School patronage

Peregrinus

Obliq wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure I follow you here. And, if I do follow you, I think you're wrong.

Most religious people who are raising kids, or who are teaching religion to kids, fully understand that when the kids are older they will critically assess what they have been taught and may modify or reject any or all of it.

Why would they think otherwise?

Obliq

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not sure I follow you here. And, if I do follow you, I think you're wrong.

Most religious people who are raising kids, or who are teaching religion to kids, fully understand that when the kids are older they will critically assess what they have been taught and may modify or reject any or all of it.

Why would they think otherwise?

Ah. I'm talking about the actual religion not giving people the credit to think for themselves. Yes, I'd agree that most (not all) religious parents understand that these are teachings that they hope will take root, but that their kids will critically assess when they get older. The religion however, finds that unacceptable, and it's in this light that school patronage and the religious teaching could be seen as a worse kind of indoctrination than one that is just setting kids on the right path for their future.

Think of the way kids are taught that these teachings are true, not just for life, but for after life as well? Where is the allowance for critical thinking in that?

Peregrinus

How can a religion find something unacceptable? Religious people, yes, or a religious community can find things unacceptable (as can non-religious people or non-religious communities), but "religion" can no more find your behaviour unacceptable than "atheism" can find it unacceptable.

I cheerfully concede that particular religious people, or particular religious communities, can be very judgmental of/punitive towards those who reject the beliefs they profess. it's not true of all religious people/communities, by any means. And of course particular atheists can be equally judgmental/punitive/controlling of those who won't conform.

Obliq

Peregrinus wrote: »

How can a religion find something unacceptable? Religious people, yes, or a religious community can find things unacceptable (as can non-religious people or non-religious communities), but "religion" can no more find your behaviour unacceptable than "atheism" can find it unacceptable.

I cheerfully concede that particular religious people, or particular religious communities, can be very judgmental of/punitive towards those who reject the beliefs they profess. it's not true of all religious people/communities, by any means. And of course particular atheists can be equally judgmental/punitive/controlling of those who won't conform.

Well yes. That is the question isn't it? And religious people's answer is BECAUSE GOD! It was written, there are a set of rules (unchanging, inalterable and not open to critical analysis), and WE didn't set them, God did it. I think that is the crux of the issue we're having with the religious teachings......

Obliq

Peregrinus wrote: »

How can a religion find something unacceptable? Religious people, yes, or a religious community can find things unacceptable (as can non-religious people or non-religious communities), but "religion" can no more find your behaviour unacceptable than "atheism" can find it unacceptable.

I cheerfully concede that particular religious people, or particular religious communities, can be very judgmental of/punitive towards those who reject the beliefs they profess. it's not true of all religious people/communities, by any means. And of course particular atheists can be equally judgmental/punitive/controlling of those who won't conform.

There has got to be a difference between teaching children what you understand to be true, with one eye on the past (considering that "Smacking was good enough for me, so it'll do no harm to mine" has become unacceptable) and the flexibility to allow for social norms to change, and the unbending ritualistic fashion that religious thought is (yes) taught by indoctrination through religious education.

Atheist indoctrination is very different to religious indoctrination, which is invariably that these teachings are set in stone. Considering that atheists only have one of those (no belief in a deity), I don't agree that "atheism" finds people's behaviour unacceptable in the same way as "religion" is proscriptive to the point of bullying through use of fear and shaming.

gaynorvader

I think for indoctrination to be indoctrination it needs to be teaching someone to accept a doctrine uncritically. I don't think you can conflate every teaching with indoctrination. Empathy is not a doctrine.

Bloe Joggs

Interestingly, someone once compared catholic mass to a hypnosis session, breaking it down into all the usual stages of clinical hypnosis. There may be some truth to that.

Obliq

gaynorvader wrote: »

Empathy is not a doctrine.

It is if it doesn't come naturally! I often wonder how empathic most people would be if they hadn't been taught the finer points of putting themselves in other people's shoes as a child.

gaynorvader

Obliq wrote: »

It is if it doesn't come naturally! I often wonder how empathic most people would be if they hadn't been taught the finer points of putting themselves in other people's shoes as a child.

A doctrine is a set of beliefs held by a group. Empathy isn't really a set of beliefs, it's a skill.

Obliq

gaynorvader wrote: »

A doctrine is a set of beliefs held by a group. Empathy isn't really a set of beliefs, it's a skill.

