Indoctrination

On the Harun Yahya thread, I found this remark: On the Faith Healing thread, there was this: These two little gems, combined with Jaderis’s recent thread’s OP (as well as many other threads and posts here at EvC) have gotten me thinking about the way we teach and learn things, and how we discern “truth” from “untruth.”Indoctrination is something we evolutionists like to spit at creationists and religious fundamentalists quite often: I’ve encountered it at least a couple dozen times since I started here two months ago (I’ve even used it myself once or twice). I wonder how prevalent the practice of indoctrination actually is, and what sorts of teachings and teaching methods would be considered indoctrination.As I understand it, indoctrination is either "exclusive rights to conducting somebody else's education" or "manipulating somebody into subscribing to your opinion" (or even "teaching only one side of a conflict"). I believe it happens quite often (I think it has even happened to me), and that much of what we are taught and how we are taught in church is indoctrination. Consider the following:

• "You must be saved/baptized/etc., or you cannot go to heaven."
• "True happiness only comes through faith on Jesus Christ."
• "Man cannot find the truth on his own: he needs God for everything."

I would also argue that telling children what is right and wrong (or true and false, etc.) without providing a reason is indoctrination. So, telling my son, while he is young and believes everything I say, that Jesus died for his sins, I am technically indoctrinating him (i.e. I am not giving him any alternatives).What are everybody else’s thoughts? Is indoctrination as widespread/common as some of us non-theists think? Who does it? How do you draw the line between “education” and “indoctrination?”

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, Granny Magda. I take it you have children of your own? I have one: just a five-month-old boy. In a year or two, he'll start asking me questions, and I've had that on my mind for a while: perhaps that contributing to my desire to start a thread like this. Would it be your contention, then, that telling a child "you must be baptized, or you cannot go to heaven" is indoctrination? This is, of course, exactly what I was taught growing up (I imagine it was the same for most of the people here with a Christian background). What parts of religious teachings are not indoctrination, then? Could I get around this by asking "do you believe that?" after each statement?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. But, is it indoctrination to say "it will hurt if you touch it?"Edited by Bluejay, : Added "so I coudn't advocate teaching them the evidence."

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, Catholic Scientist. How do you draw the line? For instance, if someone only says "this is the answer," (without further qualifiers) would you call it indoctrination, education, or neither/both? It isn't pushing one's own beliefs on the listener, but it isn't giving much leeway for alternatives.Also, how often do you think these two extremes happen? (This is a sincere question).Edited by Bluejay, : Punctuation

---

Darwin loves you.

I understand this entirely. So, indoctrinating is giving the answers without explaining, while educating is encouraging a personal search for the answers? I don't know that I necessarily agree with this. I don't think pushing anything on anybody is proper education (according to what I see "pushing" to mean in this context), even if it is true. I think the beauty of Truth^TM is that you don't necessarily need it to be taught to you, despite what religious leaders say: it should be attainable by anybody. I think, like what you've said, that "education" is guidance toward finding Truth^TM, not preaching it. How about your informal education? In college and in science, I don't see a lot of evidence of indoctrination: professors are generally very good about providing students all they need to do their own search for the answer. I'm more concerned about indoctrination outside of formal education: parents, pastors, etc. Those are the people who teach things that they refuse to provide evidence for.

---

Darwin loves you.

Well, I agree that indoctrinated falsehoods are the main problem, and indoctrinated truths are relatively harmless. Still, I think indoctrination is flawed in principle. As an example, take science. The strength of science is the research methodology, not really the results (those are fairly mutable on the local scale, anyway). It is mostly self-correcting, so that it prevents indoctrination, or entrenching of any single method or idea longer than its usefulness or ascertainability. If we lose the scientific method, it doesn't matter what we teach: it isn't science. It's dogma or doctrine: and insisting on it would be "indoctrinating."So, indoctrination is okay as an initial step toward learning the truth? As long as you follow up with the evidence when the kids are old enough to understand, it's okay to "indoctrinate" at a young age? Okay, but isn't "it will hurt you" an explanation? Granted, it's not evidence, but it also isn't just a categorical "No," either: it gives them a reason why, a testable hypothesis.I guess, maybe "indoctrination" is controlled imprintation of a certain worldview on a listener? Under this definition, "it will hurt you if you touch it" is indoctrination.Edited by Bluejay, : dBcodes problem

---

Darwin loves you.

