School patronage

Peregrinus

So what you're saying is that your sister has been brainwashed into putting her kids through the sacraments to avoid damnation, but she is unaware that this is her motivation. If asked, she would offer a different motivation. But in fact your assessment of her motivation is objectively true, and hers is false.

Have you any evidence for this?

Or, to put it another way, is there any reason why I should place more reliance on your account of her motivations than on hers? How am I to know that your reading of the situation is not, e.g., a self-serving construct which serves to mask your own insecurities and to bolster your self-esteem? From an objective point of view, is that not equally plausible?

Bloe Joggs

Peregrinus wrote: »

So what you're saying is that your sister has been brainwashed into putting her kids through the sacraments to avoid damnation, but she is unaware that this is her motivation. If asked, she would offer a different motivation. But in fact your assessment of her motivation is objectively true, and hers is false.

Have you any evidence for this?

Or, to put it another way, is there any reason why I should place more reliance on your account of her motivations than on hers? How am I to know that your reading of the situation is not, e.g., a self-serving construct which serves to mask your own insecurities and to bolster your self-esteem? From an objective point of view, is that not equally plausible?

It's my assessment of how the church operates in general and there's no need to get personal and abusive mate.

I happen to think the Catholic Church in general and in Ireland in particular is a deeply abusive organisation responsible for many, many wrongdoings on many different levels. The negatives far outweigh the positives in my opinion.

They have a level of respect which they don't deserve and quite frankly never earned.

My opinions are my best estimate of how they achieve that, based on my knowledge and life experience so far. No it's not science and I would welcome the big sociological experiment that could prove or disprove that hypothesis one way or another but I don't have either the time, money or resources to oversee it myself.

I'm not here to play games or score points.

Peregrinus

Bloe Joggs wrote: »

It's my assessment of how the church operates in general . . .

It’s your assessment of your sister, Bloe.

Bloe Joggs wrote: »

. . . and there's no need to get personal and abusive mate.

You’re saying your sister is brainwashed, and I’m the one who's getting personal and abusive?

Bloe Joggs wrote: »

. I'm not here to play games or score points.

You entered this thread to denounce your own sister as a brainwashed dupe (after all, how else can we explain the fact that her religious opinions do not conform to yours?) but you’re not here to score points? Right, gotcha.

Bloe Joggs

Peregrinus wrote: »

It’s your assessment of your sister, Bloe.


You’re saying your sister is brainwashed, and I’m the one who's getting personal and abusive?


You entered this thread to denounce your own sister as a brainwashed dupe (after all, how else can we explain the fact that her religious opinions do not conform to yours?) but you’re not here to score points? Right, gotcha.

Right let's get some things straight. I used the term indoctrinated, that's not the same as brainwashed. Brainwashing is a less subtle method used to flood people's minds with information. Indoctrination takes place over a much longer period and much more subtly, the catholic church are absolute masters of it.

I say that all religious believers are indoctrinated. If that includes my sister, so be it. It doesn't mean I don't love her. I'm simply concerned. She's just one of a number of examples of people in the same position.

If you want to drag this exchange down, I won't go there.

Peregrinus

Bloe Joggs wrote: »

Right let's get some things straight. I used the term indoctrinated, that's not the same as brainwashed. Brainwashing is a less subtle method used to flood people's minds with information. Indoctrination takes place over a much longer period and much more subtly, the catholic church are absolute masters of it.

You're saying that subconscious beliefs have been inculcated in your sister which drive her actions without her being aware of them. That's brainwashing, Bloe, whether you choose to use the word or not.

Indoctrination doesn't mean that. To indoctrinate is to teach a doctrine, belief or opinion (as opposed to teaching a fact), and the term is applied particularly (but not exclusively) to the teaching of beliefs, opinions, etc, concerning religious and political matters. For some reason people tend to use the word with reference to the teaching of beliefs which they themselves do not share. ("I foster beliefs and values which will enable my child's inherent qualities to flourish; you educate your child in your belief system; he or she indoctrinates!")