So are an awful lot of other "skills" we teach our kids in order for them not to be horrible little unsociable monsters. Are you sure it's not a set of social beliefs we're teaching them? Beliefs that over time change in their importance or relevance to the social norms in our different societies?

gaynorvader

Obliq wrote: »

So are an awful lot of other "skills" we teach our kids in order for them not to be horrible little unsociable monsters. Are you sure it's not a set of social beliefs we're teaching them? Beliefs that over time change in their importance or relevance to the social norms in our different societies?

Good manners are probably doctrines, but walking is a skill, not a doctrine. Equally I would say empathy is a skill, not a doctrine.

PopePalpatine

gaynorvader wrote: »

Good manners are probably doctrines, but walking is a skill, not a doctrine. Equally I would say empathy is a skill, not a doctrine.

I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few on the religious right believe empathy is a doctrine (e.g. those who support anti-"homosexual propaganda" laws).

Obliq

gaynorvader wrote: »

Good manners are probably doctrines, but walking is a skill, not a doctrine. Equally I would say empathy is a skill, not a doctrine.

Yes, point taken, but how much empathy would we actually use without it being taught I wonder? I reckon most would agree that it wouldn't come very naturally to many toddlers to share their toys or give one they liked back to it's rightful owner. How do we teach our children to learn these things? Through repetition of values and development of their conscience, no? Good manners are all about empathy for others.

This seems off topic, but comes down to whether we think that religious teaching is more/worse indoctrination than teaching our kids manners. I do think it is, but I think maybe both are indoctrination into a set of beliefs.

Brian Shanahan

Obliq wrote: »

It is if it doesn't come naturally! I often wonder how empathic most people would be if they hadn't been taught the finer points of putting themselves in other people's shoes as a child.

Probably about the same as if they were. Empathy is a perfectly valid evolutionary advantage, especially for a species that takes sociality as seriously as humanity does.

Obliq

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Probably about the same as if they were. Empathy is a perfectly valid evolutionary advantage, especially for a species that takes sociality as seriously as humanity does.

Yes, but without us actually describing potential outcomes relentlessly to our children, wouldn't it be more like a basic primate pecking order?! I'm not sure we're the only (or even the most masterful) creature at sociality tbh (depending on what you class as sociable).

Peregrinus

Obliq wrote: »

Well yes. That is the question isn't it? And religious people's answer is BECAUSE GOD! It was written, there are a set of rules (unchanging, inalterable and not open to critical analysis), and WE didn't set them, God did it. I think that is the crux of the issue we're having with the religious teachings......

Except it’s demonstrably not true in the real world that religious teachings are set in stone, unchanging, not open to critical analysis.

Evidence of this is posted all the time on this board. People regularly point out that evangelical, bible-believing Christians do not observe biblical proscriptions on wearing mixed fabric or eating shellfish, do not follow biblical rules about slavery, etc.

This is usually posted to argue that the Christians concerned are hypocritical or inconsistent. But I suggest the real lesson is that Christian ethical thinking is not the simplistic, unchanging, dogmatic rule-driven system that fundamentalist literalist atheists assume it has to be, if it is to be authentic.

Obliq

Peregrinus wrote: »

Except it’s demonstrably not true in the real world that religious teachings are set in stone, unchanging, not open to critical analysis.
......................
This is usually posted to argue that the Christians concerned are hypocritical or inconsistent. But I suggest the real lesson is that Christian ethical thinking is not the simplistic, unchanging, dogmatic rule-driven system that fundamentalist literalist atheists assume it has to be, if it is to be authentic.

Ok. Lets look at the teachings, as opposed to the actual followers. Are the teachings (out of touch AND as open to critical analysis as they are) taught to children as truth, and the agreeable responses to the priests preaching this are to be learned word for word? Because correct me if I'm wrong (again ) but I think that the church actually desires people to believe this stuff as true, no?

Just the basic stuff, like y'know, god made everything - jesus died for your sins, and you're already a sinner aged 8 - sex is really, really off limits till marriage - being gay is ok (they changed that one recently) but having gay sex is not - single mothers cover your heads for shame and walk that way (oh, wait...they changed that one too). All the changes have occured through public opinion (even law) changing first. Not necessarily through christian ethical thinking, more through the church being shown to be outrageously out of step.

Yes of course people don't all really think like this (although there's a sizeable number who do - see t'other forum) and most, as my father says "lose all that b****x with their first pint", but surely what we're actually talking about here is children in school being repetitively drilled with unproven and sometimes harmful information that not only directly clashes with another of their subjects (science), but is designed to turn them into good little church subjects, followers of Christ. I personally call that indoctrination. I would be super worried if anyone tried to get my kids to follow anything.

