School patronage

alaimacerc

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 think this very much depends on what one has in mind by "empathy". People with high-functioning Aspergers/ASD are often on the one hand described as a deficit therein, and on the other, being offended by this characterisation. It's used to describe everything between "intuitive-level social skills" and "an abstract belief in equal treatment for others", and pretty much all points in between.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

How can a religion find something unacceptable?

I'm going to go way out on a limb here, and say, "eh, by writing down and otherwise systematically transmitting as metaphysically unchallengeable 'truth' that '[thing] is unacceptable'." Which I'm guessing is what you were hoping someone would say, so that you can then counter, "Just the sort of simplistic atheist fundamentalism I was talking about! Just because we say these things, you shouldn't be so silly as to believe they actually mean anything!"

but "religion" can no more find your behaviour unacceptable than "atheism" can find it unacceptable.

First, you've quietly dropped an indefinite article there, which is rather key to the meaning. What's true of particular religions, or even particular denominations, or denominational bodies, and so on, is rarely true of "religion" in general. Secondly, that's nonsense on a stick, and on its face. Your error here to compare sets of belief, some of which are "[bunch of metaphysical stuff]; [bunch of socially pr(e|o)scriptive] stuff]", with one that's "[singleton (anti-)metaphysical thing]".

alaimacerc

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.

I can only assume that here you mean, you attribute it to the shoddiness of RCC indoctrination on this topic, leading to people failing to fully grasp the precise nuances of the vitalist nonsense they're being asked -- or rather, told -- to believe.

What percentage of the people ticking the RCC census box do you think would be able to write a short essay on this topic, to which you'd give a passing grade?

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

I can only assume that here you mean, you attribute it to the shoddiness of RCC indoctrination on this topic, leading to people failing to fully grasp the precise nuances of the vitalist nonsense they're being asked -- or rather, told -- to believe.
What percentage of the people ticking the RCC census box do you think would be able to write a short essay on this topic, to which you'd give a passing grade?

So we can assume then that the level of indoctrination used by the RCC is insufficient to produce the desired effect, and can be safely ignored?

Since it appears from your statement you believe that those who have been subjected to RCC indoctrination couldn't pass a simple test on a fundamental RCC doctrine, it must be reasonable to assume they (or we?) have even less understanding of the general principles, never mind more esoteric aspects. Not a point I disagree with, mind, but I think it does speak to whether or not RCC indoctrination is the insidious life altering monster in our classrooms that it's being pilloried as....

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

So we can assume then that the level of indoctrination used by the RCC is insufficient to produce the desired effect, and can be safely ignored?

I refer to my earlier Gaul-like trilemma as to what the "desired effect" actually is. This one would be firmly in the "sophists-only" category.

Since it appears from your statement you believe that those who have been subjected to RCC indoctrination couldn't pass a simple test on a fundamental RCC doctrine, it must be reasonable to assume they (or we?) have even less understanding of the general principles, never mind more esoteric aspects.

I personally think that "when we say 'body' and 'substance', obviously we don't actually mean 'flesh'! Schoolboy error!" quibble that Pere was pulling people up on is in your third category here, rather than your first. Plenty of things further up the "successfully beat into them at least temporarily" queue, I'd imagine. Though I was soliciting his opinion, as opposed to making an actual assertion, please note.

Not a point I disagree with, mind, but I think it does speak to whether or not RCC indoctrination is the insidious life altering monster in our classrooms that it's being pilloried as....

Are you advancing a hormesis/homeopathic sort of model here? Or merely a threshold toxic-response model, as against a linear no-threshold one? At least there's some sort of implied stipulation as to the harmful effects of large doses; now we just appear to be haggling over the amount.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

I refer to my earlier Gaul-like trilemma as to what the "desired effect" actually is. This one would be firmly in the "sophists-only" category.