Bloe Joggs wrote: »

I say that all religious believers are indoctrinated

You may say that, but if I understand you correctly I think what you mean is that they have all been brainwashed.

Bloe Joggs wrote: »

If you want to drag this exchange down, I won't go there.

I think that ship has sailed, Bloe, once you start questioning - with, as you freely concede, no evidence - your own sister's autonomony in and responsibility for the choices she makes when raising her children.

Absolam

Bloe Joggs wrote: »

I say that all religious believers are indoctrinated.

How do you account for sudden religious conversions?

Obliq

Absolam wrote: »

How do you account for sudden religious conversions?

I've never met a "born again" or sudden convert who wasn't already previously indoctrinated into some other regime, either by a religion or by super authoritarian parents. But that's just me innit, and it wouldn't wash as evidence with aul Peregrinus up there.

Peregrinus

Obliq wrote: »

I've never met a "born again" or sudden convert who wasn't already previously indoctrinated into some other regime, either by a religion or by super authoritarian parents. But that's just me innit, and it wouldn't wash as evidence with aul Peregrinus up there.

I have met converts who came from an atheist/secular/indifferent background (and who converted in adulthood). Not many, but I have met them.

I could add that I have also met lots of atheist/secular/indifferent adults who were raised in that tradition. I have as much evidence that they were "indoctrinated" into the beliefs they now hold as Bloe Joggs has about his sister.

Obliq

Peregrinus wrote: »

I have met converts who came from an atheist/secular/indifferent background (and who converted in adulthood). Not many, but I have met them.

I could add that I have also met lots of atheist/secular/indifferent adults who were raised in that tradition. I have as much evidence that they were "indoctrinated" into the beliefs they now hold as Bloe Joggs has about his sister.

Well fair enough, since you're in the business of looking for evidence. In your opinion though, would those previously atheist adults have come from a authoritarian/regimental style background? Just interested...

Maphisto

Peregrinus wrote: »

I have met converts who came from an atheist/secular/indifferent background (and who converted in adulthood). Not many, but I have met them.

I could add that I have also met lots of atheist/secular/indifferent adults who were raised in that tradition. I have as much evidence that they were "indoctrinated" into the beliefs they now hold as Bloe Joggs has about his sister.

OK but atheist/secular/indifferent background lacks that repetitive ritual that is say RC. It also lacks that "rights of passage journey" of baptism, communion, confirmation ....

Unless the atheist/secular/indifferent background are accompanied by something else.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

.....
Indoctrination doesn't mean that. To indoctrinate is to teach a doctrine, belief or opinion (as opposed to teaching a fact), and the term is applied particularly (but not exclusively) to the teaching of beliefs, opinions, etc, concerning religious and political matters. For some reason people tend to use the word with reference to the teaching of beliefs which they themselves do not share. ("I foster beliefs and values which will enable my child's inherent qualities to flourish; you educate your child in your belief system; he or she indoctrinates!")
....

Pardon me for sticking my oar in, but I think indoctrination is not just teaching a doctrine, belief or opinion. It is teaching to accept those beliefs uncritically. It is something of a pejorative, to be sure, but that's only to be expected ('Those damn heathens indoctrinate their kids with the most laughable nonsense. Not like we do in our religion!') .

Peregrinus

Obliq wrote: »

Well fair enough, since you're in the business of looking for evidence. In your opinion though, would those previously atheist adults have come from a authoritarian/regimental style background? Just interested...

Fair question.

I wouldn’t necessarily know, in every case.

I do know of cases where the family was angry, upset, dismissive or disdainful of the individual’s conversion. If you see that as controlling behaviour and - bit of a leap here - think that it points to an authoritarian/regimented background and (probably) upbringing then, in those cases, obviously yes.

But I know of other cases where the family reaction was puzzlement, embarrassment or indifference. While that might be somewhat discouraging to the individual convert, I think it would be a bit of a stretch to say that it amounts to, or points to, controlling/authoritarian behaviour by the family.

