Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Indoctrination
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 16 of 32 (462469)
04-03-2008 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Blue Jay
04-03-2008 12:33 PM


Re: Indoctrination vs Education
Hi, Granny Magda. I take it you have children of your own?
Actually I don't. Pay no attention to my moniker; Granny Magda is my Dungeons and Dragons character. Congratulations to you with regards to your son though. I have a feeling that the fact that you are already considering tough questions like this one bodes pretty well for your parenting skills.
Would it be your contention, then, that telling a child "you must be baptized, or you cannot go to heaven" is indoctrination?
Absolutely. You may sincerely believe that there is a heaven, but the actual truth is that you don't really know for sure. My definition of indoctrination differs a little from Catholic Scientist's. Whilst CS defines indoctrination as taking place when you insist that your beliefs are true and unquestionable, I would say that that is only one aspect of it, after all, some beliefs are unquestionably true (such as my "fire will burn you" example). Examples like this, where obviously true beliefs are passed on to kids without any attempt to provide evidence, might be considered "weak indoctrination", which I would consider to be necessary, even desirable to an extent. Young kids can't handle uncertainty; they need simple and definite answers, which can be easily absorbed. I would include trivial indoctrinations such as Santa in this category too.
I think that the really serious kind of indoctrination takes place when one passes on ones ideas to a child without as though they were unquestionable fact, when in actuality, one doesn't know if the belief in question is true or not. let's call that "strong indoctrination". I would describe your baptism example as being strong indoctrination. You don't really know whether there is a heaven in the first place, let alone what one needs to do to get there. It's all conjecture, so teaching it as though it's all definite would be indoctrination.
What parts of religious teachings are not indoctrination, then? Could I get around this by asking "do you believe that?" after each statement?
Tough one. I would have to say that most religious beliefs are apt to become indoctrination, dogma perhaps more so than doctrine. Just asking "Do you believe that?" isn't going to prevent that. Kids learn from their parents, they are going to believe most of the things that you believe, whether you deliberately indoctrinate them or not. The important thing is that when dealing with religious issues, parents explain their beliefs to their children without giving any false sense of certainty and whilst making it clear that other people have different beliefs. Kids should know that it is OK for them to disagree with their parents.
Bluejay writes:
Likewise, how is it different when science textbooks say "dinosaurs lived millions of years ago?" Fourth grade textbooks don't typically include evidence for what they teach. I'm torn on this issue, because I consider the information taught to them to be factual (and it has good evidence for it), but they probably couldn't understand the evidence, even if it was given to them in the textbooks, so I couldn't advocate teaching them the evidence.
Granny writes:
It isn't possible to make a two year old understand the science behind combustion or the implications of burn injuries; much better to just tell them to stay away from fires and cookers.
But, is it indoctrination to say "it will hurt if you touch it?"
I would call both of these examples of weak indoctrination. So long as you have good reason to believe that something is true, teaching it to your kids without explaining to them the evidence occupies a grey area between indoctrination and education. The paramount concern hough is whether or not it is harmful. I don't believe that the above examples are harmful, quite the reverse. They are necessary. As a child matures, they will be capable of gradually shifting from weak indoctrination to genuine education, where they are encouraged to question everything and find their own answers. I wouldn't like to give any specific age though, since all kids learn at their own rate.
What I have called strong indoctrination though, is, in my opinion, always wrong. Where there is doubt, argument and controversy, it is always wrong to present questionable beliefs as fact. Of course you should probably bear in mind that I am the kind of atheist who would like nothing better than to see religion quietly pack up it's stall and disappear. This still applies to folk like me though. If I were to teach a child that there is definitely no God, that would be indoctrination. If I were to teach a child that whilst I didn't think that there was any reason to believe in God, others did believe in him, that would be education.
Bottom line, so long as you don't impose your ideas upon your kids and you teach them to think for themselves, you'll have done OK.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Blue Jay, posted 04-03-2008 12:33 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 17 of 32 (462470)
04-03-2008 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Blue Jay
04-03-2008 12:33 PM