In fairness though, that's your belief rather than any churches stated position. I suspect the RCC feels that teaching (or indoctrinating) the subject of transubstantiation ought not to leave the student with a perception that there is any metaphorical or worse sophistic element at all. That's obviously my belief; I'd guess you'd need a Jesuit or somesuch to provide a definitive answer.

alaimacerc wrote: »

I personally think that "when we say 'body' and 'substance', obviously we don't actually mean 'flesh'! Schoolboy error!" quibble that Pere was pulling people up on is in your third category here, rather than your first. Plenty of things further up the "successfully beat into them at least temporarily" queue, I'd imagine. Though I was soliciting his opinion, as opposed to making an actual assertion, please note.

Somehow I imagine (and I could be wrong) that the RCC regards transubstantiation as a fundamental part of the church, rather than an esoterical aspect, since without it there's no Mass?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Are you advancing a hormesis/homeopathic sort of model here? Or merely a threshold toxic-response model, as against a linear no-threshold one? At least there's some sort of implied stipulation as to the harmful effects of large doses; now we just appear to be haggling over the amount.

Not even vaguely; you'd have to demonstrate the harmfulness of inculcating christian values before we even got to the potential results of, or responses to, various methodologies. I'm only proposing that there may be an irrational overreaction to christian 'indoctrination' in Irish schools on this thread, especially when many posters seem to have been exposed to this indoctrination yet escaped doctrine free (absent the claim of course that the indoctrination was so wholly inept as to inculcate a reflexive negative response to religion, or christian religion, or catholicism). As for the methods and motivations of the individuals and organisations who carried out that 'indoctrination', that is probably a whole other discussion, and likely the real (and justifiable) cause for most posters antipathy to religious schools.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Somehow I imagine (and I could be wrong) that the RCC regards transubstantiation as a fundamental part of the church, rather than an esoterical aspect, since without it there's no Mass?

Of course it does; it fought wars and burnt people over it. But I don't think it's that bothered about the level of actual understanding of it amongst its mere "flock" at the level we're discussing. Or if it is, I think it should be pretty worried.

Feel free to tackle the same question. If quizzed in detail on the matter of their belief in and understanding of transubstantiation, how many notional Catholics would prove to be completely doctrinally sound? And how many would prove to be apostates, how many heretics, how many Protestants (overlap with previous two categories, admittedly), and how many guilty of the "Jesus cannibal" misunderstanding that Pere finds so woeful among atheists? (Maybe "blinkingly confused" would have to be an additional category in itself.)

(It's possible that there's much overlap and indeed possibly some positive correlation between people not adequately distinguishing between "body" and "flesh", and people not believing an actual word of it anyway, but that merely make my tripartite division less neat that that of Gaul, not invalid as such.)

I'm only proposing that there may be an irrational overreaction to christian 'indoctrination' in Irish schools on this thread, especially when many posters seem to have been exposed to this indoctrination yet escaped doctrine free (absent the claim of course that the indoctrination was so wholly inept as to inculcate a reflexive negative response to religion, or christian religion, or catholicism).

I counter-propose that there's an irrational underreaction from the "I don't believe any of this stuff myself, but I think it should be taught to the chisellers, or at least, would rather that than trouble myself with worries of Protestantism(* or other 'wrong sort of religious'), atheism, a slightly longer school run, or a slightly less "good" school". And an unethically self-excepting one from those sincerely using it as a means of replicating their own actual belief. Just for reference. But that's all by the by, as far as I can see.

Unless you're going to argue that the variously notional, cultural and actual Catholicism of Ireland has no effect on its politics, culture, etc, or that state-endowed Catholic education has no effect on the levels of said Catholicism, I see no meaningful point being made. "Not everyone comes out of primary school a Jesuit" does not mean that the mean levels of socially regressive views, metaphysical confusion, and miscellaneous psychological harm haven't been affected across the total distribution of the population.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Of course it does; it fought wars and burnt people over it. But I don't think it's that bothered about the level of actual understanding of it amongst its mere "flock" at the level we're discussing. Or if it is, I think it should be pretty worried.