And I can think of at least one case where the family reaction was basically “this is not for us, but if it’s what you want then you should go for it, and I hope it brings you what you’re looking for”.

FWIW, my impression is that the common factor to most conversion cases is not an authoritarian or controlling family background; family backgrounds are pretty diverse. The biggest common factor is a positive relationship; people from a non-religious background who encounter religion through a relationship with a religious person - a member of the extended family, a romantic partner or just a close friend - and who are impressed by what they see. Typically the person concerned has not sought to convert them.

In short, adult converts are typically attracted to religion by their experience of religious people*. Any encounter with the teachings of the religion concerned comes somewhat later.

The number of people who convert because of what you might call abstract intellectual enquiry into religion - they read up, and they are convinced by what they read - is pretty small. I’ve only ever met one person in that category.

[* Ironically, many people who leave religion do so because they are repelled by their experience of religious people.]

Peregrinus

pauldla wrote: »

Pardon me for sticking my oar in, but I think indoctrination is not just teaching a doctrine, belief or opinion. It is teaching to accept those beliefs uncritically. It is something of a pejorative, to be sure, but that's only to be expected ('Those damn heathens indoctrinate their kids with the most laughable nonsense. Not like we do in our religion!') .

Well, perhaps you have a point. But of course it’s perfectly possible to teach children to accept non-religious beliefs uncritically. So, again, if someone is going to allege that the teaching of religious beliefs is “indoctrination” in a sense in which the teaching of non-religious beliefs is not, I look forward to reading his argument and his evidence. But until he produces those, I’m not taking the claim very seriously.

In fact, if we’re talking about raising children, all teaching of belief is indoctrination in the sense you suggest, since young children are incapable of critical engagement; that’s a capacity we only acquire with maturity.

So, for instance, when we teach our toddlers to share their toys, or not to hit their smaller siblings, we are “indoctrinating” them with a belief in solidarity, or in non-violence. We are not teaching them to consider critically propositions about sharing their toys; we are teaching them to share their toys and, therefore, we are indoctrinating them in the beliefs and values which underlie the view that sharing toys is good and desirable. And the same is true when we teach our children not to be racist, to be accepting of difference, to be aware of and respect the feelings of others, not to be judgmental about sexual orientation, not to use “gay” as a pejorative, to tell the truth. Indoctrination, all of it.

In fact, even teaching them - when they reach an age where we can teach them this - that they should have a critical engagement with belief is itself a form of indoctrination; we want them to belief that critical engagement is the best approach to propositions of faith; we do not want them to reject that idea, and we will not suggest that they should or might.

Which comes back to the point that I think you and I are agreed on; what mainly determines whether we describe the inculcation of a particular belief as “indoctrination” or not is whether we ourselves agree with that belief.

Brian Shanahan

Absolam wrote: »

How do you account for sudden religious conversions?

Extremely rare events are extremely rare. There are very few "sudden converts" who are actually truly sudden. For example I am currently browsing Dan Finke's blog Camels with Hammers. He talks about his childhood christianity and the conversion of his brother, his mother and himself to evangelical christianity. All three of them came from catholicism, albeit not terribly well observed catholicism. And that is absolutely typical of conversion into faith in the modern era, you get believers in one mythology changing from that one to another more fundamentalist belief, you very rarely get people who've either never taken on a belief system or dropped their original beliefs completely to convert later on back into, or into another, the belief.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, perhaps you have a point. But of course it’s perfectly possible to teach children to accept non-religious beliefs uncritically. So, again, if someone is going to allege that the teaching of religious beliefs is “indoctrination” in a sense in which the teaching of non-religious beliefs is not, I look forward to reading his argument and his evidence. But until he produces those, I’m not taking the claim very seriously.

In fact, if we’re talking about raising children, all teaching of belief is indoctrination in the sense you suggest, since young children are incapable of critical engagement; that’s a capacity we only acquire with maturity.

