Jamesican Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 I just had a thought I would like to share: Is it morally wrong to indoctrinate a child into a religion without teaching them about the concept of hell? I realize many people are going to immediately respond with a yes, but hear me out. I myself was raised as a Catholic, and recently I became an atheist. My parents divorced when I was very young, and they had very different religious beliefs. My father was more of a conservative Catholic and my mother was a less strict Christian, not aligning herself with any denomination. They decided to send me to a to Catholic school, where I was also taught very strict Catholic teachings, but in an "open-minded" atmosphere. To summarize, I received three different religious viewpoints, often conflicting with one another. When it came to the concept of hell, my mother told me that God didn't care what religion I am, he only cares about how moral I am. My father, however, told me that only Christians could be saved from hell, and people of any other religion would reach purgatory at best. I was also told by my father that hell was a place of horrible pain and suffering, your classic "fire and brimstone" tale. My religion teacher told me that God really only cared about how moral someone is, similar to what my mother said, However, she also told me that only Catholics could truly be 100% moral human beings. As you can see, I was told many different things about hell as a child. This was very hard to overcome as I lost my faith. However, if you take out that part of my religious education, I see nothing wrong with my mother indoctrinating me into a faith. She didn't use scare tactics, she didn't force me to believe anything. She merely gave me something to believe in and let me figure it out on my own. Thanks for reading, and please leave some feedback and your thoughts!
J. D. Stembal Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 At the very least, religion requires transmission of the belief in a fictional omnipotent being upon the child, which erodes rationality. The parent is lying to the child about the world, which never helps in the long run. There may be some short term benefits to religion like chastity or avoidance of illicit drugs, but the love of God is a drug, in itself, anesthetizing the user from feeling the joy of self-determination. The motivation to do good works comes not from within, as it would in a virtuous person, but without, due to the influence of a vengeful deity who does not exist, and the congregation or community that blindly follows Him. This is the slow poison of religion. 1
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 But she didn't give you something to believe in and let you figure it out on your own. She told you it was true. She helped prop up beliefs like hell.
Matthew Ed Moran Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 It is not a virtuous thing to do. Since religions are not evidence based, they must rely on other tactics to sway you. So since your mother and father could not explain religion to you in a factual manner, they must rely on their "inherent" authority as parents, or on the charisma of their fictional stories, or on scaring the shit out of you. I'm sure there are many varieties of tactics to get kids to believe, but the main point is that threats of hell are just one of many dishonest tactics used to get children to believe things without relying on empiricism and internal consistency. Indoctrination is not the same thing as a socratic discussion for a reason. One is aiming at compliance and subordination, while the other is aiming at the uncovering of truth.
Thomasio Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 I believe the answer comes naturally even to religious people, if you slightly alter the question. Simply ask anyone, whether he believes it's a good idea to indoctrinate children with a religion other than his own one (if he has any). Ask Christian people, whether they believe it's a good idea to indoctrinate children with Islam and ask Islamic people, whether they believe it's a good idea to indoctrinate children with Christianity. You'll get answers where near 100% will say "no". Once you got that consensus, you ask, if not indoctrinating your own children with your religion (if you have any) also ment no other religion would indoctrinate their children with their religion, and given the fact that ANY religion is shared only by a minority of all people on earth would you think it's better not to indoctrinate children at all? I believe this would give such a huge majority consensus, you could make it a law without causing much protest in the population. Only problem is, while everybody believes other religions will not stop indoctrinating their children, everybody keeps doing it to their own children for the reason the others do it as well. 1
notjam Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 It is not a virtuous thing to do. Since religions are not evidence based, they must rely on other tactics to sway you. So since your mother and father could not explain religion to you in a factual manner, they must rely on their "inherent" authority as parents, or on the charisma of their fictional stories, or on scaring the shit out of you. I'm sure there are many varieties of tactics to get kids to believe, but the main point is that threats of hell are just one of many dishonest tactics used to get children to believe things without relying on empiricism and internal consistency. Indoctrination is not the same thing as a socratic discussion for a reason. One is aiming at compliance and subordination, while the other is aiming at the uncovering of truth. the church of evolution is the faith based religion that something can come from nothing aka the big bang, life can come from non life aka abiogenesis, one kind of animal can brith a different kind of animal aka macro evolution. 4
neeeel Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 one kind of animal can brith a different kind of animal aka macro evolution. Evolution says nothing like this.