That's kind of the point; not a whole lot of indoctrination going on.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Feel free to tackle the same question. If quizzed in detail on the matter of their belief in and understanding of transubstantiation, how many notional Catholics would prove to be completely doctrinally sound? And how many would prove to be apostates, how many heretics, how many Protestants (overlap with previous two categories, admittedly), and how many guilty of the "Jesus cannibal" misunderstanding that Pere finds so woeful among atheists? (Maybe "blinkingly confused" would have to be an additional category in itself.) (It's possible that there's much overlap and indeed possibly some positive correlation between people not adequately distinguishing between "body" and "flesh", and people not believing an actual word of it anyway, but that merely make my tripartite division less neat that that of Gaul, not invalid as such.).

Again, given the poor level of doctrinal knowledge, it seems there's not much indoctrination...

alaimacerc wrote: »

I counter-propose that there's an irrational underreaction from the "I don't believe any of this stuff myself, but I think it should be taught to the chisellers, or at least, would rather that than trouble myself with worries of Protestantism(* or other 'wrong sort of religious'), atheism, a slightly longer school run, or a slightly less "good" school". And an unethically self-excepting one from those sincerely using it as a means of replicating their own actual belief. Just for reference. But that's all by the by, as far as I can see..

Is it really irrational to underreact to something you don't care about?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Unless you're going to argue that the variously notional, cultural and actual Catholicism of Ireland has no effect on its politics, culture, etc, or that state-endowed Catholic education has no effect on the levels of said Catholicism, I see no meaningful point being made. "Not everyone comes out of primary school a Jesuit" does not mean that the mean levels of socially regressive views, metaphysical confusion, and miscellaneous psychological harm haven't been affected across the total distribution of the population.

The point would be, as you have been pointing out, that the effect of catholic indoctrination seems to be highly overrated by those objecting to it.

Brian Shanahan

alaimacerc wrote: »

Acts contrary to moral law of one's own free will, etc, etc.

[popehat]But, sure, the act of being gay is just acting contrary to moral law of one's own free will don't you know? The gay is simply a disorderd personal choice and not inherent in one's nature. Everybody is truly heterosexual if only they'd admit it.[/popehat]

The rcc still holds to that world view regarding people's sexualities.

Absolam

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

[popehat]But, sure, the act of being gay is just acting contrary to moral law of one's own free will don't you know? The gay is simply a disorderd personal choice and not inherent in one's nature. Everybody is truly heterosexual if only they'd admit it.[/popehat] The rcc still holds to that world view regarding people's sexualities.

I don't think that's actually true. I think the RCC holds that, as a state beyond a person's choice, being homosexual is not wrong or sinful in itself. It is homosexual acts that the RCC holds to be sinful.

robindch

Absolam wrote: »

I think the RCC holds that, as a state beyond a person's choice, being homosexual is not wrong or sinful in itself. It is homosexual acts that the RCC holds to be sinful.

Its position is a little subtle - it holds that homosexuality is an "intrinsic disorder" and that engaging in homosexual sex is a sin. It's not a position that I would try to parse out in too much detail since firstly, it's hard to know exactly what they mean by the intrinsic disorder bit, and second, most christians who worry about this kind of thing believe that homosexuality per se is a moral evil, just as much as having gay sex is a moral evil.

Absolam

robindch wrote: »

Its position is a little subtle - it holds that homosexuality is an "intrinsic disorder" and that engaging in homosexual sex is a sin. It's not a position that I would try to parse out in too much detail since firstly, it's hard to know exactly what they mean by the intrinsic disorder bit, and second, most christians who worry about this kind of thing believe that homosexuality per se is a moral evil, just as much as having gay sex is a moral evil.

Which does lend further weight to the argument that rcc instruction in schools is not sufficiently compelling to warrant the term indoctrination? So far we seem to be getting lots of examples of 'indoctrinated' subjects of catholic education who either don't understand, or who disagree with, catholic doctrine.