So, for instance, when we teach our toddlers to share their toys, or not to hit their smaller siblings, we are “indoctrinating” them with a belief in solidarity, or in non-violence. We are not teaching them to consider critically propositions about sharing their toys; we are teaching them to share their toys and, therefore, we are indoctrinating them in the beliefs and values which underlie the view that sharing toys is good and desirable. And the same is true when we teach our children not to be racist, to be accepting of difference, to be aware of and respect the feelings of others, not to be judgmental about sexual orientation, not to use “gay” as a pejorative, to tell the truth. Indoctrination, all of it.

In fact, even teaching them - when they reach an age where we can teach them this - that they should have a critical engagement with belief is itself a form of indoctrination; we want them to belief that critical engagement is the best approach to propositions of faith; we do not want them to reject that idea, and we will not suggest that they should or might.

Which comes back to the point that I think you and I are agreed on; what mainly determines whether we describe the inculcation of a particular belief as “indoctrination” or not is whether we ourselves agree with that belief.

More than a point, I flatter myself that I have struck the nail squarely. Indoctrination is teaching a set of beliefs that are to be accepted uncritically; a definition which squarely fits most religions, and certainly Christianity. It’s not too long before the RE class starts hearing about mysteries that must be accepted. There can be no comparison between teaching children to think critically and teaching them that Jesus wants them to be a sunbeam.


Teaching a child not to use insults is indoctrination? I wonder if that is true. Say my son uses gay as an insult. I tell him not to do that. He asks why. I tell him it’s not a nice thing to say. He says why not. I give him an example, and ask him how he feels when people point at me and laugh (happens quite a lot to tall pale redheads in South East Asia). He says it’s not nice. I tell him, well, it’s the same when you use words as insults. You’re hurting the other person. Would you like if somebody did it to you? He says no. We hug and share a Wurthers moment together.


Now, where is the mystery? Where is the indoctrination? Is this comparable to the chantings and rites of religious instruction? I can’t see it.


You’ll forgive me if I don’t agree that teaching kids to think critically is a form of indoctrination, if we agree that indoctrination involves accepting beliefs uncritically. I am unused to such rarefied concepts. I take it that is what the last part of your post is trying to argue?

recedite

Peregrinus' point is that all teaching can be viewed as a form of indoctrination, in the sense that the teacher is imparting a particular point of view.

But often the teacher can present two or more points of view, simply stating some of the merits of each. This is a good way to teach the subjects of religion and history.

Other subjects such as science and maths are less open to interpretation. Even so, the word indoctrination implies that a fixed doctrine is uncritically accepted by the indoctrinated, even when the evidence points to it being false.
A prime example is the doctrine of transubstantiation in which a substance commonly known as wafer biscuits transforms literally into human flesh, while still appearing to be wafers.

Teaching a good behaviour to a child is not indoctrination, because if that behaviour subsequently turns out to be harmful in a particular situation, there is no implication that it must be continued regardless of that new feedback situation.

Peregrinus

pauldla wrote: »

Teaching a child not to use insults is indoctrination? I wonder if that is true. Say my son uses gay as an insult. I tell him not to do that. He asks why. I tell him it’s not a nice thing to say. He says why not. I give him an example, and ask him how he feels when people point at me and laugh (happens quite a lot to tall pale redheads in South East Asia). He says it’s not nice. I tell him, well, it’s the same when you use words as insults. You’re hurting the other person. Would you like if somebody did it to you? He says no. We hug and share a Wurthers moment together.

What you’re teaching him there, Pauldla, is that he should care about what other people feel. He should be willing, if necessary, to sacrifice his own gratifying feelings in order that other people should feel good. It is good, virtuous, for him to care about what other people feel.

And you’re not inviting him to critique that proposition. Your entire discussion outlined above assumes that it is true that he should care how other people feel. You don’t critique or justify that proposition; you don’t even articulate it, but everything you say takes its truth as a given. And of course he absorbs that, which is what you want him to do.

