Religious instruction is child abuse

[Sophronius]

Isn't most direct instruction to children closer to Example B (and I mean not just in the religious realm)? Example A is the sort of instruction we get in college when we already have deep grounding in some field so that we can sift through the possibilities.

We are taught morals by watching how others function in the world, by some direct instruction and by having our moms beat our backsides when we err.

We don't give young children options about how to read "Jack and the Bean Stalk" or any other story. They are not capable of multiple interpretations at a young age, so it wouldn't make any sense. We don't give them moral options -- we are all told how to act in certain situations.

That is what child rearing is all about.

Well, if we are speaking specifically about very young children, then no. But then, would you beat a toddler's backside if they misbehaved? Chances are they don't even understand what they did.

I see no need to indoctrinate, say, a normal 12 year old.


Edit: Also, I should note that there is a big difference between telling a kid not to touch a pan or else they will burn themselves, and telling them to just not do it. Or even worse, explicitly telling them not to question your authority.

There is also a huge difference between 'indoctrinating' them with regards to what they are allowed to do, and telling them what to believe. In the case of the hot pan, the parent won't mind if they believe that touching it is fine, just as long as they don't do it. This is simply a case of setting the rules, and is miles away from telling them what to believe in terms of political views and such.

How? You could let the kid get burned, but that is abuse. If you tell them they will get hurt, and expect them to accept your word, that's argument form authority. They won't understand a lecture on thermodynamics.

Argument from authority is argument from authority, even if the results gets one what one wants.

An argument from authority, as in the logical falacy, is a falacy because the person you make it to does not accept the authority. Saying that person X has an authority in a certain field is not an argument from authority if that person is indeed an authority in the field. (As long as you do not proceed to claim that this makes whatever that person says automatically true)

It is perfectly valid to point out a difference in experience between people.

I'm eager to learn what your definition of "indoctrination" is.

Teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Besides, most kids are not taught "believe this or else". It is much more insidious than that.

Watch "Jesus Camp" for great examples. Those kids were simply given information. Very one-sided and horribly biased information that is backed up with a terrible ideology (the devil is after the young and sin is everywhere ready to enslave you), but not "believe this or else".

There are even great examples of home-schooled kids who are given the sense that they are being taught the alternatives. One parent has a conversation with her child about global warming (evolution gets thrown in as well) in which she sort of brings up both sides -- at least the kid probably had the sense that both sides were brought up. But what actually happens in the coversation is that the parent says that global warming is a highly politicized issue (which is not a lie) with the implication that the scientific data demonstrating warming is politically motivated. And she asks the kid how he would feel if global warming denial were not allowed to be taught in school. From the small clip they never dealt with any actual data.

The bottom line is that we don't like the message that some parents give their kids. But if we are to live in a free society, then we are going to have to put up with sick people doing sick things and many others with whom we simply do not agree. That is the price of freedom.

 

[Sophronius]

Sure, I was just arguing against the notion that education = indoctrination.

The "or else" part was not meant to be taken literally. However, when parents teach children about the bible, that is essentially what they are teaching (believe in Jesus or go to hell)

I do not think we disagree on any point. Or do you believe that it is necessary to teach your children to think uncritically in order to educate them?

 

[Belz...]

If you are thinking of things like "don't touch hot pans", it is perfectly possible to teach that without indoctrination.

Really ?

From wikipedia:

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).[1] It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2]

Okay, so they distinguish it from education. However education requires indoctrination.

For instance, language is not something that is learned through critical thinking. Hell, most of what we learn we learn by imitating others.

 

[Sophronius]

No, language is not learned by critical thinking.

HOWEVER, that does not mean that it is indoctrination.

Indoctrination is something you do actively. As in, teaching someone not to think critically. This is not the same as not teaching someone to think critically.

I do not teach people to think critically all the time. Hell, most people on this planet I never tought to think critically. This does not mean I am indoctrinating them.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I see no need to indoctrinate, say, a normal 12 year old.

Need? No, there is no need, but that is still basic parenting 101 for a lot of folks.

My wife now teaches high school English, and there are many kids at that level who do not do well with competing possible interpretations. Smart kids, sure, they can handle many different types of instruction, but not everyone fits in that category.

With religious instruction you've also got to keep in mind that most of the actual "instruction" is done not by the parents at later ages but by the community. Kids go to summer camps, get minor instruction in Sunday schools, get reinformcement about religious beliefs from their friends and adults around them, etc.

It's still hard growing up secular in large swathes of middle America. There are many who view our family as weird because we do not attend church.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Indoctrination is something you do actively. As in, teaching someone not to think critically. This is not the same as not teaching someone to think critically.

OK, but that is not terribly common -- that definition of indoctination. Most folks are simply taught one way to think and they do not question it because it's easier that way. I don't think that active approach, inhibiting critical thinking is all that common.

Much more common is the pseudo-critical thiking approach, where people are given the sense that they think critically about some issue. Read letters to the editor in newpapers about creationism. Most of those letter writers think that they think critically about the issues and that evolution is so obviously wrong that it is those weirdos in Universisties who are indoctrinated.

