nonsense post. I could care less about your personal opinion on who you think are well-adjusted adults, it has nothing to do with you saying that if a person doesn't stay indoctrinated then it's not indoctrination. That is a flat out wrong statement, and this response does nothing to address that.

So what?

Uhh, really? Your chill with people getting indoctrinated as children with unproveable beliefs then kept in such beliefs through bad logic/reasoning/evidence meant to manipulate the human mind? I mean, I know you'll think this is an "extreme" example, but take the Creation Museum for instance. Now, these particular apologists are not quite as clever as others, yet they're fairly successful, given what they're up against, and you see nothing wrong with that? With children being brought to this museum and told that Jesus walked with dinosaurs. All based on logic and reasoning and science of a sort...

So what? I mean, if that doesn't bother you I don't even know why you discuss this stuff.

Have you ever consider that maybe religion serves a purpose for the human psyche? There will always be people who have that need. I also know people who bounce from Church to church, synod to synod looking for the perfect belief system. Personally, I think it sort of defeat the purpose "pick" a religion. The answer I hear is God is guiding them. The problem is this- If there is only true way; what about the people on the other churches that you had rejected. He found himself busy after that. Anyway, as we get older there are other factors that can impact how we view the world. The first question that someone ever says to me when I state that I am not Christian/ religious is; "what do you think will happen when you die?" That doesn't sound like indoctrination, but fear.

Well of course as an atheist/agnostic you realize that people stay in religion for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with their belief in it as truth. Social reasons, community functions, to not disturb family structures, tradition, etc. etc.

And yes, fear can also be what keeps them there, and yes, that sounds exactly like indoctrination. That fear was implanted by indoctrination 9 times out of 10. The answer to the fear of dying is not to believe in one unproven, unproveable fantasy among an infinite number. Their answer is riddled with the indoctrination they've had to go through since being a child. That there is a God, that he will judge you when you die, that there is life, or even suffering, after death if you don't get it right. That idea didn't come from nowhere. And of course, adults can be indoctrinated too. They just aren't as easy to get.

Yes, this is mostly true, but this isn't indoctrination, but intimidation. In any event, we are discussing the average family- You keep bringing up extreme examples. What does Iran's Theocracy have to do with the average family?

The "average family" in the world lives in societies that are pretty conservative/repressive. Iran's theocracy is an example of how religion indoctrinates, being a theocracy.

And yes, that's intimidation, but also indoctrination. It's not like they only have one tool in the tool belt, but indoctrination is how they get you started. You can't be intimidated by something you don't believe in, which is the whole point. Got to get them young so you CAN intimidate the until the day they die.

In Roman Catholicism they are allowed to question. I know this because I taught religion in a Roman Catholic school (Hebrew and Christian Scripture). I also have known clergy of other faith to almost invite questions about faith. Some of the most enjoyable conversations I can recall involved a minister and an atheist that belonged to a re-enacting group that I had belong to. Apologetics do not just exist to debunk statements by skeptics and atheist, but to answer questions and concerns within the community of believers. You see this as a bad thing; but this is exactly why I am NOT a believer today.

In some religions they are allowed to question NOW (but weren't in the past) because religion lost power and had to adapt with the times. But allowing people to question doesn't mean there isn't indoctrination going on. The Catholic Church can't physically stop me from asking, so they just encourage people not to ask, in a whole slew of ways, and the most sophisticated is apologetics, which is like the Creation Museum with a nicer sheen. Of course it's to address the concerns of their own believers, that's why it's called apologetics, they're trying to keep the people they've indoctrinated in through really horrible logic and reasoning, but in such a way that is not easily recognizeable by your lay person who is a bit intimidated to question their beliefs anyways and are looking for any sort of logical confirmation of their doubts.

You aren't a believer today because their apologetics failed? Well, that still makes apologetics a bad thing. The Creation Museum is indeed a bad thing. They do succeed with others you know.

[PikeStance]

You would agree with yourself? What a novel concept! So when you say that your Christian friends don't believe such and such as proof that, really, these are extreme examples, you think your fallacy won't get called out? You're funny. And then saying its a red herring to question your logic? I mean, my friends don't believe such and such, surely that means that's the way it is for most everyone! If you actually have traveled extensively, then you've learned little from your trips if you think your friends alone are representative of religion in general.

And once again, it's irrelevant to the fact that it its the definition of indoctrination. I could care less if you think the indoctrination is more watered down than I do, it's still indoctrination. I believe it was a red herring in fact. Which is funny. You do like to project.

The red herring comment was in response to your comment if I have ever traveled as irrelevant. You are still right. It is irrelevant if I have traveled or not. The topic is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the topic of indoctrination. Moreover, i will readily concede my personal experiences may be myopic in nature. However, a more "distant" view doesn't necessarily mean clearer vision.

Furthermore, you seem to be under the false impression my views are shaped by people I personally know or have known. My understanding of how the "average" family behaves and raise their children go beyond people I would call friends. I have never claimed exclusive knowledge or that knowledge of such things cannot be obtained by other means. In fact, my views are shaped by a variety of information from a large amount of sources. I am only sharing my views as I interpret them.

The issue I have with the term indoctrination is two fold. One the term itself is incendiary. Also, if you are willing to refer to everything learned by anyone Christian (that is based on Christian teachings) as indoctrination or the water down version, then the term itself loses its meaning.

Can socialization involve indoctrination? Sure, but guess what, it's still indoctrination. Does socialization have to involve indoctrination? Nope. Are they one and the same? Nope.

This pretty much what I have been writing about

Your [sic] chill with people getting indoctrinated as children with unprovable beliefs... but take the Creation Museum for instance. Now, these particular apologists are not quite as clever as others, yet they're fairly successful, given what they're up against, and you see nothing wrong with that? With children being brought to this museum and told that Jesus walked with dinosaurs. All based on logic and reasoning and science of a sort...

Well to fair, I remember reading they dinosaurs walking with "cavemen" not Jesus. Its a creationist museum. It will be patronized by people who those views. The average family will not go to that museum.

Well of course as an atheist/agnostic you realize that people stay in religion for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with their belief in it as truth. Social reasons, community functions, to not disturb family structures, tradition, etc. etc.

I wasn't defining an exclusive reason. Religion fills a need and as you pointed out; they are a bunch of pragmatic reasons as well. I believe Richard Dawkins expressed similar views that I pointed out and you have pointed out above.

And yes, that's intimidation, but also indoctrination. It's not like they only have one tool in the tool belt, but indoctrination is how they get you started. You can't be intimidated by something you don't believe in, which is the whole point. Got to get them young so you CAN intimidate the until the day they die.

I met a lot of Muslims in Dubai who are "non practicing" Muslims. They won't state that they are non believers out of fear. They are not indoctrinated to believe, they scare to death literally not to profess to other Muslims they believe. I believe recently a former Muslim who made Atheistic you tube video was deported from an Islamic country. I have to look up the source. I believe he was threatened with death.

.

Note: I might have the wrong impression, but you seem to be writing angry. If so, please do not get frustrated. Please let us continue to have a polite conversation. I can see we will probably not see eye to eye on this, but there is no reason why we can't continue to have a friendly and polite discussion. If I misread your last post; you have my apologies.

Thanks,...

----

[Matthias]

The red herring comment was in response to your comment if I have ever traveled as irrelevant.

