Piscivore: To be honest this conversation isn't going anywhere, and it's kind of tiring.
I'll say it once again, I do not believe that parents who teach their children are malevolent in their intent. Again, the fact that they think they are doing the right thing does not prevent it from being indoctrination.
We already did this. You seem to be stuck on the idea that I am arguing from some overly emotional point of view, and that the word 'indoctrination' is an appeal to emotion that makes argumentation difficult.
For me at least, this is not the case.
What I am saying is that in the interest of clarity, since we seem to have different conceptions of what connotations the word "indoctrinate" carries, is that we stop using it and substitute another word or phrase that more clearly conveys our meaning instead.
You cannot back up a definition with statistics. Either something is called child abuse or you call it something else. It is a matter of pure subjectivity.
Yes, you can in fact. There are statistics on child abuse where it is well defined. "Hitting a kid" is defined as one form of child abuse, and we can look at statistics on how many kids are hit. Where "emotional abuse" is defined, information exists regarding which children suffer the symptoms outlined in that defintion. Contrariwise "Religious instruction = Child abuse" is not well defined. We don't know beyond some vague assertions what sort of harm these kids are meant to be suffering from from having religious education.
Further, "statistics" are not the only kind of evidence.
And again, stop insinuating that I am being emotional about this.
What then are you basing your judgements on, if not "hard evidence" or emotion?
I thought this was clear. If you tell children that they will go to hell for not believing in Jesus, this causes them to accept things based on faith and fear of reprisal rather than reason.
That's not at all clear. That the two sometimes coincide does not mean the religious education causes the lack of CT skills. In fact, it is equally likely (moreso, IMO) that the reverse is true- that lack of critical thinking skill leads one to accept anything they are told on faith, regardless of its content. Indeed, since we have seen that people who have received religious education but also have even remedial CT skill reject the teachings, and we also see people without CT skills falling victim to other non-religious erroneous information (psychics, homeopathy) that lack of CT skill, not religious education, is the real problem.
Completely wrong. The people on this forum are NOT representative of the average population, much less the average population of people who grew up with religious fundamentalists as parents.
That's not important. This isn't a question of "most" or "average". IF religious education objectively causes a lack of critical thinking skills, we should expect to see low or absent critical thinking skill in
anyone who has recieved religious education. That's not what happens.
Unless you are still hung up on arguing against the strawman that EVERYONE who had a religious upbringing is automatically mentally crippled for life and incapable of reason.
That's not a strawman, that's the concept of harm that was offered in explanation of the OP:
In terms of the serious damage and loss of potential that religious indoctrination can do, the increase in susceptibility to other woo, the resistance to reason and other protective memes, and the difficulty in eradicating it, I think it is a valid comparison.
As to the parent's intent, it doesn't really matter - the child is severely damaged and intellectually wounded all the same.
"Why do you insist on believing wrong things?"
That's not what I said. My question was conditional. The "if" changes the meaning. Also, I did not use the word "insist" or "wrong". I asked
what is the benefit of believing things IF one has no evidence for them.
An equivilent question is "Why have faith"?
"Have you stopped kicking your dog yet?"
That's not the same question as "If you are kicking your dog, why haven't you stopped?
I think it's called the "loaded question falacy".
If it were a loaded question, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't.