 

[Piscivore]

An argument from authority, as in the logical falacy, is a falacy because the person you make it to does not accept the authority.

No, it is a fallacy because being in authority does not in itself make one correct.

Saying that person X has an authority in a certain field is not an argument from authority if that person is indeed an authority in the field.

Yes, it is. Because even "an authority in the field" can be mistaken, even in that field. That's why science uses peer review and repeatability.

Teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically.

That's what I thought. See, what Complexity has done in this thread is equivocate the normal usage of "indoctrination" as it usually applies to the religious education of children, which is either "2. to teach or inculcate. " or "3. to imbue with learning" and swap it with the more pejorative "1. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view". It's part of a pattern of appeals to emotion and consequence he posts to promote his own biased view of religion.

Young kids are simply not capable of the kind of critical thinking that would be necessary to let them "pick and choose" what to think right out of the box.

 

[The True Scotsman]

I have a slightly different take on the matter.

If you had taken reasonable precautions to ensure that the baby food that you were giving you baby was nourishing, safely manufactured, and safely distributed, then there is no blame; othewise, there is.

Parents teaching their children religion, or delegating religious instruction to others, have a responsibility to ensure that what is being stuffed into their kids' heads is good for them and safe for them.

I maintain that religious instruction never is, and parents who do it or who permit it are failing in their responsibility for due diligence in this matter.

True, but parents who are religious and indoctrinating their children think that they have good evidence for believing what they believe, even if they actually don't. They believe they have already done their research and come to the best answer. You can't exactly blame people for being too ignorant to know that they are ignorant.

 

[Sophronius]

OK, but that is not terribly common -- that definition of indoctination. Most folks are simply taught one way to think and they do not question it because it's easier that way. I don't think that active approach, inhibiting critical thinking is all that common.

I don't think that indoctrination is all that common either. When I think of "indoctrination", I think of things like Nazi Germany, soviet Russia, or dangerous cults. Not of a parent telling a child not to touch hot pans.

Much more common is the pseudo-critical thiking approach, where people are given the sense that they think critically about some issue. Read letters to the editor in newpapers about creationism. Most of those letter writers think that they think critically about the issues and that evolution is so obviously wrong that it is those weirdos in Universisties who are indoctrinated.

Right, but just because they are not thinking critically does not mean they have been indoctrinated.

No, it is a fallacy because being in authority does not in itself make one correct.

I specifically pointed this out in my post. Unless you claim or imply that someone's authority automatically makes them correct, it is not an argument from authority.

Yes, it is. Because even "an authority in the field" can be mistaken, even in that field. That's why science uses peer review and repeatability.

So wait, if I point out that it's a better idea to listen to Stephen Hawking when it comes to the subject of black holes than to a random dude on the street, I am commiting the fallacy of argument from authority?

This is not the case according to any definition I learned.

That's what I thought. See, what Complexity has done in this thread is equivocate the normal usage of "indoctrination" as it usually applies to the religious education of children, which is either "2. to teach or inculcate. " or "3. to imbue with learning" and swap it with the more pejorative "1. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view". It's part of a pattern of appeals to emotion and consequence he posts to promote his own biased view of religion.

If you define indoctrination as "imbue with learning", then how is it different from education? How this this definition useful at all?

It is surely not what most people take it to mean when it is used.

 

[The True Scotsman]

What about all the people who say that they will never vote for a president who does not profess to being christian? Even if politicians were forbidden from preaching religion they would still talk about it during private interviews and such, and people would vote based on that. So it's not an easy problem to solve. :/

I agree that improving education would be the most ideal solution, but I am kind of wary of suggesting that since "improve education" is such vague suggestion which everyone always puts forward as an instant solution to everything, and every time people try it it just seems to get worse.

I never said presidents should be forbidden from "preaching" religion (so long as it does not become a hate speech designed to infuriate a mob into violence). I believe that is the president's right as a citizen.

I agree that people might factor into their vote the religious faith of a politician, but that is the voter's right in a representative democracy. The choice of who a voter chooses is no one's decision except for the voter's and they should be able to hear any speech such a politician wants to make to persuade them to vote for him or her.

I agree that some of the "improvement" to education are not really improvements at all and that is why it is important to look at who is being listen to for ideas on improving education.

 

[Piscivore]

I don't think that indoctrination is all that common either. When I think of "indoctrination", I think of things like Nazi Germany, soviet Russia, or dangerous cults. Not of a parent telling a child not to touch hot pans.

And I suspect that common pejorative interpretation exactly why Complexity uses the word "indoctrination" instead of "education", when most of the religious instruction that goes on more closely resembles "a parent telling a child not to touch hot pans" than Soviet Russia. His entire argument is based on appeal to emotion.

I specifically pointed this out in my post. Unless you claim or imply that someone's authority automatically makes them correct, it is not an argument from authority.

Right, but that has nothing to do with whether the person hearing the appeal "accepts the authority" or not.

So wait, if I point out that it's a better idea to listen to Stephen Hawking when it comes to the subject of black holes than to a random dude on the street, I am commiting the fallacy of argument from authority?