I think it's relevant in trying to understand where you are coming from with your claims of what is "average" in religious teaching. That's all I was doing. Your position that this really isn't indoctrination is tied directly to this view of what the "average" religious teaching is. And if it meets some "benign" definition you have in your own mind, then it isn't indoctrination. So yes, this is a relevant question.

I could say it is irrelevant how you are personally trying to redefine indoctrination, on a subjective scale in your own mind, rather than on the definition of the word. That is, that your thoughts on what is "benign" or "average" beliefs in religion have nothing to do with whether they fit the definition of indoctrination.

My understanding of how the "average" family behaves and raise their children go beyond people I would call friends. I have never claimed exclusive knowledge or that knowledge of such things cannot be obtained by other means. In fact, my views are shaped by a variety of information from a large amount of sources. I am only sharing my views as I interpret them.

Well if your understanding involves your travels, then that just shows my question was all the more relevant, since I'm trying to get at where your understanding of "average" comes from.

If I'm going to understand your reasoning or prespective, then I have to know some of these sources.

The issue I have with the term indoctrination is two fold. One the term itself is incendiary.

First off, this is irrelevant. Do you want me to use a term like socialization, like you do, to seem less incendiary in your opinion? To twist definitions to not offend? What relevance does that have?

Also, if you are willing to refer to everything learned by anyone Christian (that is based on Christian teachings) as indoctrination or the water down version, then the term itself loses its meaning.

Not at all. Any teachings of unproven, unproveable beliefs as though they were fact, with the learners not being encouraged to question or critically think about these beliefs, is indeed indoctrination. I mean, teaching unproven unproveable beliefs as fact already fits this definition.

Education does not teach people unproven, unproveable beliefs as fact, or as ultimate truths or what have you.

I would say that fits the vast majority of religions out there. Most of the questioning that DOES go on involves specifics, like, why does God let people suffer? Well, you've already been indoctrinated in God's existence, your not questioning that. You've already been indoctrinated that God's word is in the Bible, so you're not questioning that. That question may lead some to eventually question those base indoctrination points, but it's all still indoctrination. The fact that religions now have to field these questions from the masses in some countries is a recent phenomenon for a reason. They've lost their power to better indoctrinate people through coercion and other means.

I know there are some exceptions to the rule out there, but they are very few and far between. They are not average.

This pretty much what I have been writing about

Teaching unproven unproveable beliefs as facts to children is indeed one form of socialization, but it's also indoctrination. And of course, some people would believe these are bad forms of socialization, that is to say, they stunt the child's development from being able to fit in to society at large when they grow up.

Well to fair, I remember reading they dinosaurs walking with "cavemen" not Jesus. Its a creationist museum. It will be patronized by people who those views. The average family will not go to that museum.

According to this poll, 40% of Americans believe in Creationism.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vau...2009_12_15.pdf

Is that your "average" family? No, but it's not some extreme, and it's pretty easy to see that in many parts of the developing world, this is indeed the "average" belief. And that's nothing to say of belief in angels, in miracles, in God, in Jesus as the son of God. All of these are pretty "average" by looking at these numbers in a developed country.

61% of American adults belive in hell. That makes that belief pretty average, and this is adults we're talking about here. I bet the number is higher for children. Now, where did they get that belief? And this is a society where not believing in hell doesn't come at great (relative) social costs. Especially telling a pollster that. Here's another poll in these sorts of questions with similar results:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27877/ame...than-hell.aspx

I think polls are a lot more valid as ways to find out beliefs of whole populations than one's personal experiences with friends or even through extensive travel. These are anecdtoal and not good evidence.

Also, are you saying that as long as "average" families don't go to the Creation Museum, it's alright? I mean, of course people who believe it will go there with their children, but you seem very nonchalant about it all. I think that in all cases, "average" or not, it's wrong to indoctrinate people, and children especially, who lack the capacity to challenge such influences.

I met a lot of Muslims in Dubai who are "non practicing" Muslims. They won't state that they are non believers out of fear. They are not indoctrinated to believe, they scare to death literally not to profess to other Muslims they believe. I believe recently a former Muslim who made Atheistic you tube video was deported from an Islamic country. I have to look up the source. I believe he was threatened with death.

Of course they're indoctrinated to believe, it's just that the indoctrination didn't work in their case. It was still an indoctrination attempt. I don't understand why you think that if indoctrination doesn't work on a person, or a person eventually overcomes it in adulthood, that means there was no indoctrination attempted.

.

Note: I might have the wrong impression, but you seem to be writing angry. If so, please do not get frustrated. Please let us continue to have a polite conversation. I can see we will probably not see eye to eye on this, but there is no reason why we can't continue to have a friendly and polite discussion. If I misread your last post; you have my apologies.

Not angry, I'm just passionate about this, having been indoctrinated myself from a young age. I care about how it is portrayed. I believe quite strongly indoctrination is not benign in any form, though some forms are more obviously manipulative than others. Sometimes writing with emotion can help a position by jarring a person's perception of something. That is to say, most people I meet don't think about or care about the fact that they were indoctrnated as children because of the perception of this type of indoctrination as tradition and as benign, that's how I was for many years.

I'm trying to show that it's not, whether it has been watered down or not. By showing my passion and emotion, I'm showing that there are people who don't think it's OK, which in and of itself means there is another perspective, one a lot of people have never heard of before. If I were to type without emotion on this, I might give the impression I think of this as merely an academic discussion beyond the reality of the world and might not get across the idea that there are other perspectives that might give a person pause about their own opinion on the subject, ones they haven't considered before.

[PikeStance]

Let's clear up some misconceptions you seem to have with my position;

I think it's relevant in trying to understand where you are coming from with your claims of what is "average" in religious teaching. That's all I was doing. Your position that this really isn't indoctrination is tied directly to this view of what the "average" religious teaching is.

This is incorrect, I only claimed the average adherents- there's a difference.

I could say it is irrelevant how you are personally trying to redefine indoctrination, on a subjective scale in your own mind, rather than on the definition of the word.

This is incorrect; I defined both terms in my very first response on the subject. I have used that definition to based my opinion on the matter. The issue has turned into semantics. What you refer to as "watered down" indoctrination I say is part of the process of socialization.

Well if your understanding involves your travels, then that just shows my question was all the more relevant, since I'm trying to get at where your understanding of "average" comes from.

I never made an argument that my travels had anything to do with my point of view. My travels were only mentioned when you suggested I never experience living in a LEDC or a developing country. This was the cause of the "red herring" comment by me in agreement that this was an irrelevant fact. Since we are in agreement, I do not understand why you continue to claim this is part of my argument.

Not at all. Any teachings of unproven, unprovable beliefs as though they were fact, with the learners not being encouraged to question or critically think about these beliefs, is indeed indoctrination. I mean, teaching unproven unprovable beliefs as fact already fits this definition.

Education does not teach people unproven, unprovable beliefs as fact, or as ultimate truths or what have you.

I would say that fits the vast majority of religions out there. Most of the questioning that DOES go on involves specifics, like, why does God let people suffer? Well, you've already been indoctrinated in God's existence, your not questioning that. You've already been indoctrinated that God's word is in the Bible, so you're not questioning that. That question may lead some to eventually question those base indoctrination points, but it's all still indoctrination. The fact that religions now have to field these questions from the masses in some countries is a recent phenomenon for a reason. They've lost their power to better indoctrinate people through coercion and other means.

I already covered that the parents believe it to be true. Why is your belief given greater importance than their own belief? Also, I am not going to analyze every theological question- it doesn't change the fact that one can question one's faith. My atheist that start of as believers start of asking these questions.