Delirium

New bill 'won't fully protect gay teachers'

The new bill will amend section 37 (1) but INTO boss Sheila Nunan said this did not go far enough in guaranteeing protection for employees.

She said: "Amending a bad law does not change it. Section 37.1 causes real anxiety to teachers whose family status, sexual orientation or gender identity may be perceived as being in conflict with (a school's) ethos.

"People of non-faith and minority religious backgrounds, and LGBT people should not be deterred from taking up employment as teachers."

gaynorvader

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think this very much depends on what one has in mind by "empathy". People with high-functioning Aspergers/ASD are often on the one hand described as a deficit therein, and on the other, being offended by this characterisation. It's used to describe everything between "intuitive-level social skills" and "an abstract belief in equal treatment for others", and pretty much all points in between.

I think it was covered by someone above (possibly Obliq). Either way, I am using it to mean the ability to put oneself into another's shoes and imagine how they feel in certain situations. I am using the dictionary definition:

OED wrote:

The ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

I've never heard it used to mean "an abstract belief in equal treatment for others".

lazygal

The teaching unions need to grow a pair and refuse to teach under threats like the so called equality act. What exactly do they do for those teachers in conflict with ethoi?

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Which does lend further weight to the argument that rcc instruction in schools is not sufficiently compelling to warrant the term indoctrination? So far we seem to be getting lots of examples of 'indoctrinated' subjects of catholic education who either don't understand, or who disagree with, catholic doctrine.

That's because nowadays people gain knowledge from sources other than schools and churches. There is university, TV, internet, none of which were commonly available (or if you like, available to the commoner) a few generations ago. The indoctrination is still there at primary and second level schooling, but it is less effective when people have access to the antidote later.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

That's because nowadays people gain knowledge from sources other than schools and churches. There is university, TV, internet, none of which were commonly available (or if you like, available to the commoner) a few generations ago. The indoctrination is still there at primary and second level schooling, but it is less effective when people have access to the antidote later.

I daresay that schools and chruches were never the only sources of knowledge, but even when the church (and church schools) might have been the primary source of book learning, they managed to have a reformation that swept Europe and substantially dispossessed the RCC, so i don't think 'indoctrination' can be said to have been overly successful even then. However, point taken that the RCC control on information has been substantially reduced, first with the advent of printing, and then with the advent of the internet (which, to be fair, may not yet be a major information source for primary school children without the intermediary of parents). Which begs the question; when indoctrination is ineffective, can it reasonably be termed indoctrination? If the teaching is inevitably, and often immediately, being questioned, surely it's now just teaching.. or if not actually teaching (since the 'facts' are disputable), even expressing an opinion?

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

That's because nowadays people gain knowledge from sources other than schools and churches. There is university, TV, internet, none of which were commonly available (or if you like, available to the commoner) a few generations ago. The indoctrination is still there at primary and second level schooling, but it is less effective when people have access to the antidote later.

So you're saying that if people pick up wildly inaccurate understandings of what the Catholic church teaches from the internet, that is undermining indoctrination? Whereas if they actually knew what the Catholic church taught, that would show they had been indoctrinated?

Would you say the same if people pick up -as they do - wildly inaccurate understandings of the theory of evolution, say, or the formation of the cosmos?

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Which begs the question; when indoctrination is ineffective, can it reasonably be termed indoctrination?

It's never completely "ineffective", its just not "wholly effective". If you throw enough mud, some of it will stick.

Interesting to look at how the Amish handle it. They restrict outside influences and indoctrinate the kids into their ways until they become young adults. Then they send them out into the world, with the condition that if they return, they must reject everything they have seen and return to the Amish ways. Many are shocked and homesick, and return gladly. Others thrive on their new experiences and do not come back, though they can still return as visitors.

Even more extreme are the cults such as Westboro Baptist, who expel and shun all contact with family members who have rejected the doctrine.