Hiding the answer is a form of Indoctrination
Bluejay writes:
Likewise, how is it different when science textbooks say "dinosaurs lived millions of years ago?" Fourth grade textbooks don't typically include evidence for what they teach. I'm torn on this issue, because I consider the information taught to them to be factual (and it has good evidence for it), but they probably couldn't understand the evidence, even if it was given to them in the textbooks, so I couldn't advocate teaching them the evidence.
I never understood this approach to parenting. Why would you assume your child can't understand something, and therefore decide not to even attempt to teach them? Isn't it possible that your child could understand it at an age lower then you think normal? If so, wouldn't you then be delaying their education by witholding your teaching until you decide they're "ready"?
I don't see the downside in teaching them anyway. Sure, if your child decides it's simply way over their head, and runs off to play dinky cars or whatever, then yeah, then feel free to put it off 'till later. But why simply assume your child is not ready for something when you do not know until you try? Especially when this could lead to slowing down their progress.
To tie this back to your topic, I would suggest that in deciding your child is not ready to learn something without giving them the chance to prove you wrong is in itself a form of indoctrination. Kind of like how neglect is a form of abuse. In effect, you're hiding information from them. That is, if they do indeed happen to be ready to learn the information.
Is indoctrination as widespread/common as some of us non-theists think?
As you (or others?) suggest, I think it's very difficult not to do this to some degree. And I agree that we should all be on our guard to constantly reduce the amount of indoctrination we produce onto children (or anyone, really).
How do you draw the line between “education” and “indoctrination?”
I'd say education is showing how you get to your answer. And indoctrination is refusing to allow any other possible pathway to the answer. This refusal can be direct (saying other options are wrong) or indirect (not mentioning competitive alternatives).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Blue Jay, posted 04-03-2008 12:33 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Blue Jay, posted 04-04-2008 1:53 PM Stile has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 18 of 32 (462518)
04-04-2008 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Stile
04-03-2008 5:58 PM


Re: Hiding the answer is a form of Indoctrination
Hi, Stile: thanks for your input.
Stile writes:
I never understood this approach to parenting. Why would you assume your child can't understand something, and therefore decide not to even attempt to teach them? Isn't it possible that your child could understand it at an age lower then you think normal? If so, wouldn't you then be delaying their education by witholding your teaching until you decide they're "ready"?
Logically speaking, you make a good point: assuming without evidence = unscientific. Well done, Stile.
However, I do want to pick one bone here: there's too much evidence to reasonably teach. There's a sequence that needs to be roughly followed in teaching in-depth evidence. How many adults even understand the concept of homoplasy (convergent evolution)? The evidence of homoplasy is the failure of other characteristics to be similar, while the homoplastic character is similar between two taxa. How could you even begin to teach this until you've taught basic biodiversity, heredity and evolution?
I think the problem I see with teaching evolution is that the evidence is often more technical than the fact(s) it supports.
Stile writes:
As you (or others?) suggest, I think it's very difficult not to do this to some degree. And I agree that we should all be on our guard to constantly reduce the amount of indoctrination we produce onto children (or anyone, really).
This would drive me toward paranoia.
Stile writes:
I'd say education is showing how you get to your answer. And indoctrination is refusing to allow any other possible pathway to the answer.
This is essentially the same as what Catholic Scientist was saying.
Stile writes:
This refusal can be direct (saying other options are wrong) or indirect (not mentioning competitive alternatives).
Ah! another layer of the lasagna here. I've noticed that religions tend to be more direct ("Mormonism is an evil cult" or "The Mormon Church is the only true church on the face of the earth") in relation to other religions, but indirect with themselves (they'll gloss over things they did wrong in the past).
A lot of IDists claim that science is doing the indirect thing often: only sharing one side of the story. Technically, they're right: we don't teach their side. But, could this also be considered indoctrination?