According to this poll, 40% of Americans believe in Creationism.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vau...2009_12_15.pdf

Is that your "average" family? No, but it's not some extreme, and it's pretty easy to see that in many parts of the developing world, this is indeed the "average" belief. And that's nothing to say of belief in angels, in miracles, in God, in Jesus as the son of God. All of these are pretty "average" by looking at these numbers in a developed country.

I think polls are a lot more valid as ways to find out beliefs of whole populations than one's personal experiences with friends or even through extensive travel. These are anecdtoal and not good evidence.

Also, are you saying that as long as "average" families don't go to the Creation Museum, it's alright? I mean, of course people who believe it will go there with their children, but you seem very nonchalant about it all. I think that in all cases, "average" or not, it's wrong to indoctrinate people, and children especially, who lack the capacity to challenge such influences.

Gallop Polls 2007 & 2011

In both polls it states that only 30% of the population believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible.
In also states that about 20% believes that the Bible is just an "ancient book." The remaining 50% believes the bible is the "inspired" words of God. This is a huge spectrum of beliefs. I would say the 50% would represent the "average" family.

There is some oddities with the polls. The choices are very limited, allowing for a limited expression of beliefs. Also, in both polls it states that the trend is away from literal interpretation, but the numbers are virtually identical.

I do not know what the hell poll proves; my wife believes in a after- life (heaven and Hell) but she is against organized religions, believes there is a God, but the Bible is outdated book of myths. I do not follow her logic, but the feeling I mutual. Oh she is open to reincarnation. ???

I believe quite strongly indoctrination is not benign in any form, though some forms are more obviously manipulative than others. Sometimes writing with emotion can help a position by jarring a person's perception of something. That is to say, most people I meet don't think about or care about the fact that they were indoctrnated as children because of the perception of this type of indoctrination as tradition and as benign, that's how I was for many years.

I'm trying to show that it's not, whether it has been watered down or not. By showing my passion and emotion, I'm showing that there are people who don't think it's OK, which in and of itself means there is another perspective, one a lot of people have never heard of before. If I were to type without emotion on this, I might give the impression I think of this as merely an academic discussion beyond the reality of the world and might not get across the idea that there are other perspectives that might give a person pause about their own opinion on the subject, ones they haven't considered before.

I understand- I think, as I stated above that our discussion is more less over semantics and interpretation.

---

[Manco]

What you do actually is blaming religion of all evils inside a society.

A religion that teaches moral absolutism and a universal truth does not have the excuse of changing mores.

[Drtad]

Education does not teach people unproven, unproveable beliefs as fact, or as ultimate truths or what have you.

It (well in America anyway) teaches kids that everyone thought the world was flat until Columbus "discovered" America. Jeez that makes me upset.

I would say that fits the vast majority of religions out there. Most of the questioning that DOES go on involves specifics, like, why does God let people suffer? Well, you've already been indoctrinated in God's existence, your not questioning that. You've already been indoctrinated that God's word is in the Bible, so you're not questioning that. That question may lead some to eventually question those base indoctrination points, but it's all still indoctrination. The fact that religions now have to field these questions from the masses in some countries is a recent phenomenon for a reason. They've lost their power to better indoctrinate people through coercion and other means.

Most of the Christian people I know do ask and field those questions with clergy, who discuss these matters with them. If they're effective clergy they wouldn't treat the people asking these questions poorly, I certainly haven't seen an example of that, personally. I know people like that do exist, many people.

I know there are some exceptions to the rule out there, but they are very few and far between. They are not average.

For my account I'll focus on people from my personal experience, since I don't want to pass judgement of an entire group.

Teaching unproven unproveable beliefs as facts to children is indeed one form of socialization, but it's also indoctrination. And of course, some people would believe these are bad forms of socialization, that is to say, they stunt the child's development from being able to fit in to society at large when they grow up.

As someone who grew up in that pretty average Christian environment, I can say that if it wasn't for that early "indoctrination" then I think I would have become a pretty bad person socially, not really caring about others and wallowing in pride, only looking out for my own success. Growing up in that environment allowed me to work with charity projects, soup kitchens and community organizations, which gave me a strong sense of social justice, leadership skills and a broader perspective on life that I wouldn't have received if I had not grown up in that environment. The basic tenets of Jesus' teachings are critical to childhood development I think:

-don't be quick to anger
-care about others the way you want to be cared for
-be forgiving
-be humble

Perhaps I don't believe in all the dogma that went along with that, but in the average environment I grew up in, the dogma wasn't particularly important. My peers who grew up with me in this environment are some of the most well-adjusted people I know. Yes, you'd have to take my word for it that I grew up in an average environment and that I don't believe in the dogma now, so you can take it or leave it.

My average atheist friends believe that every religious person doesn't believe in evolution and hate atheists and people of other religions or other crazy ideas like that (as a historian, it makes me a tad nervous). I find it troubling, since I know a lot of them view me that way even though I don't believe in any dogma personally, because I have an interest in religious studies as a part of history (I read the Koran, own several different Bible translations and can read ancient greek of the Septuagint and all that). I can safely say from my experience that while religious indoctrination can be harmful in extreme cases, it can be beneficial in others. There is nothing that is so black and white. Perhaps teaching kids not to seek vengeance is a form of indoctrination, but I don't think that's particularly bad. Not to say that some (or many) religious people don't indoctrinate their kids into believing silly and dangerous ideas. As I said, nothing is so black and white.

I conclude from my personal experiences that willful (or just plain) ignorance from both religious and irreligious people is dangerous. Perhaps even equally as dangerous, if the case gets extreme enough. When an atheist parent teaches their child that religious people are all crazy nuts, is that indoctrination? It's little different than when a religious parent teaches their child that atheists have a problem and need help because they don't know God. I don't think one is worse than the other, because in the end, it's just people dividing themselves along certain lines, which they tend to do.

An odd personal tidbit... the few people I know who harbor racist attitudes are atheist. Does that mean that people need religion not to be racist? That would be silly of me to say.

[Denny Crane!]

A religion that teaches moral absolutism and a universal truth does not have the excuse of changing mores.

No it really does not. It is tiring to read constantly of people expressing their superiority in having objective morality whilst indulging in a constant deluge of subjectivity in beliefs year by year.

[Matthias]

Why is your belief given greater importance than their own belief?

I sitll don't know what your position is. You are fine with people teaching their children unproven, unproveable beliefs, because, in your view, this is socialization?

Now, I never said anywhere that my belief (in what? God?) is greater in importance than their own belief. I just said I think indoctrination, in all forms, is wrong.

You have said you don't like the term indoctrination because you find it incendiary, which to me shows that your position isn't based on the definition of indoctrination, but on very subjective notions. You never addressed this point.

So do you think there are instances where teaching someone unproven, unproveable beliefs as fact is fine, and why? I'm just trying to get your position.

[Matthias]

It (well in America anyway) teaches kids that everyone thought the world was flat until Columbus "discovered" America. Jeez that makes me upset. n

Then it's not education.

Most of the Christian people I know do ask and field those questions with clergy, who discuss these matters with them. If they're effective clergy they wouldn't treat the people asking these questions poorly, I certainly haven't seen an example of that, personally. I know people like that do exist, many people.