You don’t want him to scrutinise the proposition that he should care how other people feel, and accept or reject it according to his own lights. (As a toddler, by his own lights, he would certainly reject it.) You want him to accept that proposition, and indeed to internalise to the extent that, in later life, if by his behaviour he causes someone else to feel bad, he will feel bad as a result. You want it to become automatic, instinctive, that he cares about how other people feel, that he accepts responsibility for the effect his own actions have on other people’s feelings, and that this will be a significant driver of the ethical choices that he makes.

That, it seems to me, is a classic case of indoctrination, as you define it.

pauldla wrote: »

You’ll forgive me if I don’t agree that teaching kids to think critically is a form of indoctrination, if we agree that indoctrination involves accepting beliefs uncritically. I am unused to such rarefied concepts. I take it that is what the last part of your post is trying to argue?

Well, let me ask you this. Do you teach your kids to think critically? Or do you teach them to think critically about whether they should think critically, and to choose, say, obedience to teaching authority if that seems to them to be the better path?

Lots of people do have a preference for obedience to teaching authority. (Life is so much easier when you can abdicate responsibility in this way.) Are you going to teach your children that they should choose for themselves whether critical engagement or conformity to the expectations of teaching authority is the path they will follow? ‘Cause, you know, if you are telling them that they should think critically, and making it clear that following the other path is not a valid choice, how is that not indoctrination of the proposition that you want them to accept?

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

A prime example is the doctrine of transubstantiation in which a substance commonly known as wafer biscuits transforms literally into human flesh, while still appearing to be wafers.

This is not, in fact the doctrine of transsubstantiation, though it's widely believed on this board that it is.

I can only attribute this persistent misconception to indoctrination.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

What you’re teaching him there, Pauldla, is that he should care about what other people feel. He should be willing, if necessary, to sacrifice his own gratifying feelings in order that other people should feel good. It is good, virtuous, for him to care about what other people feel.

And you’re not inviting him to critique that proposition. Your entire discussion outlined above assumes that it is true that he should care how other people feel. You don’t critique or justify that proposition; you don’t even articulate it, but everything you say takes its truth as a given. And of course he absorbs that, which is what you want him to do.

You don’t want him to scrutinise the proposition that he should care how other people feel, and accept or reject it according to his own lights. (As a toddler, by his own lights, he would certainly reject it.) You want him to accept that proposition, and indeed to internalise to the extent that, in later life, if by his behaviour he causes someone else to feel bad, he will feel bad as a result. You want it to become automatic, instinctive, that he cares about how other people feel, that he accepts responsibility for the effect his own actions have on other people’s feelings, and that this will be a significant driver of the ethical choices that he makes.

That, it seems to me, is a classic case of indoctrination, as you define it.
….

Am I? I didn’t realise. I thought I was answering his questions about my comments on his behaviour (responding to critiquing, if you will), and asking him to come to his own conclusions based on his own feelings, experiences, and expectations of other people’s behaviour. This is indoctrination now? The questions he asks are not shot down with a ‘because I said so’ or ‘because it’s written in a book’ or ‘because it makes baby Jesus cry’, which I would consider to be typical tactics of indoctrination. You do not see any difference in this?

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is not, in fact the doctrine of transsubstantiation, though it's widely believed on this board that it is.

I can only attribute this persistent misconception to indoctrination.

It might be a result of indoctrination (if it is I missed that class, don’t tell the other atheists), or it might be a misconception arising from the ‘it is but it isn’t but it is but at the same time it isn’t’ of the article of faith in question. If the concept itself is not clear and reasonable, what can be expected?

Obliq

Peregrinus wrote: »

He should be willing, if necessary, to sacrifice his own gratifying feelings in order that other people should feel good. It is good, virtuous, for him to care about what other people feel.

And you’re not inviting him to critique that proposition. Your entire discussion outlined above assumes that it is true that he should care how other people feel. You don’t critique or justify that proposition; you don’t even articulate it, but everything you say takes its truth as a given. And of course he absorbs that, which is what you want him to do.