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Stile, posted 04-03-2008 5:58 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Stile, posted 04-04-2008 2:09 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 19 of 32 (462521)
04-04-2008 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Blue Jay
04-04-2008 1:53 PM


Re: Hiding the answer is a form of Indoctrination
Bluejay writes:
However, I do want to pick one bone here: there's too much evidence to reasonably teach. There's a sequence that needs to be roughly followed in teaching in-depth evidence.
Sorry, didn't mean to come off as so brash. I didn't mean to imply a strict, full-blown lesson was somehow mandatory.
All I intended was to let the child's curiosity lead their lesson's rather then our own opinion of "when they're ready".
This would drive me toward paranoia.
If raising kids doesn't do this to you, you're probably doing it wrong
A lot of IDists claim that science is doing the indirect thing often: only sharing one side of the story. Technically, they're right: we don't teach their side. But, could this also be considered indoctrination?
Yes, it could be considered as such. But that's why I qualified 'alternatives' with the word competitive alternatives.
Personally, I just don't really feel like getting into why ID isn't a competitive alternative to evolution right now. I'm feeling lazy But if you do want to raise it as a viable point of contention, I'm sure plenty of others would love to talk it over with you. After all, that's what most of this site is about

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Blue Jay, posted 04-04-2008 1:53 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Blue Jay, posted 04-04-2008 4:45 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 20 of 32 (462533)
04-04-2008 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Stile
04-04-2008 2:09 PM


Re: Hiding the answer is a form of Indoctrination
Stile writes:
Sorry, didn't mean to come off as so brash. I didn't mean to imply a strict, full-blown lesson was somehow mandatory.
All I intended was to let the child's curiosity lead their lesson's rather then our own opinion of "when they're ready".
It makes perfect sense: I agree that you should teach anything and everything that a child can (and/or wants to) handle. My only complaint was the evidence portion: there's too much they'd have to learn before they could understand the evidence to expect a young child to learn evidence.
Stile writes:
Personally, I just don't really feel like getting into why ID isn't a competitive alternative to evolution right now.
This is probably just because you're tired of explaining technical evidence to people who don't have the background for it.
The trouble I'm having with this discussion so far is that it sure seems like everybody who's commented is leaning toward "science is education and religion is indoctrination," based on methodologies. Nothing that has been taught to me about my religion was actually taught in a "what do you think?" type of manner: it was all taught in a "this is what must be done" type of manner. Even when appealing to my logic, it was always for an issue that was so deeply entrenched in religious meaning to make it impossible for me to take an objective, external stance on it.
My religious leaders and authorities aren't shy about telling us that that is the way it should be done--"bear down in strong, uncompromising testimony of the truth," "do not doubt the truthfulness of the scriptures," "boldly proclaim the truth to all nations, kindreds, tongues and peoples."
Interestingly, my religion (and probably others) teaches that Satan has ways of counterfeiting almost everything the Lord does: just as there is faith in God, there is "faith" in Satan; just as God has the "commitment pattern" (the "strong testimony" thing), Satan has the "manipulation pattern" (the same thing, except it's somebody else doing it).
Therefore, if I have faith in my religion, if I am obedient to what my religion teaches me, it's the right way. But, if I do the same thing for another religion, it's indoctrination, and it's the wrong way. People who left our church "fell away"; people who left other churches for ours "saw the light."
How can you possibly teach a religion without running into this paradox? It's easy to teach science without indoctrination: you just say "go find out for yourself." But religion? "Go find out for yourself" in its purest form generally leads to somebody forming a new religion or abandoning religion altogether. "Go find out for yourself" in a less stringent form generally includes following a methodology prescribed by the religion you're investigating: "pray to know the truth," "live by the 5 pillars," "follow the eightfold path," etc.
With all these competing methodologies, you can't follow any one and be certain you aren't just being indoctrinated. Science goes the same way: follow this methodology, come to this conclusion. Well, maybe this is a little too general: science only prescribes a basic overall set of ethics, not a specific set of methodologies. And, it demands external verification at every step.
So, could it be said that indoctrination includes only internal verification--only our method works?
Edited by Bluejay, : Small addition.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Stile, posted 04-04-2008 2:09 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by petrophysics1, posted 04-13-2008 5:58 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 25 by bluegenes, posted 04-15-2008 6:54 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 32 (463235)
04-13-2008 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Blue Jay
04-04-2008 4:45 PM