No, I'm saying the average religion does not encourage questions, and how could they when they teach unproven, unproveable beliefs as fact? For instance, how many churches teach children that God is real and that Jesus is the son of God, but that is only a belief not a fact, and there are opposing viewpoints, and that the children should think critically and question those assertions. Not many. Not your average ones. They just tell them God is real and Jesus is the son of God.

Most churches in the developed world will try to answer questions believers come up with, which has nothing to do with the fact that it's all still indoctrination. I mean, what other choice do churches realistically have? They can no longer outlaw questioning the church like they did in the past. It's all apologetics now to defend their indoctrination.

I really don't see how the church having to defend its extreme claims that it indoctrinates people (mostly children) with in any way makes it OK.

As someone who grew up in that pretty average Christian environment, I can say that if it wasn't for that early "indoctrination" then I think I would have become a pretty bad person socially, not really caring about others and wallowing in pride, only looking out for my own success.

Indoctrination is not necessary to be a good person socially. We know this. There are plenty of examples. Remember, teaching someone values is different from teaching someone facts.

but in the average environment I grew up in, the dogma wasn't particularly important.

Which is the point. None of the dogma that indoctrination is all about is important in doing those positive things you listed.

My peers who grew up with me in this environment are some of the most well-adjusted people I know. Yes, you'd have to take my word for it that I grew up in an average environment and that I don't believe in the dogma now, so you can take it or leave it.

Think of it this way. Most of the "well-adusted" people completely ignore the Catholic Church on their teachings, like birth control. There's a reason for that. I'm glad that their indoctrination has become so watered down that it's easy to overcome in adulthood. But it doesn't change the fact that indoctrination is wrong and still leads to some bad results even in developed countries.

The Catholic Church can do all the good things it does without indoctrination. Of course, it really wouldn't be a religion in some respects, at least to some people then, but that's my point.

I also have to wonder how any adult that actually believes in what amounts to myths and fairy tales is "well adjusted", which if course is why the vast majority of the well adjusted adults out there really don't believe it, even if they say they do, through all sorts of logical inconsistencies etc.

I can safely say from my experience that while religious indoctrination can be harmful in extreme cases, it can be beneficial in others. There is nothing that is so black and white.

Indoctrination IS black and white thinking though. Saying something unproveable and unproven is fact is about as black and white as it gets. There is nothing beneficial about that.

Perhaps teaching kids not to seek vengeance is a form of indoctrination, but I don't think that's particularly bad.

Teaching kids not to seek vengeance is not a form of indoctrination per se. If you teach a child a value, a preference of society, then it's not a fact. If you teach them not to seek vengeance because vengeance is, as a FACT, black and white, categorized as a sin by God, then that is indoctrination. There is nothing wrong with socializing children to the values of their society, as long as they are presented as values and preferences, not facts, and are allowed or even encouraged to question these subjective notions of values and preferences, which, of course, change over time. I remember having many discussions about vengeance, when it is right/wrong etc. in school.

If you teach values as facts, then it also means children may miss out on the real societal reasons things like vengeance are bad, if it's just simplified to a black and white "well, God said so".

When an atheist parent teaches their child that religious people are all crazy nuts, is that indoctrination?

No, it's bigotry. If they were to say, all religious people are nuts, as a fact, because some unproveable, unproven belief they hold, then that would be indoctrination. The thing is, it can be pretty well proven that not all religious people are "nuts" by the child when they grow up, thankfully, even if it's still bad to be taught such bigotry. It can't be proven that some unproven, unproveable perfect being has decreed all religious people are nuts. Which is where the problem of indoctrination comes in.

Of course, bigotry is wrong as well, and is taught to children all the time unfortunately, and I'm obviously opposed to it too. It's really dangerous when paired with religion though, which is where we get, even to this day, such large oppositions to homosexuality, based on the reasoning "well, I oppose it because God does" and God is an unproven, unproveable being. Kinda halts all rational discussion that can be had.

It's little different than when a religious parent teaches their child that atheists have a problem and need help because they don't know God. I don't think one is worse than the other, because in the end, it's just people dividing themselves along certain lines, which they tend to do.

One isnt per se worse than the other, but they are different problems addressed in different ways. Bigotry stems from ignorance, indoctrination on the other hand... I mean, if God says homosexuals are abominations, then it really isn't bigotry technically for why you label that group such, and it has its own unique problems. Ignorance can be solved with education. For indoctrination to be overcome requires someone to question how they think about the world in general, not just being given new information, which they will just ignore if it doesn't fit with their indoctrination. Or, of course, there is no information to give, because it's on an unproven, unproveable subject. I can't give them proof that God doesn't think homosexuals are abominations, for instance. I can show them scientifc studies, and none of that will change the "fact" that God says they're abomination. Get what I'm saying now?

An odd personal tidbit... the few people I know who harbor racist attitudes are atheist. Does that mean that people need religion not to be racist? That would be silly of me to say.

Of course, considering religion often justified racist theories (Mormonism being a much more recent example). The point is, atheists can be bigots, racists, ignorant a-holes, but in trying to educate them, you don't run up against indoctrination of unproven, unproveable facts, like them hating blacks because God said so. Which is to say, in conclusion, indoctrination is never a good thing.

[Gaidin]

Am I missing something in the Christopher Columbus thing because the world really did think the world was flat until about then...at least insofar as the uneducated masses anyway. If there's still a differential between the two "groups" back then so far as I'm aware.

[Drtad]

No, I'm saying the average religion does not encourage questions, and how could they when they teach unproven, unproveable beliefs as fact? For instance, how many churches teach children that God is real and that Jesus is the son of God, but that is only a belief not a fact, and there are opposing viewpoints, and that the children should think critically and question those assertions. Not many. Not your average ones. They just tell them God is real and Jesus is the son of God.

Why not many? The kids who honestly don't question at all are either apathetic to these issues or are afraid. It's the ones who use willful ignorance to assuage their fears that are dangerous.

Most churches in the developed world will try to answer questions believers come up with, which has nothing to do with the fact that it's all still indoctrination. I mean, what other choice do churches realistically have? They can no longer outlaw questioning the church like they did in the past. It's all apologetics now to defend their indoctrination.

I really don't see how the church having to defend its extreme claims that it indoctrinates people (mostly children) with in any way makes it OK.

If they teach that Jesus was the son of God (or whatever Christological variant) and make it clear that Christianity doesn't conflict with evolution along with instilling charitable and benevolent values in children, then I think that's ok. If a church is preaching hate and scientific ignorance, then that's a problem. It all depends on the situation, so in that way it's not black and white.

Indoctrination is not necessary to be a good person socially. We know this. There are plenty of examples. Remember, teaching someone values is different from teaching someone facts.

No it's not necessary, but a church environment also provides a good environment for instilling good values in children who would otherwise be apathetic to the needs of others. Not all churches of course, but many do provide this environment.

Which is the point. None of the dogma that indoctrination is all about is important in doing those positive things you listed.

But teaching about theological and Christological points of view don't necessarily entail the demonization of other beliefs. Hopefully it makes kids curious about the origin of these beliefs and a greater historical context. Unfortunately most kids don't care for history, but it was one of the reasons history is my current profession, and I think that's a good thing.

Think of it this way. Most of the "well-adusted" people completely ignore the Catholic Church on their teachings, like birth control. There's a reason for that. I'm glad that their indoctrination has become so watered down that it's easy to overcome in adulthood. But it doesn't change the fact that indoctrination is wrong and still leads to some bad results even in developed countries.