I know this is for Pauldla, but you've put that very well and I'm forced to agree, as I have a 12yr old child who is un-indoctrinable. Recent notable attempts on my part have been explaining why we don't park in disabled spaces even if they're the only ones left, and for the umpteenth time, why it would be quite nice not to glare at small children. I did not win either of those, as his devastatingly critical thinking is unmoved by guilt.

I would like to add that he sympathises with disabled people and understands that big people were children once, but just doesn't see why he should alter his behaviour for them.

Well, let me ask you this. Do you teach your kids to think critically? Or do you teach them to think critically about whether they should think critically, and to choose, say, obedience to teaching authority if that seems to them to be the better path?

Hmm, I'll admit right away that it's just as well my teen has had an inculcated bunch of rules, before he decided for himself which ones to shrug off, which ones made sense (to a *grrrr* teen), and which was he only sticking with because of the guilt he now feels by breaking them. He hates them, we argue about them still "If only I could just walk the fcuk out of school - some of my friends do it all the time *raaarrrrr*", but it's that useful sense of guilt that I have instilled in him as a small child that keeps him from harming his own future.

What'll stop the other fella when he's a teen, I don't know yet.

Ps. I think there is a massive difference between indoctrination for staying within social norms, so that they're not shunned by society and they're protected from their own hedonism (somewhat) and indoctrination into a fantasy that is a self-perpetuation cycle of guilt and fear. But I would say that, as an atheist.

Hotblack Desiato

And down the rabbit hole we go :rolleyes: There seems to be an unwritten rule here that any thread critical of the theist status quo in this country has to be dragged off topic at every opportunity into semantic arguments.

Obliq

ninja900 wrote: »

And down the rabbit hole we go :rolleyes: There seems to be an unwritten rule here that any thread critical of the theist status quo in this country has to be dragged off topic at every opportunity into semantic arguments.

I'm quite liking this argument! Maybe it should be a new thread though..."The morality of indoctrination", or something?

Peregrinus

Pauldla - if you’re trying to get him to accept and internalise the proposition that he should care about what other people feel, as opposed to getting him to scrutinise that proposition critically, yes, that’s indoctrination, by your own definition. Why not?

And nothing wrong with that, let me add. A large part of parenting is forming our children’s values and attitudes. Culture, civilisation and the basics of a decent life for all absolutely require this.

It’s just that we only call it “indoctrination” when other people engage in it to form values and attitudes which we ourselves do not share. But it follows from that that if I say that so-and-so is indoctrinating children into such-and-such a belief, that tells you nothing objective about the truth or validity of such-and-such a belief - all it does is tell you something about what I believe.

As for “you must accept this because I say so”, “it’s in a book”, etc, it’s a caricature of religious education to pretend that it has to take this form. All education has to be age-appropriate, and you can’t teach four-year olds or eight-year olds by encouraging them to critique philosophical propositions. You teach them religion the same way you teach them ethics; primarily by modelling the behaviour and values you wish to inculcate in them, and only secondarily by explaining (at an age-appropriate level) the beliefs which underpin what you are modelling. So if you want them to believe that they are loved, that life has a purpose and that the universe has meaning, then live like that. And explain to them your beliefs about this.

And if your teaching of non-religious beliefs and values by this method is not indoctrination, then I struggle to see that the teaching of religious beliefs and values is. (Or, alternatively, they both are. Take your pick; I can live with either position.)

Obliq - you have plenty of time to work on the 12-year old. The work you’ve already done laying the groundwork for his development of empathy won’t have borne fruit yet. When pre-teens display empathy, the motivation is actually largely the desire to behave in a way which they know will attract the approval of authority figures - to some extent, they are “acting empathetic”. This develops good habits and beliefs, but it doesn’t in itself develop empathy. We don’t really develop the capacity to feel empathy fully until we’re well into our teens.

Your 12-year old is at an age where (a) there are enough hormones coursing through his veins that simply basking in your approval is no longer the highest attainment he can imagine or aspire to, but (b) he’s still not very empathetic. And that combination can look a lot like selfishness.