No. Saying something Hawking claims about astrophysics is more likely correct than a random dude's claims is not a fallacy. It is not a test for truth, either, but it is a good indicator of where to start looking for truth. Saying something about astrophysics is correct because Hawking said it and he's an authority in the field of astrophysics is a fallacy.

If you define indoctrination as "imbue with learning", then how is it different from education?

Now you see why I asked Complexity exactly that question.

How this this definition useful at all?

It is useful because when one uses the word people understand what one means. How is it not useful?

It is surely not what most people take it to mean when it is used.

Seems like if these defintions made it into the dictionary that a good many people are using it this way.

 

[Sophronius]

No. Saying something Hawking claims about astrophysics is more likely correct than a random dude's claims is not a fallacy. It is not a test for truth, either, but it is a good indicator of where to start looking for truth. Saying something about astrophysics is correct because Hawking said it and he's an authority in the field of astrophysics is a fallacy.

Which is exactly what I said.

Now you see why I asked Complexity exactly that question.

As far as I can see, Complexity is using the word in the same way as I am and it is entirely justified. Telling children that they have to love jesus and believe everything in the bible or they will go to hell is indoctrination.

Mind you the parents won't see it as such, but that doesn't change the facts.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Telling children that they have to love jesus and believe everything in the bible or they will go to hell is indoctrination.

Mind you the parents won't see it as such, but that doesn't change the facts.

What facts? That isn't even what seems to happen in fundamentalists' homes. I don't know of any parents who teach their children religion that way.

 

[Robo Sapien]

My 2c on certain aspects of this debate:

Morality - it can be taught without resorting to faith. If you want to use fiction to get your point across, first disclaim that it is fiction.

The Constitution - it is not "unconstitutional" to resrict subject matter on which an elected official is allowed to speak of in public. He has an important job, paid for by tax dollars, and has no business speaking on matters outside of his station. If a politician believes in invisible men and lakes of fire, that is his problem. The first ammendment does not protect his right to abuse his position in order to sell a worldview.

Religious scientists - I constantly hear about "so-and-so is a Christian and works in X field of science with no conflict." So, who cares? Science is their job, religion is their personal life. Most people that I know tend to keep those separate.

Bad for children - taking up religion should be a choice, one reserved for adults to make for themselves ONLY. Let the kids make their own choice when they reach a legal adult age.

 

[Sophronius]

What facts? That isn't even what seems to happen in fundamentalists' homes. I don't know of any parents who teach their children religion that way.

Really? It very much surprises me to hear that.

From what I heard of many religious fundamentalists, the whole "believe it or you will go to hell" seemed to me to me to be core to their teachings.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Really? It very much surprises me to hear that.

From what I heard of many religious fundamentalists, the whole "believe it or you will go to hell" seemed to me to me to be core to their teachings.

Sure it is, but that isn't how they teach children. Don't confuse what they tell non-believing adults with how they teach children. Children are generally taught to love Jesus because he is their savior, then they are taught to beware Satan because he would like to ensnare them in sin so that they might go to Hell.

You don't tell a 5 year old "believe in Jesus or you'll go to Hell". They firmly believe that the teaching must begin early.

 

[Piscivore]

Which is exactly what I said.

You said:

An argument from authority, as in the logical falacy, is a falacy because the person you make it to does not accept the authority.

That's not why argument from authority is a fallacy.

As far as I can see, Complexity is using the word in the same way as I am and it is entirely justified. Telling children that they have to love jesus and believe everything in the bible or they will go to hell is indoctrination.

Mind you the parents won't see it as such, but that doesn't change the facts.

See, but it is not a "fact", it is two different opinions.

There is no objective evidence- at least, Complexity doesn't have any- that the "indoctrination" he speaks of meets any of the criteria for the more pejoritive interpretation. Contrariwise, the demonstrable fact that there are people that have recived this kind of education but are not bound to "a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view" indicates that this is not the correct view of the process in all cases.

Try this, rewrite your sentence, "Telling children that they have to love jesus and believe everything in the bible or they will go to hell is indoctrination" without using the word "indoctrination", and see what you come up with.

Simple observable facts indicate that the most accurate version is "Telling children that they have to love jesus and believe everything in the bible or they will go to hell is religious education." To believe something more sinister than that is to postulate that religious parents do not want what is best for their children, are willingly and deliberately harming their own children for some enslaving purpose that trumps their own love, care and concern for their progeny- pretty much the same lies told about the Soviet Union back in the day, in fact. I'm fairly certain that is what Complexity believes. Is that what you are saying?

 

[westprog]

Anti religious? yeah too right. When you were belted at school on a regular basis by a reverend of the church of scotland you might feel the same.

I might. But basing a plan for society on abusive behaviour by one person is obviously foolish. Why not ban Scotsmen from teaching posts?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I might. But basing a plan for society on abusive behaviour by one person is obviously foolish. Why not ban Scotsmen from teaching posts?

Dude, that's easy. We can't find any true Scotsmen.