You're thinking largely of Evangelical Christianity. I won't defend some of their tenets. Yes, some Catholic leaders are dogmatic and seek only to impress their dogma on easily exploitable third world countries. This behavior of exploiting others is not limited in any way to these clergy. Not saying these bad clergy shouldn't be combated, of course they should.

The Catholic Church can do all the good things it does without indoctrination. Of course, it really wouldn't be a religion in some respects, at least to some people then, but that's my point.

It could.

I also have to wonder how any adult that actually believes in what amounts to myths and fairy tales is "well adjusted", which if course is why the vast majority of the well adjusted adults out there really don't believe it, even if they say they do, through all sorts of logical inconsistencies etc.

The entire Bible is not myths and fairy tales. Yes, there are significant parts that are, but it is a critical text that should be studied as an important development in literature, especially as an evolution of earlier Semitic literature. I don't like the idea of dismissing a text that has been critical in history, perhaps that's a personal bias but knowing about the past makes people better, I think.

Indoctrination IS black and white thinking though. Saying something unproveable and unproven is fact is about as black and white as it gets. There is nothing beneficial about that.

Yes it's black and white thinking, but while indoctrination is black and white thinking, its effects are not black and white (not entirely negative, not entirely positive).

Teaching kids not to seek vengeance is not a form of indoctrination per se. If you teach a child a value, a preference of society, then it's not a fact. If you teach them not to seek vengeance because vengeance is, as a FACT, black and white, categorized as a sin by God, then that is indoctrination. There is nothing wrong with socializing children to the values of their society, as long as they are presented as values and preferences, not facts, and are allowed or even encouraged to question these subjective notions of values and preferences, which, of course, change over time. I remember having many discussions about vengeance, when it is right/wrong etc. in school.

I never had such discussions in regular school...

If you teach values as facts, then it also means children may miss out on the real societal reasons things like vengeance are bad, if it's just simplified to a black and white "well, God said so".

I don't believe that information is presented that way, generally.

Of course, bigotry is wrong as well, and is taught to children all the time unfortunately, and I'm obviously opposed to it too. It's really dangerous when paired with religion though, which is where we get, even to this day, such large oppositions to homosexuality, based on the reasoning "well, I oppose it because God does" and God is an unproven, unproveable being. Kinda halts all rational discussion that can be had.

Oddly enough, the only people I know with anti-homosexual views are atheists. I may just know odd people, but it's the truth. I agree with some of your points.

Am I missing something in the Christopher Columbus thing because the world really did think the world was flat until about then...at least insofar as the uneducated masses anyway. If there's still a differential between the two "groups" back then so far as I'm aware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

[PikeStance]

I sitll don't know what your position is. You are fine with people teaching their children unproven, unproveable beliefs, because, in your view, this is socialization?

Now, I never said anywhere that my belief (in what? God?) is greater in importance than their own belief. I just said I think indoctrination, in all forms, is wrong.

You have said you don't like the term indoctrination because you find it incendiary, which to me shows that your position isn't based on the definition of indoctrination, but on very subjective notions. You never addressed this point.

So do you think there are instances where teaching someone unproven, unprovable beliefs as fact is fine, and why? I'm just trying to get your position.

I stated my opinion throughout. You just do not accept it. I make a firm delineation between what indoctrination is and the process of socialization, you do not (you intermixed the two with no firm delineation).

As I stated already; there is a difference between psychological manipulation and teaching your core values, mores, and norms of society. You have no more or less right to teach that God does not exist as God does exist. BTW, they are Christians who were raised Atheist- Were they indoctrinated? A militant Atheist isn't much different than an evangelical Christian.

The fact is religion feels a void for the unanswerable. If parents who believe God fills that void, I have no problem with them filling it in their children. Where I draw the line is when they fill with that causes a psychological trauma. Where we disagree with you consider that line to be cross by simply filling the void with God. I will never believe that is the case.

---

[Gatsby]

I stated my opinion throughout. You just do not accept it. I make a firm delineation between what indoctrination is and the process of socialization, you do not (you intermixed the two with no firm delineation).

As I stated already; there is a difference between psychological manipulation and teaching your core values, mores, and norms of society. You have no more or less right to teach that God does not exist as God does exist. BTW, they are Christians who were raised Atheist- Were they indoctrinated? A militant Atheist isn't much different than an evangelical Christian.

The fact is religion feels a void for the unanswerable. If parents who believe God fills that void, I have no problem with them filling it in their children. Where I draw the line is when they fill with that causes a psychological trauma. Where we disagree with you consider that line to be cross by simply filling the void with God. I will never believe that is the case.

---

So is it okay if I tell my child that unicorns are real and that the bogeyman will get him? It probably won't cause them much harm if they go into the adult world believing in mythical beings with no evident proof.

[PikeStance]

So is it okay if I tell my child that unicorns are real and that the bogeyman will get him? It probably won't cause them much harm if they go into the adult world believing in mythical beings with no evident proof.

Do you honestly believe that the average Christian family believe in unicorns? This is partially myopic, but I have never meant one. Do you know of any? As far as the mythical bogeyman, parents come up with all sorts of things to console their concerned children. To my knowledge, very few adults grow up believing in bogeyman and very few if any develop any serious psychosis or trauma from the fear of the bogeyman.

Seriously, if you had bothered to have read the thread, then you would've realized that your question is completely off the topic. Until now, this thread has been devoid of such flippant and melodramatic arguments, and it would be nice if it stayed that way.

---

[Matthias]

I stated my opinion throughout. You just do not accept it. I make a firm delineation between what indoctrination is and the process of socialization, you do not (you intermixed the two with no firm delineation).

You made no firm delineation between indoctrination and socialization, you've only shown how subjective your views of indoctrination are. The only firm delineation you've made is that you personally think indoctrination is an incendiary term. It's hard to make any firm delineation when you're so subjective.

Your subjectiveness is because you focus on the content of the indoctrination, not on how the information is being imparted. You choose to change the definition when the content of the indoctrination seems harmless to you. That's subjective.

As I stated already; there is a difference between psychological manipulation and teaching your core values, mores, and norms of society. You have no more or less right to teach that God does not exist as God does exist. BTW, they are Christians who were raised Atheist- Were they indoctrinated? A militant Atheist isn't much different than an evangelical Christian.

When did I say that telling children God does not exist was right? I don't. That's indoctrination. If you think that's wrong, then you must think indoctrination of all sorts are wrong, if you're being logically consistent. Indoctrination IS psychological manipulation. I mean, when adults in authority positions are encouraging children NOT to critically think or question unproven, unproveable beliefs that they present as fact, what do you think that is? Psychological manipulation. If you teach children the values, mores, etc. of society through this paradigm, it's STILL psychological manipulation. People view values very differently when they believe they are absolute and objective and come from an uproven, unproveable supernatural being than when viewed as the preferences of a given society. One inherently discourages critically thinking about such values or questioning them, the other does not.

Teaching your child core values, norms, and mores of society has NOTHING to do with indoctrination. That is not indoctrination. That is education. Teaching your child that values all come from some unproven, unproveable supernatural phenonomenon is indoctrination.

The fact is religion feels a void for the unanswerable. If parents who believe God fills that void, I have no problem with them filling it in their children.

I do, because an adult can make that decision, but why make it for your child? You don't have the right to violate their minds while they don't have the capacity to question or critically examine. And just because you don't know something, that means it's a void that needs to be filled with whatever crap you want to? Crap that leads to a lot of other issues? And then to do that to a child, who cannot know or consent to what's being done? It's disgusting behavior.