The more nutty a doctrine is, the more powerful the indoctrination has to be to counteract the "losses" of people voluntarily leaving, and finally "social sanctions" against leaving have to be applied as well.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

So you're saying that if people pick up wildly inaccurate understandings of what the Catholic church teaches from the internet, that is undermining indoctrination?

That would also undermine indoctrination, but not in a good way, because they would be misinformed. Genuine knowledge is better.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Whereas if they actually knew what the Catholic church taught, that would show they had been indoctrinated?

Then they would be informed, but not necessarily indoctrinated.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Would you say the same if people pick up -as they do - wildly inaccurate understandings of the theory of evolution, say, or the formation of the cosmos?

Then they are simply misinformed. These are not doctrines, just theories and hypotheses.

Peregrinus

But when we say that a particular belief has been "indoctrinated", aren't we saying that it has been taught to you in a way which prevents you from questioning it? I.e. that it was embedding in you before you had any critical capacity, and that you were encouraged to internalise it so that, when you did acquire critical capacity, it would be too deeply rooted for you to critique?

Because, if that's what "indoctrinate" means, then the fact that somebody has either (a) rejected what he was taught, or (b) misunderstood what he was taught, indicates that that the way he was taught it did not amount to indoctrination?

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

It's never completely "ineffective", its just not "wholly effective". If you throw enough mud, some of it will stick.

Surely, if it's not wholly effective, then it's not indoctrination? Anything less than a wholly effective method of ensuring uncritical acceptance can't really be more than an argument can it?

recedite wrote: »

The more nutty a doctrine is, the more powerful the indoctrination has to be to counteract the "losses" of people voluntarily leaving, and finally "social sanctions" against leaving have to be applied as well.

If you mean the more at odds with prevailing social opinion a doctrine is, the more likely people are to question it, that's probably true, and is probably why people in groups that interact less with wider society retain what might be considered more outlandish ideas.

pauldla

Are we now not arguing that, if there are no broken bones then it's not really a beating?

Peregrinus

We're arguing that it's inconsistent to claim that religious belief is inculcated by indoctrination (in a way that other beliefs are not, in a way which prevents the subject from critiquing or rejecting them) when the evidence doesn't suggest that people raised with religious beliefs have any difficulty critiquing or rejecting them.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

We're arguing that it's inconsistent to claim that religious belief is inculcated by indoctrination (in a way that other beliefs are not, in a way which prevents the subject from critiquing or rejecting them) when the evidence doesn't suggest that people raised with religious beliefs have any difficulty critiquing or rejecting them.

I must reread the thread, so. Incidentally, do you see no relationship between the methodology of religious indoctrination and the numbers who profess belief? As a thought experiment, what would happen to the numbers who profess faith if religious instruction was forbidden until one had reached the age of majority?

Peregrinus

I see the same relationship between the methodology of religious indoctrination asn the numbers who profess religious beliefs as I see between the methodology of non-religious indoctrination and the number who profess non-religious beliefs. I see lots of people asserting that there's a difference, but not a lot of evidence being cited to back up those assertions.

Absolam

pauldla wrote: »

I must reread the thread, so. Incidentally, do you see no relationship between the methodology of religious indoctrination and the numbers who profess belief? As a thought experiment, what would happen to the numbers who profess faith if religious instruction was forbidden until one had reached the age of majority?

As a thought experiment, I think we'd see a huge drop in the numbers professing faith. In reality, forbidding people from expressing their opinion to such an extreme, especially in their own home, especially to their own children, just isn't going to fly; people have a right to freedom of speech, and association, even if other people don't like what they say or do. My point being, it's all very well objecting to religious 'indoctrination' in schools, but it seems readily apparent that if anyone is being indoctrinated in religion, it's not happening in schools, it's happening in homes. Schools may reinforce or undermine the indoctrination (or education, or perspective... whatever) children receive at home, but I don't believe they are or will be the primary motivator in shaping a child's opinion on the subject. Which is not to say their effect should be ignored, just that it should not be overstated. Little Kiwi, who has been mentioned more than once on A&A in relation to religion in his school, is not likely to become a Jesuit leader of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith despite the best efforts of his mother; he might (possibly to spite the best efforts of his mother because that's what children do), but it's not overly likely.

gaynorvader

Absolam wrote: »

Surely, if it's not wholly effective, then it's not indoctrination? Anything less than a wholly effective method of ensuring uncritical acceptance can't really be more than an argument can it?