But that's just me eh? A "fundamentalist literalist atheist" who is apparently so by dint of having had no such indoctrination and therefore no such belief that it's ok to teach children disinformation, so apparently my problem with how the RCC adversly effects my life/children's lives makes me a fundamentalist? Get out of it, that's just rude

Obliq

I forgot to mention the notion of heaven and hell, and the devil. How many parents have to use some damage limitation in order to comfort their vulnerable children when they are in tears over the thought that Mammy or Daddy might go to hell? And worse, when they actually believe that the "devil" can, and will, try to tempt them to do bad stuff?

I'm sorry now for my atheist fundamentalism, but that has and continues to be an ongoing problem where children are taught something mentally damaging, and it makes me very, very angry. I've seen it, it's not pretty.

Peregrinus

Any set of ethics that you do not share is going to seem wrong to you, Obliq. How can it be otherwise? And it follows that the discourse out of which those ethics emerge is also going to seem wanting.

But you could make similar strictures of secular ethics, because of course secular ethics also change, and secular ethical positions that we do not share seem bizarre to us, and the discourse out of which the emerge seems inadequate.

The Romans considered, for example, that it was entirely acceptable for the paterfamilias to expose unwanted children to die (and, no, they didn't offer any religious justification for this); Roman ethical thinking, like Greek ethical thinking, was secular. The law on this was changed when popular opinion changed, and popular opinion changed with the spread of Christianity, which had a horror of the practice. Simlarly, the Romans and the Greeks offered (nonreligious) ethical justifications for slavery, and for the subjugation of women. (Women became Christians in disproportionate numbers precisely because of the higher status that Christianity afforded them.)

You can obviously find instances of dogmatic religious thinking, just as you can find instasnces of dogmatic secular thinking. (I hung around in a few radical-left groups in my college days. Beleive me, until you spend a bit of time there you haven't seen dogmaticism and judgmentalism!) But painting religious ethical thinking as dogmatic, unreasoning or oppressive in a way that secular ethical thinking is not is just caricature. There's nothing wrong with caricature, provided you don't mistake it for reality.

Obliq

I've to get ready for work now - I'd love to continue, but can't. However, in that vein, would you agree that religious teachings are fine, so long as you don't mistake them for reality? You do seem to be ignoring the fact that there is no proof for god, devil, heaven, hell, etc.

It's not just a set of ethics being taught to children, is it? I doubt very much I'd have such a problem with the ethical teachings, especially if they were open to argument, but that's plainly untrue in the context of children being taught "truths" about the world/universe/existence that have no basis in evidence.

Peregrinus

Obliq wrote: »

I've to get ready for work now - I'd love to continue, but can't. However, in that vein, would you agree that religious teachings are fine, so long as you don't mistake them for reality? You do seem to be ignoring the fact that there is no proof for god, devil, heaven, hell, etc.

Fundamentally, religious propositions are speculative. They're mostly unprovable. That doesn't mean they're not real, though; just that we can't absolutely know that they are real.

(These characteristics are not unique to religious propositions. As our smart-arse teenage children never tire of demonstrating, they are shared by, among other things, ethical propositions.)

Obliq

Peregrinus wrote: »

Fundamentally, religious propositions are speculative. They're mostly unprovable. That doesn't mean they're not real, though; just that we can't absolutely know that they are real.

(These characteristics are not unique to religious propositions.)

A pity then, that this is not taught to children rather than it being taught as an unquestionable truth. Does that not make it indoctrination? I rather think it does.

Peregrinus

Obliq wrote: »

A pity then, that this is not taught to children rather than it being taught as an unquestionable truth. Does that not make it indoctrination? I rather think it does.

Well, I've already said that it is indoctrination - but so is the secular teaching of ethics on the same basis.

The truth is that when we're dealing with primary school age kids or below, trying to get them to grasp the speculative nature of ethical/religious/philosophical propositions is completely unrealistic and age-inappropriate. Which is why, if we think those propositions are important, we try to indoctrinate them.

As they get to the age of reason, this approach is no longer age-appropriate, and it no longer works. Not only can we not use it to teach new things, but the growing person will start to re-examine what we have already taught him by indoctrination - whether that be "don't park in disabled spaces" or "God loves you".

And this is a process which continues for quite a while - well over a decade, typically - as the young person examines, endorses, reconsiders, reject, modifies, develops what their parents have given them, before eventually coming to their own position on these matters.

I think a fairly common pattern is that someone who is raised with religion in childhood and examines and rejects it in adolescence thereafter often has a basically child-like understanding of what religion is. They remember religion as something that wasn't discussed, explained, justified or critically examined because, when they encountered it, none of those thing happened. (They remember parental discipline in pretty much the same way.) It's only if they are sufficiently interested to engage with religion in a more adult way that they are going to understand adult engagement with religion.