And doing it to other adults is no better, though at least adults generally are more capable of being able to think for themselves and for adults that are sober/relatively wealthy/mentally stable, have education and access to information that make them skeptical of such claims. Doing it to uneducated, poverty-stricken adults is worse. Basically, like all forms of manipulation, indoctrination is strongest with the most mentally vulnerable.

Where I draw the line is when they fill with that causes a psychological trauma. Where we disagree with you consider that line to be cross by simply filling the void with God. I will never believe that is the case.

Well, that's a hopelessly vague line. I think being indoctrinated by people you love and trust in the method of thinking where you believe in unproven, unproveable things will always lead to psychological trauma of some sort. That right there should make you against all indoctrination IMHO, but my primary reasons for opposing indoctrination are different. I draw the line where children's lack of capacity is abused to fill their mind with unproven, unproveable beliefs, no matter what justification is given. Believing unproven, unproveable things is always a bad method of thinking and also violates the child's mind by manipulating them.

It's the manipulation of children (and adults) and the promotion of a way of thinking that is inherently harmful that I'm against. Psychological trauma is just a side effect.

Do you honestly believe that the average Christian family believe in unicorns? This is partially myopic, but I have never meant one.

If Christian theology involved unicorns, you'd meet plenty. Christian theology involves angels, and you can look at those polls to see how many people believe in them in the US. This really undercuts your point. And it shows you are not focusing on the right issue. The point is that if you indoctrinate children in unproven, unproveable beliefs (and it can be anything, like unicorns), many will believe it as adults, as those polls prove. If none of those adults had been indoctrinated in Christianity, they wouldn't believe those things. It's pretty simple.

As far as the mythical bogeyman, parents come up with all sorts of things to console their concerned children. To my knowledge, very few adults grow up believing in bogeyman and very few if any develop any serious psychosis or trauma from the fear of the bogeyman.

But many do believe in the devil, and many fear the devil, just another bogeyman really. The point is staring you right in the face. If they were indoctrinated in the bogeyman as part of a religion, then they'd be much more likely to believe it as an adult. The bogeyman can be proven not to exist by looking under your bed, and your parents will eventually tell you he's not real, as will others. Imagine if your parents, and whole institutions, your whole community, culture, kept insisting the bogeyman was real, and even had priests guard people he was after, and you attended a meeting weekly to discuss the bogeyman, and that the bogeyman was portrayed as an unproven, unproveable being, some invisible malevolent power. I mean, devils and demons have existed in cultures throughout the world, it's not some new phenomena. The difference is how it is imparted as information.

The bogeyman is just temprorary indoctrination. It's just lying to your child to get them to behave and a sign of bad parenting. Since you plan on revealing the facts eventually it's not quite the same, though it's definitely manipulative.

Seriously, if you had bothered to have read the thread, then you would've realized that your question is completely off the topic. Until now, this thread has been devoid of such flippant and melodramatic arguments, and it would be nice if it stayed that way.

Seriously, his question points out the flaws in your argument, though I guess you didn't realize it. It wasn't flippant or melodramatic.

[Gatsby]

My point was that making a child believe in something unprovable may not be a certain cause of harm, but is there still not an ethical reason to avoid instilling absolute belief in something that cannot be proven in your child?

[PikeStance]

You made no firm delineation between indoctrination and socialization, you've only shown how subjective your views of indoctrination are. The only firm delineation you've made is that you personally think indoctrination is an incendiary term. It's hard to make any firm delineation when you're so subjective.

How exactly am I subjective? I am an agnostic atheist arguing that parents have the right to instill their own values in their own children. In fact, if I had children, I would take a similar approach as you- I will teach my children to think for themselves and critically evaluate everything. I would encourage imagination, but not the belief in fantasy. Whatever decision they conclude, I would not demean or ridicule it, but seek to understand their point of view. Unless I am mistaken, you have expressed similar views. So, I will ask again; How am I subjective?

As far as delineation is concern- I have. It is actually you who have expressed a rather confusing application of the two terms.

Your statement

Can socializtion involve indoctrination? Sure, but guess what, it's still indoctrination. Does socialization have to involve indoctrination? Nope. Are they one and the same? Nope.

Apart from the opening redundant fallacy, you don;t exactly draw a distinctive line any where.

Your subjectiveness is because you focus on the content of the indoctrination, not on how the information is being imparted. You choose to change the definition when the content of the indoctrination seems harmless to you. That's subjective.

I disagree- if it was the content; then I would be opposed regardless- since teaching Christianity would be against my personal views. The content is a red herring.

When did I say that telling children God does not exist was right? I don't. That's indoctrination. If you think that's wrong, then you must think indoctrination of all sorts are wrong, if you're being logically consistent. Indoctrination IS psychological manipulation. ....

Let me stop this here,... no one is arguing indoctrination is wrong- this is not in dispute. What is in dispute is what constitutes indoctrination.

Teaching your child core values, norms, and mores of society has NOTHING to do with indoctrination. That is not indoctrination. That is education. Teaching your child that values all come from some unproven, unprovable supernatural phenomenon is indoctrination.

The fact that you don't believe it doesn't make it untrue in the eyes of the parent.

I do, because an adult can make that decision, but why make it for your child? You don't have the right to violate their minds while they don't have the capacity to question or critically examine. And just because you don't know something, that means it's a void that needs to be filled with whatever crap you want to? Crap that leads to a lot of other issues? And then to do that to a child, who cannot know or consent to what's being done? It's disgusting behavior.

You have yet to demonstrate how the average person today is maladjusted. If you can show any statistic that demonstrates that beinging raised in a Christian home resulted in phobias or psychosis then I will gladly revisit my position.

And doing it to other adults is no better, though at least adults generally are more capable of being able to think for themselves and for adults that are sober/relatively wealthy/mentally stable, have education and access to information that make them skeptical of such claims. Doing it to uneducated, poverty-stricken adults is worse. Basically, like all forms of manipulation, indoctrination is strongest with the most mentally vulnerable.

It would be interesting to a statistic of evangelical believers along socio- economic lines. I assume you have such a stat to make this argument- or is this yet another supposition on your part?

Well, that's a hopelessly vague line. I think being indoctrinated by people you love and trust in the method of thinking where you believe in unproven, unprovable things will always lead to psychological trauma of some sort. That right there should make you against all indoctrination IMHO, but my primary reasons for opposing indoctrination are different. I draw the line where children's lack of capacity is abused to fill their mind with unproven, unprovable beliefs, no matter what justification is given. Believing unproven, unprovable things is always a bad method of thinking and also violates the child's mind by manipulating them.

You really ought to make up your mind- either children can critically evaluate the existence of a God or they cannot. Regardless what you might think, the child will have questions. The parents have to answer it. Abstract thought does not develop until 14- 20 years of age. The decision is often filled with what the parent believes.

If Christian theology involved unicorns, you'd meet plenty. Christian theology involves angels, and you can look at those polls to see how many people believe in them in the US. This really undercuts your point. And it shows you are not focusing on the right issue. The point is that if you indoctrinate children in unproven, unprovable beliefs (and it can be anything, like unicorns), many will believe it as adults, as those polls prove. If none of those adults had been indoctrinated in Christianity, they wouldn't believe those things. It's pretty simple.