But don’t panic. If nature takes its usual course, in a few years he’ll be up to his eyeballs in empathy, and in all likelihood passionately committed to securing justice for some group of people that he has never met. (And disdainfully judgmental of people who don’t share his passionate commitment to this cause.)

Zamboni

ninja900 wrote: »

And down the rabbit hole we go :rolleyes: There seems to be an unwritten rule here that any thread critical of the theist status quo in this country has to be dragged off topic at every opportunity into semantic arguments.

Drag 'em off topic and baffle them with bullsh1t.

Obliq

Peregrinus wrote: »

Obliq - you have plenty of time to work on the 12-year old. The work you’ve already done laying the groundwork for his development of empathy won’t have borne fruit yet. When pre-teens display empathy, the motivation is actually largely the desire to behave in a way which they know will attract the approval of authority figures - to some extent, they are “acting empathetic”. This develops good habits and beliefs, but it doesn’t in itself develop empathy. We don’t really develop the capacity to feel empathy fully until we’re well into our teens.

Your 12-year old is at an age where (a) there are enough hormones coursing through his veins that simply basking in your approval is no longer the highest attainment he can imagine or aspire to, but (b) he’s still not very empathetic. And that combination can look a lot like selfishness.

But don’t panic. If nature takes its usual course, in a few years he’ll be up to his eyeballs in empathy, and in all likelihood passionately committed to securing justice for some group of people that he has never met. (And disdainfully judgmental of people who don’t share his passionate commitment to this cause.)

Thanks, but I probably should have mentioned he has special needs and is being assessed for ASD. This is a potentially un-ending problem. I appreciate your well thought out reply though.

We should stop dragging this thread off topic now though, as it's annoying folk!

Peregrinus

Zamboni wrote: »

Drag 'em off topic and baffle them with bullsh1t.

So religious education is denounced as indoctrination, because it requires people to accept teachings uncritically.

But a critical interrogation of that claim is not acceptable. It's "off-topic" and "bullsh!t".

Ironic, no?

Obliq

Peregrinus wrote: »

So religious education is denounced as indoctrination, because it requires people to accept teachings uncritically.

But a critical interrogation of that claim is not acceptable. It's "off-topic" and "bullsh!t".

Ironic, no?

Well, I'm actually agreeing with you. Back on the topic of school patronage leading to heavy handed religious education, the aspects of this that we atheists consider fantasy and fear ridden guilt-tripping are what we don't consider necessary (and even harmful) to set our kids on course for a socially acceptable life.

We have dismissed that kind of indoctrination as somehow worse than the way we teach our own children because it's based on a fantasy (albeit a very popular one). From a religious person's point of view though, I imagine it's all based on fear for their kid's futures, the same as our guidelines are.

Peregrinus

Well, on the topic of school patronage, atheists have a perfect right to indoctrinate their children in their own self-perpetuating cycles of fear and guilt(:-)), so the overwhelming imbalance in favour of religious, and particularly Catholic, schools is plainly unjust.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

What you’re teaching him there, Pauldla, is that he should care about what other people feel. He should be willing, if necessary, to sacrifice his own gratifying feelings in order that other people should feel good. It is good, virtuous, for him to care about what other people feel.

"If necessary" is the bit there that makes it "not indoctrination".
Without that, you are looking at the relationship between a peasant and a feudal overlord, or a priest and his bishop. Unquestioning self-sacrifice and obedience as an unchanging doctrine.

Obliq

recedite wrote: »

"If necessary" is the bit there that makes it "not indoctrination".
Without that, you are looking at the relationship between a peasant and a feudal overlord, or a priest and his bishop. Unquestioning self-sacrifice and obedience as an unchanging doctrine.

I think that's true. When I, eh, inculcated some measure of care in my eldest towards others, it was with the full understanding that these are ground rules and when he's of an age to think my teachings through in a more critical fashion, he'd throw out and off the shackles of being told what to do.

Religions don't give people that much credit.