Most education is Indoctrination
Bluejay writes:
So, could it be said that indoctrination includes only internal verification
No, remember an expierence which only I witnessed I would not describe as indoctrination. It can only be internally verified. Example: I had a dog when I was a kid that used to catch and eat pheasants. I am the only person who ever saw exactly how he did this, he could smell them, would creep slowly ahead and when they took off junp about 6 feet into the air and bring them down by biting their tail. My expierence is not indoctrination but my telling it to you is.
I think most education including science education until you get to a rather advanced level is indoctrination. Most people cannot prove many things they hold to be true. Without looking it up, prove c^2=a^2+b^2.
As a geologist I had to take courses in physics, chemistry,biology and engineering, but I'm definitely not qualified to review papers or speak to their validity in these subjects. I wouldn't have a problem with someone saying I was indoctrinated in subjects other than geology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Blue Jay, posted 04-04-2008 4:45 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by teen4christ, posted 04-14-2008 5:45 PM petrophysics1 has replied
 Message 24 by Rrhain, posted 04-15-2008 2:22 AM petrophysics1 has not replied
 Message 26 by Blue Jay, posted 04-15-2008 2:26 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5799 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 22 of 32 (463262)
04-14-2008 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by petrophysics1
04-13-2008 5:58 PM


Re: Most education is Indoctrination
Petrophysics writes
quote:
I think most education including science education until you get to a rather advanced level is indoctrination.
That's not indoctrination. That's being practical.
Indoctrination usually includes "swallow it or I'll beat it into you" while education, especially science, mostly entails "take it or leave it".
Basically, indoctrination requires that the indoctrinated not be exposed to reality while education is an encouragement to explore the real world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by petrophysics1, posted 04-13-2008 5:58 PM petrophysics1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by petrophysics1, posted 04-15-2008 12:43 AM teen4christ has not replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 32 (463291)
04-15-2008 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by teen4christ
04-14-2008 5:45 PM


Re: Most education is Indoctrination
Indoctrination usually includes "swallow it or I'll beat it into you" while education, especially science, mostly entails "take it or leave it".
Actually it's more like this............................
Tell me what I want to hear or you will not get an "A".
It does not make any difference if it is a science or not.
The only person who would tell me what you are saying, has had no experience in the real world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by teen4christ, posted 04-14-2008 5:45 PM teen4christ has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 24 of 32 (463301)
04-15-2008 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by petrophysics1
04-13-2008 5:58 PM


Re: Most education is Indoctrination
petrophysics writes:
quote:
Without looking it up, prove c^2=a^2+b^2.
Oh, did you ask the wrong person. I am a mathematician, after all.
First, you're misstating the problem. It isn't "a^2 + b^2 = c^2" since that has an infinite number of solutions. Instead, you're referring to something else...perhaps that for a right triangle with legs a and b and hypotenuse c, a^2 + b^2 = c^2. In that case, the classic solution is graphical and thus would be hard to present here. Let me try:
Let a be the longer side of the right triangle with legs a and b and hypotenuse c. Place it flat down. Construct the square C along the hypotenuse c. The square that circumscribes square C has sides that are (a+b) in length.
This creates four equal right triangles at the corners of the circumscribed square with legs a and b and hypotenuse c.
The area of the circumscribed square is, necessarily, (a + b)^2.
It is also the sum of the area of the inner square plus the sum of the four triangles:
c^2 + 4(ab/2)
Thus:
(a + b)^2 = c^2 + 4(ab/2)
a^2 + 2ab + b^2 = c^2 + 2ab
a^2 + b^2 = c^2
But here's the thing: Not even mathematicians go through this every time they try to calculate the sides of a right triangle. We did it once, we showed it to be true, we simply skip to the end when we need it. We do this in science all the time. That's the way most science education is done: Make the student do the work to show how, starting from scratch, you can derive the things everybody already knows. This process not only shows you what it is we already know, it teaches you how to think and how to approach problems. "What is it I am trying to accomplish?" "What do I know?" "How does what I know tell me about where to get where I want?"
Edited by Rrhain, : Error in the second step of the reduction...had an "=" where I needed a "+"
Edited by Rrhain, : And again, correcting the second line...had a "*" where I needed a "+"