As an atheist, I cringe when I read the "unicorn" argument. Unicorns (or stories of unicorns) fail to addresses anything that religion addresses. The content is red herring; its the methodology in debate here

The bogeyman is just temprorary indoctrination.

Seriously, I think you just invented a new oxymoron.

---

[Matthias]

How am I subjective?

Your definition of indoctrination (you have not referred to any other source) over this discussion has been elusive. At some points, you seem to imply that telling children to believe or they could face hellfire is indoctrination, but you call that an "extreme case" (itself a subjective notion). At others, you've said indoctrination is something that leaves a more permanent psychological imprint. None of that has to do with the definition of indoctrination. You seem to be subjective not only on the definition, but depending on what is being imparted to the child.

Apart from the opening redundant fallacy, you don;t exactly draw a distinctive line any where.

I'll revisit

Indoctrination:

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).[1] It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2]

Socialization

Socialization (or socialisation) is a term used by sociologists, social psychologists, anthropologists, political scientists and educationalists to refer to the lifelong process of inheriting and disseminating norms, customs and ideologies, providing an individual with the skills and habits necessary for participating within his or her own society.

The difference? Socialization can involve all sorts of ways of attaining ideologies. Indoctrination is a very specific way, that is, with the person being indoctrinated expected not to critically examine or question the doctrine they have been taught.

Unproven, unproveable beliefs presented as fact to children by authority figures is done with the expectation that children, who lack the capacity in many cases in the first place, will not critically examine or question what they are being told. And they don't for the most part. This is where the vast majority of religion fits.

I disagree- if it was the content; then I would be opposed regardless- since teaching Christianity would be against my personal views.

You conflate religion with values, which I think is where I got that impression. Religion is a belief system. The values religion promotes are not religion themselves.

Let me stop this here,... no one is arguing indoctrination is wrong- this is not in dispute. What is in dispute is what constitutes indoctrination.

Why don't you just give a definition? Your definition I presume. I've given you the definition as it is widely understood twice now. The negative connotation that comes with indoctrination is because it expects the indoctrinated not to critically think or examine what they are being told. That is part of the definition.

The fact that you don't believe it doesn't make it untrue in the eyes of the parent.

Which has nothing to do with whether it is indoctrination or not. Teaching unproven, unproveable beliefs as truth/facts is always indoctrination. These are facts that can't, because of the nature of the claim provided, be critically examined, much less by a child. It requires an understanding of logic and critical thinking that children just generally don't possess to even realize to question the nature of the claim, since the claim itself really can't be questioned in any definitive way.

The parent may believe it's true, no doubt, and it's still indoctrination. That's the danger of indoctrination. It inculcates poor methods for thinking about the world.

You have yet to demonstrate how the average person today is maladjusted. If you can show any statistic that demonstrates that beinging raised in a Christian home resulted in phobias or psychosis then I will gladly revisit my position.

The definition of indoctrination does not rely on whether the indoctrinated person is "maladjusted" as an adult. This is another totally subjective, made up idea of what indoctrination is. If you want to see the effect of indoctrination, those statistics above should tell you quite a bit. What percentage of the population are creationists? How many believe in angels? This indoctrination also makes it much harder for people to recognize bad logic or think critically about the world or forces people to be intellectually dishonest if they are ever to hold those beliefs while also understanding what is good logic and how to critically think.

I personally think the fact that most adults believe in the equivalent of unicorns because of indoctrination does indeed make them "maladjusted" to live in a reality based world and disadvantages them and society as a whole. Course, when most of society is like that, I guess they're quite well adjusted to a non-reality based world.

It would be interesting to a statistic of evangelical believers along socio- economic lines. I assume you have such a stat to make this argument- or is this yet another supposition on your part?

The most obvious stats are just looking at the differences in religiosity between the developed and developing world. Socio-economics certainly is a large factor when it comes to religious belief. This chart spells it out pretty clearly in the US, with the most evangelical of denominations having the least education and income.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...Leonhardt.html

You really ought to make up your mind- either children can critically evaluate the existence of a God or they cannot.

I usually don't talk in absolutes.

Regardless what you might think, the child will have questions. The parents have to answer it. Abstract thought does not develop until 14- 20 years of age. The decision is often filled with what the parent believes.

The parent doesn't have to answer the questions, or they could just make up answers, or lie, which is what happens with religious indoctrination the vast majority of the time, since the questions are not really answerable beyond "I don't know, but this is what I believe", which really isn't an answer to the question. If a child asks where God comes from, for example, they cannot get a factual answer.

As an atheist, I cringe when I read the "unicorn" argument. Unicorns (or stories of unicorns) fail to addresses anything that religion addresses. The content is red herring; its the methodology in debate here

You argued that you didn't know of any Christians who believed in unicorns, which entirely missed the point. The point was simple and it was about the methodology. The example was using the same methodology as Christians do, the content was deliberately absurd to show that the same methodology (indoctrination) can lead to absurd results. Of course, believing in angels is equally absurd, though many may not think so by the sheer number of people who do.

Seriously, I think you just invented a new oxymoron.

No, but then again, that would require you to know the definition of indoctrination before you could get to such complex labels. The fact that you think it must be permanent shows that you are making up your own definition.

[PikeStance]

.

In my second post in the thread (the post dealing with socialization and indoctrination), I gave a definition of the terms. In addition I also gave two gallop polls in this post. Moreover, I have consistently applied my definition. You evidently do not like my application of the above definitions- you blur the differences to suit your own needs. For example when you state:

You conflate religion with values, which I think is where I got that impression. Religion is a belief system. The values religion promotes are not religion themselves.

I am not in the habit of contorting concepts to ease my conscience of dictating to others what they can or cannot tell their children. You seem to think it happens in the vacuum. As if Parents are the only agent of socialization. The fact is, as we move from one stage of life to another, different agents have different levels of influences. A well- adjusted adult would be open to these changes. If a person is indoctrinated, they will develop a higher resistance to anything that conflicts with an earlier understanding. You believe that any religious teaching does this. I do not.

In a nutshell, your entire argument is based on the idea that the only way people would follow religious teachings if they were indoctrinated into believing it as a child. It is these poor disadvantage people who are duped into believing something that is not real. Well that entire premise is what is subjective. You make for no other factors that can contribute to development of religious belief. People come to believe in a lot things in which they may have no upbringing to believe it.

I also won’t generalize about religious dogma in lower socio- economic regions of the world. My experiences in Cote d’Ivoire could be entirely different had I lived in Nigeria or the Sudan. Moreover, the poor in general have a plethora of issues that would take a great commitment to unravel the causes. Any one of these issues can factors for the development of religious and ideological development of beliefs. Of course, is this line of discussion just another red herring? How does this help us to determine the difference between indoctrination and socialization?

The unicorn thing is a red herring, because it is about the content, not the methodology. For example, Let us assume thing “A” is true and thing “B” is also true. You can be indoctrinated to believe that “A” is the right thing and “B” is the bad thing. They both may be right, but you can be conditioned to believe that only one is right. As you pass from one stage to another; people varying influences can try to convince you that “B” is more right or just as right. If you have been conditioned, then you will dismiss them as crazy or confused. As we continue our example, you can also be brought up to believe “A” is right. You may even question if “A” is right. As you pass through life stages other people have varying degrees of influences. They tell you that “B” is has right is more right then “A.” You can again question “A.” Of course, who knows what you may end up believing,… maybe “C”? In the past you refer to this as “watered down” indoctrination. This is why I stated the discussion is more about semantics. Of course, you drew a distinction if it is true or not. This is why we drifted into whether or not it causes harm.