I don't think appeal to authority is the same as indoctrination. If I'm doing my own research, and using somebody else's research as a backdrop or a precursor, the results of my experiment will provide a commentary on my predecessor's work. If his/her work cannot serve as the basis of future research, it would then have to be re-examined. And, you'd better believe I would do it. But, until there's a reason to disbelieve it, I will (tentatively) accept it. Point taken. Perhaps I should think about the usage of "controlled" here. Could indoctrination just constitute any form of imprintation? Or, should we exclude things that are just absorbed by people from their parents and peers, and not actively driven into them?I would tend (after this last comment, anyway) to restrict the definition of "indoctrination" to a directed, intentional process, and exclude the incidental learning by observation for which children are famous. If you tell your child "you must be baptized," and he or she does it to obey you, this could be considered indoctrination; but, if your child sees other people get baptized, then decides to be baptized because of something they liked about what they saw, how could you call this indoctrination? Isn't that just observational (i.e. evidence-based) learning? I'm going to need somebody else to field this: I can't make up my mind. Another opinion would be appreciated.Thanks for your responses, CS: they've been helpful.

---

Darwin loves you.

If you ever had to determine, as in a court of law, whether somebody had been actively indoctrinated or just passively absorbant, it would be hard to tell. I spent time as a missionary in Taiwan, and they have a very different opinion of things from us: even the fundamental goals and views of their society are different. How much of the difference is between just environmental influences, and how much is because the older generation tries to control the younger generation (that does go on there)? Actually, you said this. I repeated it in the form of a question. This is the thing about which I'm still unable to make up my mind. It seems to make sense, but it also seems to be a major deviation from the methods that I accept. I guess it feels like I accept it, but that I also feel like I shouldn't accept it.

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, Stile: thanks for your input. 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. This would drive me toward paranoia. This is essentially the same as what Catholic Scientist was saying. 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.

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. 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.

I said "includes," not "is." 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 BluejayDarwin loves you.

Bluegenes, you're awesome. I agree with you on this one. 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. 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. 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. 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 BluejayDarwin loves you.

I thought that was I what I was trying to say: my statement was a criticism of what they told me. 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. 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.

I'm a scientist (or, I will be soon--I start my doctorate in the summer)--I'm used to uncertainty and tentativity. See what happens when you let people indoctrinate you?Seriously, though: I've taken up a standpoint of skepticism toward anything that doesn't have definitively, objectively-verifiable effects on the physical world. But, Mormons believe in physical resurrection, so, if God created the body that I'm using right now, surely He can re-create it in the afterlife, complete with the pattern of brain functions that I refer to as my "self," right? Who knows, with scientific understanding like His, He might even be able to keep those patterns going, even after the original substrate is dead and rotting.At least, that's what I hope. Here's me perpetuating the sub-topic I didn't want to talk about anymore. Anyway, it relates to what I'm going to say next. I think that was teen4christ. I don't know that I buy the "wilfully misinterpreting" thing, though: I think it's usually and mostly because they have a very heavy dose of their own religion, and extremely limited exposure to other viewpoints, which leads to complete ignorance (and thus, misinformation) of other viewpoints.I remember first being taught General Relativity a few years ago and thinking it was too hard to swallow. I was taught quite in detail, and knew a lot about it. Then, as time went on, I forgot what I had been taught and reverted to my old mindset of "how can actual phenomena be influenced by my perspective?" I was just instructed again in the subject in a physics class this last semester, and remembered why I was wrong.The point is, when you've got a certain mindset, something new that you're taught (which you don't incorporate into your daily routine of things) just bounces off, and you (at least, I) just forget about it. Anything that disagrees with them just doesn't sink in. Like me: after this discussion, I'll go home and read the scriptures with my wife, pray and go to church on Sunday. You're not going to drill through the wood, because it's already ingrained in me. It's creepy talking about myself like this, you know.For another example (to show that I'm not just using Freudian extrapolation of my own self-diagnosis to prove my point), some person showed up here a few weeks ago wanting to argue about human/chimpanzee genetics, and was found to be someone who had already tried to argue this subject once, then forgot the walloping he had already taken on the subject and started it up again. I don't think he did it wilfully: he did it ignorantly and stupidly.Thanks for your input, Granny: you've been most insightful on this thread.

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.