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by petrophysics1, posted 04-13-2008 5:58 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 25 of 32 (463311)
04-15-2008 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Blue Jay
04-04-2008 4:45 PM


Words
Thyla-bluejay writes:
The trouble I'm having with this discussion so far is that it sure seems like everybody who's commented is leaning toward "science is education and religion is indoctrination," based on methodologies.
One of the problems with this thread, as so often in these discussions, is the problem of language, and the indefinite meanings of words.
In the O.P., you quote a Muslim member who was, I think, responding to a comment of mine about religious indoctrination. I was using the word in a way that fits definition (2) here:
quote:
American Heritage Dictionary
in·doc·tri·nate (n-dk'tr-nt') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. in·doc·tri·nat·ed, in·doc·tri·nat·ing, in·doc·tri·nates
1) To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.
2) To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view.
Or this, for "indoctrination":
quote:
Word net: indoctrination
noun
teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically
But it can just mean this:
quote:
Indoctrination
In*doc`tri*na"tion\, n. The act of indoctrinating, or the condition of being indoctrinated; instruction in the rudiments and principles of any science or system of belief; information. --Sir T. Browne. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary,
Which sounds more like teaching than brainwashing.
Dictionary.com gives these synonyms for indoctrinate:
quote:
brainwash, propagandize.
That's the kind of way I'd like to see the word used here, because as a synonym for "teach", it makes the thread pointless.
Later on the thread that you refer to in this O.P., I replied to the Muslim's comment that religious teaching should not be referred to as indoctrination by pointing out that teaching facts about the world's religion and their tenets is not indoctrination, but that teaching kids that any one of those religions is the true faith certainly is indoctrination.
Your own description of your religious upbringing certainly involved indoctrination, and it's clear that you've not yet recovered from it.
It is religious indoctrination that explains observable phenomena like the fact that most Brazillian kids will describe themselves as Catholic Christians, just as their great-great grandparents would have done as children about 100 years ago, and the majority of Egyptians as Sunni Muslims, just like their ggps, and the majority of Indians as Hindus, just like their ggps, etc.
Perhaps you can understand why, honestly, to many non-religious people, the whole phenomenon of religion can look extremely silly.
It is not like being taught a tool, like the particular language that one's parents happen to speak. Religious indoctrination involves lots of different people being taught different "truths", none of them evidence based.
So, I thought I'd throw a bit of controversy into the thread by describing religious indoctrination as one of the stupidest and most irrational, destructive and dangerous things that large brained apes do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Blue Jay, posted 04-04-2008 4:45 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 04-15-2008 2:45 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 26 of 32 (463348)
04-15-2008 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by petrophysics1
04-13-2008 5:58 PM


Re: Most education is Indoctrination
petrophysics writes:
Bluejay writes:
So, could it be said that indoctrination includes only internal verification
No, remember an expierence which only I witnessed I would not describe as indoctrination.
I said "includes," not "is."
petrophysics writes:
Most people cannot prove many things they hold to be true.
Would you support the idea of teaching kids healthy skepticism before teaching them the differences between insects and spiders? This would teach them to not accept anything they can't verify in at least some fashion. Problem solved?

I'm Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by petrophysics1, posted 04-13-2008 5:58 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 27 of 32 (463353)
04-15-2008 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by bluegenes
04-15-2008 6:54 AM