The fact is the majority of Americans develop a well- adjusted outlook and psyche despite being reared and living life as a Christians. So, if you going to introduce the content as a legitimate point of discussion, then you have to show it is harmful by the majority of believers. I don’t believe you have or can prove that. The belief in angels or demons (or even big foot) hardly suggests harm.

Lastly, I still do not understand what you mean when you state I am subjective. I am arguing for the rights of people to pass down a belief, I personally do not believe myself.

CONCLUSION
Where does this leave us? We have a semantic argument over what constitutes socialization / indoctrination. We have disagreement on whether or not parents have the right to pass down their beliefs to their children. You objections rest primarily on the content. My argument is based on the methods used. You have not proven that teaching religious views is harmful to the majority of believers. However, if you are able to prove this, I will certainly revisit my position, which doesn’t speak to highly to your claim I am subjective. Given the fact for the past two posts we have essentially repeated the same points; I believe we have exhausted our arguments.

----

[Matthias]

Moreover, I have consistently applied my definition.

No you haven't. So far, you have implied/said that indoctrination is:

permanent
based on the content being imparted
must make adults "maladjusted" to count as indoctrination
incendiary as a word

None of that has anything to do with the definitions you yourself provided.

I am not in the habit of contorting concepts to ease my conscience of dictating to others what they can or cannot tell their children.

Your of the habit of creating strawmen quite often. I never said dictate to others what they can or cannot say, I simply said that indoctrination is wrong, and that I can tell parents who do it to their children I think it's wrong. You really seem to be striving for a strawman for some reason.

You seem to think it happens in the vacuum. As if Parents are the only agent of socialization. The fact is, as we move from one stage of life to another, different agents have different levels of influences.

I "seem" to think that? Where did I say that? Do you like making up the argument of your oppenent?

A well- adjusted adult would be open to these changes. If a person is indoctrinated, they will develop a higher resistance to anything that conflicts with an earlier understanding. You believe that any religious teaching does this. I do not.

And where in your definition does it say that indoctrination must be successful throughout a person's life to be considered indoctrination? An indoctrinated person can overcome their indoctrination, but it was still indoctrination. You don't seem to get this concept, and I have no idea where you got your idea from in the first place. It's not part of the definition.

In a nutshell, your entire argument is based on the idea that the only way people would follow religious teachings if they were indoctrinated into believing it as a child.

No, I've said that nowhere. My argument is that indoctrination is wrong, and that, in the vast majority of cases, the way religion is imparted on others fits the definition of indoctrination. For the vast majority of religious followers, they ARE indoctrinated into believing it as a child, and the only way religion stays around in the numbers it has IS childhood indoctrination. Adults can be indoctrinated too of course. There are a few religions that don't make unproven, unproveable claims, though their status as a religion is sometimes questioned, and these don't require indoctrination per se to believe.

It is these poor disadvantage people who are duped into believing something that is not real. Well that entire premise is what is subjective. You make for no other factors that can contribute to development of religious belief. People come to believe in a lot things in which they may have no upbringing to believe it.

I never said anywhere that other factors can't play a role. I'm simply decrying one factor, indoctrination, especially childhood indoctrination, as bad.

Of course, is this line of discussion just another red herring? How does this help us to determine the difference between indoctrination and socialization?

Indoctrination is done with the expectation that the person will not (or doesn't have the capability to) critically think or question what they are being indoctrinated in. Trying to indoctrinate someone who is educated in logic and how to critically think will be harder generally than someone who isn't. Same with access to facts/knowledge. And education/access to information is strongly correlated with wealth. All it does is help explain why indoctrination works better on certain groups (children, the poor and least educated) than others, and why religious belief, which is nearly always a form of indoctrination, is done to children, and is most successful among populations who are the least educated and have the least access to information. It's not the only factor, but it's a big one.

The unicorn thing is a red herring, because it is about the content, not the methodology.

How? Use the same methodology as Christianity and more people will believe in unicorns. That's about the methodology. If the Bible had unicorns in it, well, you'd have a lot more believing in unicorns.

In the past you refer to this as “watered down” indoctrination. This is why I stated the discussion is more about semantics. Of course, you drew a distinction if it is true or not. This is why we drifted into whether or not it causes harm.

I made that reference directly in response to your claim that telling a child to believe or they will burn in hell is an "extreme" instance that isn't average. You made it subjective. I was saying that regardless of whether you consider it "extreme" or not, it's indoctrination. That was my whole point.

The fact is the majority of Americans develop a well- adjusted outlook and psyche despite being reared and living life as a Christians.

This is your very subjective opinion. I would say that a population that mostly believes in angels and the devil are not very well-adjusted to reality. Are they well-adjusted to a religious society? Sure. Are many if not most displaying cognititive dissonance/intellectual dishonesty on the subject or religions? Yes. Are the rest, the consistent true believers, lacking certain critical thinking skills? Yes. These aren't good for a society IMHO.

So, if you going to introduce the content as a legitimate point of discussion, then you have to show it is harmful by the majority of believers. I don’t believe you have or can prove that. The belief in angels or demons (or even big foot) hardly suggests harm.

"Harmful" is a subjective notion as well. Yes, it is harmful in my opinion, though the harm is lessened because most religious people in the US have watered down and moderated their religious views and keep them separate from the public sphere and reality. We have a secular society, and that has lessend the harm by a lot. But it's still harmful, and it's still wrong. Indoctrination encourages cognitive dissonance, intellectual laziness/dishonesty, lack of critical thinking, and just bad logic. The way people think impacts the decisions these individual citizens make, when it comes to who to vote for, or what decisions to make that effect society (about their health, about the environment, etc.) and being based on these bad modes of thinking can have very poor outcomes.

Lastly, I still do not understand what you mean when you state I am subjective. I am arguing for the rights of people to pass down a belief, I personally do not believe myself.

Your subjective in how you define indoctrination.

Indoctrination is not "passing down" a belief. You don't "pass down" a belief like a family heirloom. The other person has to accept the belief as true, and that is done through indoctrination. You can tell your children your own beliefs, but to present them as objective truth/fact, and not your own personal beliefs, is indoctrination.

We have disagreement on whether or not parents have the right to pass down their beliefs to their children.

No. You've made quite a few strawmen and contorted my argument plenty enough. I believe parents don't have the right to indoctrinate their children, though there is little the state can do about that, and I don't think the state can/should get involved in banning it, being impractical and dangerous besides. Education is the only real solution. I don't know what "pass down" beliefs means to you, maybe it's a less incendiary word than indoctrination in your mind. As if beliefs were some inheritable trait. You need to think long and hard on your phrasing.

You objections rest primarily on the content. My argument is based on the methods used.

No, my objections rest wholly on the definition of indoctrination, religious or otherwise, though we are discussing religious indoctrination here specificaly. I still have no idea when you consider something indoctrination, since you have been making up different definitions for it, even after posting a definition yourself. When hellfire is involved? When the indoctrination is long lasting? When it causes harm to society? Who knows? It's subjective and made up and irrelevent to the definition.

You have not proven that teaching religious views is harmful to the majority of believers.

Which has nothing to do with the opinion that indoctrination is wrong, or even about the definition of indoctrination. Also, kinda hard to "prove" an opinion. I can try to convince you, but that's about it. That's like asking me to "prove" that blue is the best color.