notjam Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Evolution says nothing like this. if you kiss a frog and it turns into a prince, that is a fairy tale... but give it "MILLIONS OF YEARS" and it's science. I just had a thought I would like to share: Is it morally wrong to indoctrinate a child into a religion without teaching them about the concept of hell? I realize many people are going to immediately respond with a yes, but hear me out. I myself was raised as a Catholic, and recently I became an atheist. My parents divorced when I was very young, and they had very different religious beliefs. My father was more of a conservative Catholic and my mother was a less strict Christian, not aligning herself with any denomination. They decided to send me to a to Catholic school, where I was also taught very strict Catholic teachings, but in an "open-minded" atmosphere. To summarize, I received three different religious viewpoints, often conflicting with one another. When it came to the concept of hell, my mother told me that God didn't care what religion I am, he only cares about how moral I am. My father, however, told me that only Christians could be saved from hell, and people of any other religion would reach purgatory at best. I was also told by my father that hell was a place of horrible pain and suffering, your classic "fire and brimstone" tale. My religion teacher told me that God really only cared about how moral someone is, similar to what my mother said, However, she also told me that only Catholics could truly be 100% moral human beings. As you can see, I was told many different things about hell as a child. This was very hard to overcome as I lost my faith. However, if you take out that part of my religious education, I see nothing wrong with my mother indoctrinating me into a faith. She didn't use scare tactics, she didn't force me to believe anything. She merely gave me something to believe in and let me figure it out on my own. Thanks for reading, and please leave some feedback and your thoughts! what about indoctrinating them into a the religion of evolution? the big bang = someting from nothing / spontaneous generation abiogenesis = life from non life / spontaneous generation macro evolution = one kind of animal can turn into a different kind of animal .. if you kiss a frog and it turns into a prince, that is a fairy tale. but give it "MILLIONS OF YEARS" and it's science. 3
neeeel Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 if you kiss a frog and it turns into a prince, that is a fairy tale... but give it "MILLIONS OF YEARS" and it's science. This still doesnt address my point, its just a glib answer that you can reel out to make it look like you have a counter argument. Evolution says nothing about kissing frogs.
Carl Green Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Kissing frogs can be fun. As for the OP, anything that is a belief should be talked about with a child, very clearly, as a belief. And anything that is evidence based should be talked about, very clearly, as evidence based. If I'm ever a parent, I will posit very little unsolicited information and focus more on answering any questions they might have. Instead of actively trying to get them to believe one thing or another. 1
notjam Posted July 4, 2015 Posted July 4, 2015 This still doesnt address my point, its just a glib answer that you can reel out to make it look like you have a counter argument. Evolution says nothing about kissing frogs. micro evolution is science macro evolution is religion "millions of years" is not a "magical force" except in the the church of evolution I just had a thought I would like to share: Is it morally wrong to indoctrinate a child into a religion without teaching them about the concept of hell? I realize many people are going to immediately respond with a yes, but hear me out. I myself was raised as a Catholic, and recently I became an atheist. My parents divorced when I was very young, and they had very different religious beliefs. My father was more of a conservative Catholic and my mother was a less strict Christian, not aligning herself with any denomination. They decided to send me to a to Catholic school, where I was also taught very strict Catholic teachings, but in an "open-minded" atmosphere. To summarize, I received three different religious viewpoints, often conflicting with one another. When it came to the concept of hell, my mother told me that God didn't care what religion I am, he only cares about how moral I am. My father, however, told me that only Christians could be saved from hell, and people of any other religion would reach purgatory at best. I was also told by my father that hell was a place of horrible pain and suffering, your classic "fire and brimstone" tale. My religion teacher told me that God really only cared about how moral someone is, similar to what my mother said, However, she also told me that only Catholics could truly be 100% moral human beings. As you can see, I was told many different things about hell as a child. This was very hard to overcome as I lost my faith. However, if you take out that part of my religious education, I see nothing wrong with my mother indoctrinating me into a faith. She didn't use scare tactics, she didn't force me to believe anything. She merely gave me something to believe in and let me figure it out on my own. Thanks for reading, and please leave some feedback and your thoughts! in a relativistic world view of the atheist/evolutionist there is no objective morality. therefore morality does not exist : Dr Ravi Zacharias 2
notjam Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 This still doesnt address my point, its just a glib answer that you can reel out to make it look like you have a counter argument. Evolution says nothing about kissing frogs. ok so you don't have to kiss the frog for it to turn into a human ... just give it "millions of years" aka time = fairy dust. http://www.livescience.com/6379-frogs-surprisingly-humans-genetically-speaking.html
neeeel Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 ok so you don't have to kiss the frog for it to turn into a human ... just give it "millions of years" aka time = fairy dust. Ye, this is still nothing like what evolution says happens. You are just making stuff up now
powder Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 If you could take control of an adults mind by some means, and against their consent, program them to believe certain things knowing it would affect their actions and decision making, would that be OK?