Re: Words
Bluegenes, you're awesome.
bluegenes writes:
Dictionary.com gives these synonyms for indoctrinate:
quote:
brainwash, propagandize.
That's the kind of way I'd like to see the word used here, because as a synonym for "teach", it makes the thread pointless.
I agree with you on this one.
bluegenes writes:
I replied to the Muslim's comment that religious teaching should not be referred to as indoctrination by pointing out that teaching facts about the world's religion and their tenets is not indoctrination, but that teaching kids that any one of those religions is the true faith certainly is indoctrination. (emphasis added).
I think that's the key: teaching what is truth without backing it up is quintessential indoctrination. My religion gave me the way to tell what is true: essentially, whatever testifies of God and Jesus is true, and everything else is not. Of course, to them, genetics and medical science testify of God and Jesus just as well as prophets and spiritual promptings, so the definition is a little vague to me.
bluegenes writes:
Your own description of your religious upbringing certainly involved indoctrination, and it's clear that you've not yet recovered from it.
Tell me about it. No, actually, don't.
This is one major reason why I consider it indoctrination myself: even though I can't verify it against anything substantive, I can't let go of it. Everyone tells me that it's because the Spirit is working hard to keep me, but I find it strange that my feelings now are no different from what struggling Catholics and Hindus feel under the same circumstances.
bluegenes writes:
Perhaps you can understand why, honestly, to many non-religious people, the whole phenomenon of religion can look extremely silly.
I can, in fact: I'm a scientist living in a religious community, and I've been getting anti-evolution lessons since I was about four. The only reason I stay in my religion now is that I have a profound hope that I won't just disappear after I die, and my religion gives me the most logical and meaningful definition of an afterlife I can think of: I can become a God and "create" worlds of my own. Id est, I'll get to be an immortal scientist with essentially infinite grant money!
We Mormons are brilliant.
And, the upshot (for my religion) is that, as long as I'm scared of vanishing into oblivion after I die, they'll keep me in the congregation, counting their offerings money for them (I'm a finance clerk in the Church, too). To me, this is one of the biggest reasons a lot of people are so easy to indoctrinate: they're scared stiff.
bluegenes writes:
Religious indoctrination involves lots of different people being taught different "truths", none of them evidence based.
All it would take to verify the truth of a specific religion is to prove that it popped up twice independently. This has never happened definitively (even though my religion claims it has).

I'm Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by bluegenes, posted 04-15-2008 6:54 AM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Granny Magda, posted 04-15-2008 10:52 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 28 of 32 (463388)
04-15-2008 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Blue Jay
04-15-2008 2:45 PM


Re: Words
My religion gave me the way to tell what is true: essentially, whatever testifies of God and Jesus is true, and everything else is not. Of course, to them, genetics and medical science testify of God and Jesus just as well as prophets and spiritual promptings, so the definition is a little vague to me.
That's an understatement. I think that you and I both know that this is almost meaningless, with what little meaning it holds being wrong. That 1+1=2 is true, but it doesn't "testify of God and Jesus". If it does, I would like to know how. This is the kind of thinking that typifies indoctrination. Things testify of God if they are true and true things testify of God. Nothing of meaning is being said here.
Everyone tells me that it's because the Spirit is working hard to keep me, but I find it strange that my feelings now are no different from what struggling Catholics and Hindus feel under the same circumstances.
Come off it Bluejay. It makes perfect sense and you know it. You just don't want to face the implications of this observation. You feel the same as any other religious believer who is struggling with belief because you are no different to them, nor is your religion.
the upshot (for my religion) is that, as long as I'm scared of vanishing into oblivion after I die, they'll keep me in the congregation
Why fear oblivion?
quote:
Why should I fear death? If I am, death is not. If death is. I am not. Why should I fear that which cannot exist when I do?
- Epicurus
The worst that non-existence after death can be like is the non-existence there was before you were born, and that wasn't so bad, was it?

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 04-15-2008 2:45 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Blue Jay, posted 04-17-2008 5:44 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 29 of 32 (463492)
04-17-2008 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Granny Magda
04-15-2008 10:52 PM