{...}

Peregrinus wrote: »

We're arguing that it's inconsistent to claim that religious belief is inculcated by indoctrination (in a way that other beliefs are not, in a way which prevents the subject from critiquing or rejecting them) when the evidence doesn't suggest that people raised with religious beliefs have any difficulty critiquing or rejecting them.

According to the OED:

OED wrote:

Indoctrinate
verb
1Teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically:
"broadcasting was a vehicle for indoctrinating the masses"

It's teaching someone to accept beliefs uncritically, it's not magically untaught if at a later date the teachings aren't adhered to. Most people were taught Irish, and most have forgotten the majority of it. It doesn't mean they were never taught Irish.

Peregrinus

Yes, but a point I made several pages ago is that any teaching of belief to children of primary school age or below necessarily involves teaching them to accept beliefs uncritically, since children of that age lack the intellectual apparatus to critique things. And I illustrated this by pointing to the way we inculcate ethical beliefs in our children - share your toys, respect the feelings of others, etc. We absolutely do not encourage them to consider critically the proposition that they should respect the feelings of others; we encourage them to embrace that proposition and indeed to internalise it so that it becomes a matter of habit and formation as much as of belief.

I’m willing to accept that we indoctrinate beliefs on religious questions in our children in the same way that we indoctrinate beliefs on non-religious questions in our children. But when people object to children being indoctrinated with religious belief, I understand them to be claiming that beliefs about religious questions are the subject of indoctrination in a way which is not the case for beliefs about non-religious questions. That’s what I’m looking for evidence of.

If in fact nobody every questioned their religious beliefs, that might be evidence pointing towards very effective indoctrination. But clearly that’s not the case; people question, modify and reject religious beliefs all the time. In greater numbers, in fact, than they reject the ethical beliefs taught to them in childhood. If anything, that suggests that there is less indoctrination in matters of religion than in matters of ethics. I’m willing to consider evidence to the contrary, but unless somebody has some to offer I don’t see that I can.

gaynorvader

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but a point I made several pages ago is that any teaching of belief to children of primary school age or below necessarily involves teaching them to accept beliefs uncritically, since children of that age lack the intellectual apparatus to critique things. And I illustrated this by pointing to the way we inculcate ethical beliefs in our children - share your toys, respect the feelings of others, etc. We absolutely do not encourage them to consider critically the proposition that they should respect the feelings of others; we encourage them to embrace that proposition and indeed to internalise it so that it becomes a matter of habit and formation as much as of belief.

I’m willing to accept that we indoctrinate beliefs on religious questions in our children in the same way that we indoctrinate beliefs on non-religious questions in our children. But when people object to children being indoctrinated with religious belief, I understand them to be claiming that beliefs about religious questions are the subject of indoctrination in a way which is not the case for beliefs about non-religious questions. That’s what I’m looking for evidence of.

If in fact nobody every questioned their religious beliefs, that might be evidence pointing towards very effective indoctrination. But clearly that’s not the case; people question, modify and reject religious beliefs all the time. In greater numbers, in fact, than they reject the ethical beliefs taught to them in childhood. If anything, that suggests that there is less indoctrination in matters of religion than in matters of ethics. I’m willing to consider evidence to the contrary, but unless somebody has some to offer I don’t see that I can.

I think the problem with specifically religious indoctrination is that it is not done by the parents, but by teachers, often against the parents' will. Coupled with the fact that there are no correct answers, like there are with Maths, English or other subjects taught by teachers.