And I suspect this pattern has a lot to do with the widespread meme that non-religious people are more intelligent, or more mature, than religious people. Because their concept of religion is of religion as presented to immature people, they can't see how it can have any traction with mature people; hence, people who remain engaged with religion must be immature, just like (say) people who are still sending their washing home to mammy at the age of 25.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

In the short example I gave, the child is being encouraged to reflect on the nature, dynamics and consequences of human interaction. In such a scenario, questions are entertained, examples are sought, hypothesis are put forward, alternative outcomes considered. It takes as its premise that human beings are required to interact, and goes on from there. It could be argued that the premise is flawed, but then we’d be playing very near one of those rabbit holes, and I really do not have time or inclination to go chasing chronometrically challenged rodents (rabbits are rodents, aren’t they?).


I do not see how you can portray it as indoctrination.


And I’m not alluding to you being a rodent.:P

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.

Well, it tells me that such-and-such a belief has areas that it considers to be beyond scrutiny, and that should immediately sets alarm bells ringing. Belief can take one to strange places, especially if those beliefs are questionable. By definition, indoctrination does not allow questioning of the beliefs being imparted. I don’t see how this can be a good thing, so I must see any belief that requires indoctrination as being either neutral or outright bad.

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.

But I’ve encountered variations on my (admittedly crude, but only slightly) caricatures of religious education and conversation as man and boy, as have most other readers to this thread, I am sure. It’s the will of God. It’s a mystery. He works in mysterious ways. You’re not meant to ask questions like that. It’s in the Bible. The Good Books says. God knows. That’s how religion is taught, P, as I’m sure you know, and it’s reinforced with ritual, prayer, chanting, singing, etc. Ethics most certainly is not taught the same way. From my own school days, I do not recall learning to sing ‘It Is Morally Praiseworthy To Assist Old People’, but I did learn a slew of hymns, many of which I can still sing decades later.


This continues beyond school years, of course. Explanations of the Trinity or Transubstantiation are not much different in adulthood than they are in childhood; they just employ more verbiage.

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.)

I’m sorry, I dizzy at this last point. Curious how one does not grow accustomed to the feeling through time or variety. Could I ask for an expansion, please?

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Christian ethical thinking is not the simplistic, unchanging, dogmatic rule-driven system that fundamentalist literalist atheists assume it has to be, if it is to be authentic.

There are different strands of Christianity, each employing different strategies. You can take your pick. You have Anglicans voting among themselves to elect women Bishops and whether to allow gay marriage, claiming themselves be progressive and driven by only by "god's love".
Then you have the RCC portraying itself as the unchanging church; the original and the best. They hang on as long as possible to all the old doctrines, even when hardly anyone observes them (no contraception) or believes them (wafers= flesh "substantially")
The one strategy simply mimics societal norms, the other tries to claim "unchanging truth" in the face of what is increasing seen as outdated nonsense. Perhaps it is this application of whatever meme works best that makes Christianity so inauthentic.

Brian Shanahan

Obliq wrote: »

being gay is ok (they changed that one recently)

They really didn't. The whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" is still based on the premise that being gay is one of the worst things possible to do in the eyes of god. Gay people, according to the rcc, are still going to hell simply because of their nature (unless they somehow catch a case of the not-gay) and the whole line is essentially an attempt to keep the homophobia while trotting out platitudes to try and appear that you are not. Remember the sin is not (just) engaging in fruity man on man love or woman on woman love (or most everything in between) its having the feelings that would lead you to engage in such practises.

And that is why I am adamant that the church has not changed by one single iota.

In your previous post:

Yes, but without us actually describing potential outcomes relentlessly to our children, wouldn't it be more like a basic primate pecking order?! I'm not sure we're the only (or even the most masterful) creature at sociality tbh (depending on what you class as sociable).

I'm not too sure what you are trying to say, so I'll refrain from responding directly for the moment.

Bloe Joggs

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I've already said that it is indoctrination - but so is the secular teaching of ethics on the same basis.

The truth is that when we're dealing with primary school age kids or below, trying to get them to grasp the speculative nature of ethical/religious/philosophical propositions is completely unrealistic and age-inappropriate. Which is why, if we think those propositions are important, we try to indoctrinate them.

As they get to the age of reason, this approach is no longer age-appropriate, and it no longer works. Not only can we not use it to teach new things, but the growing person will start to re-examine what we have already taught him by indoctrination - whether that be "don't park in disabled spaces" or "God loves you".