Re: Words
Granny Magda writes:
Come off it Bluejay. It makes perfect sense and you know it. You just don't want to face the implications of this observation. You feel the same as any other religious believer who is struggling with belief because you are no different to them, nor is your religion.
I thought that was I what I was trying to say: my statement was a criticism of what they told me.
Granny Magda writes:
Why fear oblivion?
It's not the oblivion that I fear, it's the loss of what I have now. There is so much I want out of this life, and death is the only thing that can really stop me from getting it all. And, it doesn't help that I've had stories of eternal life indoctrinated into me by my religion.
Granny Magda writes:
The worst that non-existence after death can be like is the non-existence there was before you were born, and that wasn't so bad, was it?
Scared the pants off me, in fact.
I think I should make my feelings and thoughts a little more clear than what I have (hopefully that will end this "Bluejay's Spiritual Life" sub-topic). I do believe in the basic concepts of my religion. Very much so. I believe that there is a God, and that He (since it insists on being identified with the masculine gender) is interested in our lives. I believe that He expects us to learn and live a few basic principles in this life, and that these are fashioned to prepare us for responsibilities in another realm.
I do not profess to know what things like "spirit," "other realm," or "truth" means in a religious concept. I do not believe in a magical, non-physical component of my "self" beyond the emergent properties of my brain functions and genes. I do not believe that there is magic, and I do not believe that "truth" in religious circles holds the same office (or even definition) as "truth" in scientific circles.
To sum up: I will never hold a religious belief that directly contradicts demonstrated scientific principles. And I don't believe my religion requires me to, despite what lots of religious people continually tell me.
Now, with that out of the way, maybe we could get back to talking about indoctrination? Specifically, what effects does indoctrination bear on evolutionist and/or creationist views in this argument?

I'm Thylacosmilus.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Granny Magda, posted 04-15-2008 10:52 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Granny Magda, posted 04-17-2008 9:09 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 30 of 32 (463515)
04-17-2008 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Blue Jay
04-17-2008 5:44 PM


Indoctrination and Evolution vs Creation
my statement was a criticism of what they told me.
Ah. Fair do's. Personally, I can't understand how you can acknowledge the shaky foundations of religion to this extent and still cling to it, but then, I generally find liberal religion harder to understand than fundamentalism; at least the fundies have the comfort of certainty, even if it is bogus.
There is so much I want out of this life, and death is the only thing that can really stop me from getting it all.
...
I do not believe in a magical, non-physical component of my "self" beyond the emergent properties of my brain functions and genes.
Well in that case you are officially fucked. If there is no self beyond the brain, then there is surely no afterlife once the brain has rotted away. Of course you are right that this sub-topic has run away with itself a bit. Back to our regularly scheduled programme...
what effects does indoctrination bear on evolutionist and/or creationist views in this argument?
I think that the strong indoctrination employed by religions is responsible for a good deal of the refusal to accept reality that is displayed by creationists. It was recently pointed out on this forum (sorry, I forget who by) that one of the reasons why creationist are so willing to ignore or wilfully misinterpret evidence which contradicts their religious beliefs is because they already know that their beliefs are The Truth™. Nothing else could possibly contradict The Truth™, so anything that seems like it might is automatically discounted. Indoctrination is the most effective way of creating this mind set, since long held and cherished beliefs are hard to shake off, especially when they are as all-encompassing as religion. Reversing the indoctrination would essentially mean admitting to oneself that all that time invested in the belief system was wasted, not a pleasant prospect.
The other problem is that if one is indoctrinated with "Belief A", there's a pretty good chance that many or all of the folks around you are pretty keen on "Belief A" as well. This forms an automatic peer group within which the belief can flourish unchallenged, since challenging the belief may lead to one being ostracised from the group. Doubting the beliefs and trying to undo the indoctrination may not seem like a good move if it means risking one's relationships with family and friends. Better to sing along with the choir, even if that pesky contradictory evidence won't go away.
Another point worth mentioning with particular relevance to the EvC debate, is that the internet represents a new and insidious form of support to prop up crazy beliefs. It is very difficult to believe something that flies in the face of the evidence if one is all alone. If however, there is a website, full of other people who share your belief (and on the net, no matter how crazy you are, there are always going to be a hundred people just as crazy as you) the whole thing seems a lot more rational. After all, Net-G33k69 believes it, so why shouldn't I? This is very obvious amongst conspiracy theorists and it is also true of creationists; it is no co-incidence that the rise of the internet and the recent upsurge in creationist activity have gone hand-in-hand.
Edited by Granny Magda, : Bloody typo's!

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Blue Jay, posted 04-17-2008 5:44 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Blue Jay, posted 04-17-2008 10:11 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024