GA_Freeman Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 To me the word indoctrination is implies that no consent exists in the relationship and in this case, yes, it is wrong. I am a secular home educator based on voluntarism, freedom and love. However, I just went to a Georgia Homeschooling convention and I found some really good things and some scary shit. Here is some of the scary stuff: https://homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/why-i-cannot-support-frontline-family-ministries-abuse-prevention-week-part-seven-conclusion/ There is a class of religious homeschoolers that are hell bent on indoctrinating their children and they spout discipline, demonology, and many other frightening and abusive tenets. If this is the indoctrination you are talking about, then yes, it is wrong. So, I just don't like the word indoctrination. My experience as a parent is that you cannot help but present your own bias but you can try and point that out to your children and let them decide. if you have strong arguments, why would you need indoctrination?
Djoop Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 I'm inclined to say that it's always immoral to try and indoctrinate someone, especially a child. I once asked why grandfather why he didn't go to church. I was told this story that some years ago, he asked the Church permission to eat a steak on friday for his sisters birthday. She had a chronical illness and lived with my grandparents. They denied this request (catholics are supposed to eat fish on friday) and my grandfather almost choked on a fishbone on his sisters birthday. They had to surgically remove the bone from his throat. He saw this as a divine intervention. There was no problem with his faith, there was a problem with the Church. I'm still not sure if he really based his decision on the fishbone incident alone. But either I am to accept that one of the most decent and moral human beings I've ever met didn't make it to heaven, or that some RC teachings are heavily flawed. To me, the whole concept of heaven requires my grandfather to be there, otherwise it could make as little sense as his explanation for leaving the Church made that day.
brucethecollie Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 I recommend the documentary called Jesus Camp. It shines light on the disservice done to children indoctrinated with religion. 1
Jer Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 the church of evolution is the faith based religion that something can come from nothing aka the big bang, life can come from non life aka abiogenesis, one kind of animal can brith a different kind of animal aka macro evolution. You have fundamental misunderstandings of the science you are referencing. talkorigins.org has the corrections to these very common creationist claims As for the OP, I think indoctrination is deceptive by definition and therefore wrong.
Mike C. Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Read Real Time Relationships and listen to podcast 70. I am so convinced that indoctrination is wrong (about anything, especially religion and politics) that my wife might divorce me for my strong stance... (we don't have kids, yet)
AncapFTW Posted August 27, 2015 Posted August 27, 2015 I recommend the documentary called Jesus Camp. It shines light on the disservice done to children indoctrinated with religion. I watched the commentary "thebiblereloaded" did on it. Not as scary as "kidnapped for Jesus" but still really bad.
David Ottinger Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 Any sort of indoctrination is immoral because it is a form of epistemological conquest. Like punitive parenting, indoctrination is first viewed as normal and acceptable because the dilemma is so wide spread. However, the reality is that these sort of child rearing practices, including indoctrination, hinder brain development. Mind you, 'hinder' does not mean 'prevent'. In the case of indoctrination, the conclusions of the doctrines set a framework for the child's contemplation. They infect the child's paradigm insofar as to cause the child to intellectually chase red herrings. He/She attempts to perceive the concepts in order to gain an understanding of governing principles. However, the false abstraction(s) is a sham, and yet the child is treating the narrative like it's real. It would be no different than looking at your own reflection and thinking that's really you rather than a reflection. Simply put, such projections lead to a distortion of the self, and eventually leading to delusion. And, more importantly, if you do not know yourself, how can you be in possession of yourself? In this case, your own mind. So, if you're not in possession of yourself because you allow the conclusions of others to dictate your own perception of reality, how can you ever know deception when it's right in front of your very eyes? All property rights begin with possession. If these false narratives seize your imagination, how can you ever truly contemplate the reality in front of you? How can you ever assert yourself if you have yet to familiarize yourself with your own perception of reality? In other words, what we believe matters because what we believe influences our thought process which in turn affects how we respond to stimuli in our environment. At least, that's my 2 cents on it. 1
dsayers Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Is it morally wrong to indoctrinate a child into a religion without teaching them about the concept of hell? Yes. The decision to have a child is voluntarily creating the positive obligation to nurture and protect a child until such a time as they are able to do so for themselves. The ability to differentiate fact from fiction is a vital part of our survival. To present fantasy as fact runs counter to prepping a child to be able to one day survive on their own by breeding resistance to rational analysis. "How do you know?" is one of the most important questions we could ever ask of anything and faith is predicated on disposing of this question. A "belief" is a temporary state and only of use when it sparks a testing of the theory for the purpose of discarding it or promoting it to true. 2
JaydenS Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 I thinks it's 100% wrong. They have to follow a belief that isn't theirs. I've had to happen to me and I'm trapped inside a world that i can't escape from. If your whole family is religous than they don't see the problem and don't try and help you. Simple as that.
Recommended Posts