And this is a process which continues for quite a while - well over a decade, typically - as the young person examines, endorses, reconsiders, reject, modifies, develops what their parents have given them, before eventually coming to their own position on these matters.

I think a fairly common pattern is that someone who is raised with religion in childhood and examines and rejects it in adolescence thereafter often has a basically child-like understanding of what religion is. They remember religion as something that wasn't discussed, explained, justified or critically examined because, when they encountered it, none of those thing happened. (They remember parental discipline in pretty much the same way.) It's only if they are sufficiently interested to engage with religion in a more adult way that they are going to understand adult engagement with religion.

And I suspect this pattern has a lot to do with the widespread meme that non-religious people are more intelligent, or more mature, than religious people. Because their concept of religion is of religion as presented to immature people, they can't see how it can have any traction with mature people; hence, people who remain engaged with religion must be immature, just like (say) people who are still sending their washing home to mammy at the age of 25.

"Well, I've already said that it is indoctrination - but so is the secular teaching of ethics on the same basis"

Didn't you rip me a new one the other day for stating that religious belief was down to indoctrination and that a member of my family, just like everyone else I know including myself was indoctrinated at some point and then you said it had the same meaning as brainwashing and that I was effectively saying they were brainwashed and how dare I say that about anyone, especially a member of my family with no evidence whatsoever.....in your very own words....

I've no doubt that you'll have some cleverly worded BS answer for me.

alaimacerc

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

They really didn't. The whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" is still based on the premise that being gay is one of the worst things possible to do in the eyes of god.

Well, it's a "grave matter of sin", but it's no "getting an abortion" or "punching the pope", to pick nits.

Gay people, according to the rcc, are still going to hell simply because of their nature (unless they somehow catch a case of the not-gay) and the whole line is essentially an attempt to keep the homophobia while trotting out platitudes to try and appear that you are not. Remember the sin is not (just) engaging in fruity man on man love or woman on woman love (or most everything in between) its having the feelings that would lead you to engage in such practises.

It's having "volitional" such thoughts that are specifically "sinful", as I understand it. Acts contrary to moral law of one's own free will, etc, etc. And of course such "sins" can be "remitted". So you don't strictly speaking need to buy into the idea of "ex-gay" as a psychologically real thing of changing one's position on the Kinsey Scale. In theory, you can be not-going-to-hell if you either don't entertain your orientation as thoughts "of your own free will", or else you rush off to confession every time this happens, tout suite before you die en route. So "sufficiently self-hating gay people" are sort of OK.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

The truth is that when we're dealing with primary school age kids or below, trying to get them to grasp the speculative nature of ethical/religious/philosophical propositions is completely unrealistic and age-inappropriate. Which is why, if we think those propositions are important, we try to indoctrinate them.

You're perilously close here to admitting that religious indoctrination must be done early, in order to do a deliberate end-around critical thinking.

I think a fairly common pattern is that someone who is raised with religion in childhood and examines and rejects it in adolescence thereafter often has a basically child-like understanding of what religion is.

You say that as if this is an "uncommon pattern" among those raised with religion that haven't rejected it (at least formally).

The churches are pretty happy to have one might have a "tripartite approach". There's the "naive and immature" understanding based on what they spend most of their time telling most of the people. There's the "sophisticated" (some of us would say, Jesuitical and sophistry-laden) understanding of people that add layers of metaphor and verbiage in between what religion otherwise says and its plain meaning, so as to permit them to continue to argue it's "in some sense" true, and to be able to attack atheists as having a "simplistic" understanding of religion. And then there's the "well, at least they show up at service sometime, and even if they don't, they're helping boost our apparent importance by ticked the right box on the census" group, which has discarded the literalistic stuff, but hasn't troubled to replace it with the Continuing Education Certificate in Blather and Cyroptoconsequentialism stuff. The trick is to notice the shell game being played here, and point out which group is being counted to advance which proposition, that they don't actually themselves believe in.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

Fundamentally, religious propositions are speculative. They're mostly unprovable. That doesn't mean they're not real, though; just that we can't absolutely know that they are real.

"Philosophers, for example, argue that they are very much concerned with the problems posed by real life. Like, for instance, 'what do we mean by real?', and 'how can we reach an empirical definition of life?', and so on."

(These characteristics are not unique to religious propositions. As our smart-arse teenage children never tire of demonstrating, they are shared by, among other things, ethical propositions.)

Ethical propositions generally claim some degree of verifiability. The degree of rigour involved may be "social-science grade at best", but they're at least proposing that sort of framework. Religious propositions often start in a similar (indeed, frequently identical) place, but then feel free to wander off whither they will.