Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Indoctrination
#1

Indoctrination
I hear this charge of indoctrination all the time here. First a definition.

Quote:Indoctrination is the process of inculcating a person with ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or professional methodologies (see doctrine).[1] Humans are a social animal inescapably shaped by cultural context, and thus some degree of indoctrination is implicit in the parent–child relationship, and has an essential function in forming stable communities of shared values.

The precise boundary between education and indoctrination often lies in the eye of the beholder. Some distinguish indoctrination from education on the basis that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2] As such the term may be used pejoratively or as a buzz word, often in the context of political opinions, theology, religious dogma or anti-religious convictions. 

From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination>



A few points:

1. According to the strict definition, teaching any ideas, attitudes cognitive strategies, or methodologies is indoctrination. This would include any values, ethics, navigating interpersonal relationships, priorities, self esteem, etc. etc. That would absolutely include any worldview--including an atheistic/naturalistic worldview--because there is no such thing as a worldview consisting of only empirical knowledge.

2. Of course what most of you REALLY claim is that Christians teach their children these things and to accept them uncritically. While I am sure that may happen in an overt way in some households, the nature of the Christian belief does not put it in the same category as other beliefs about navigating the world (see my partial list above).

3. If your worldview includes the firm belief that Christianity is correct, that is clearly not held in your mind as an opinion that can coexist with the opposite. You believe in the reality that, in a nutshell, humans have a serious problem and there is only one solution. The very nature of Christianity makes it exclusive.

4. If we have warrant to believe these things are true and we love our children, it follows that we would teach them that these things are true. Conversely, if we love our children and were not to teach them these things, that is proof that we don't really believe Christianity is true.

5. Whatever response the atheist gives at this point will probably be something akin to characterization the Christian belief as opinion and failing to point that out to their children. But you can't logically argue someone's warranted belief is an opinion without proving the warrant wrong. None of you can do that however without some version of a question begging argument.

6. I have even heard here that indoctrination is required for Christian belief. That is not true by the definition of the word. 'Inculcating' requires the notion of persistence over time. A complete defeater of that idea are the millions of adult converts alive today who becomes a Christian after an explanation of the Gospel.

7. The fact remains, the Christian's belief is warranted based on natural and revealed theology, the events of the first century, and personal experience (of themselves and others).

As always, I only argue from a protestant perspective.
The following 1 user Likes SteveII's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#2

Indoctrination
(03-08-2020, 04:18 PM)SteveII Wrote: I hear this charge of indoctrination all the time here. First a definition.

Quote:The precise boundary between education and indoctrination often lies in the eye of the beholder. Some distinguish indoctrination from education on the basis that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2] As such the term may be used pejoratively or as a buzz word, often in the context of political opinions, theology, religious dogma or anti-religious convictions. 

From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination>
....

7. The fact remains, the Christian's belief is warranted based on natural and revealed theology, the events of the first century, and personal experience (of themselves and others).

As always, I only argue from a protestant perspective.

Education is about facts.  Indoctrination in the not acceptable sense is when one ignores facts and abandons logic to believe in nonsense.

I have given good reasons to believe that the basic foundations of Christian theology are logically self contradictory, incoherent, and thus wrong.  I have not seen any real attempts to demonstrate where i am wrong.  No real theodicies et al.

Let us start with revelation.  Bible, Quran, book of Mormon et al.  If Christianity is a true revelation, the Quran and BoM et al are not.  How does one establish that fact?  If mankind is probe to making false revelations, some of which last centuries and have billions of followers, all supposed revelations are suspect.  can it be that all supposed revelations are false?  Yes.

So supposed revelations cannot be used to establish facts about God or God's attributes or nature.  Nor can these things, being mere hypotheticals, be used to establish any knowledge about God or related subjects.  Revelation cannot be trusted without hard evidence to prove them true.

The many incoerencies and problems we can find in major supposed revelations like omniscience and free will, the Problem of Evil et al, make the Christian revelation rather disproven.

What are the foundations for your theological system?
Plunk your magic twanger Froggy!   Boinnnnnng!  Hiya Kids!  Hiya! Hiya!



The following 4 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post:
  • Alan V, brunumb, Joods, Kim
Reply
#3

Indoctrination
LOL, he wants us to believe his shit makes sense.
  [Image: pirates.gif] Dog  
The following 1 user Likes Gawdzilla Sama's post:
  • TheGentlemanBastard
Reply
#4

Indoctrination
Google: indoctrination
1) the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
"I would never subject children to religious indoctrination"
2) ARCHAIC: teaching; instruction.

If some Christians do not use indoctrination techniques to condition their children into parroting certain beliefs, great. Lots of Christians still do. They use threats of hell and promises of heaven, social pressures, loaded terminology, and limited or cherry-picked information all the time.

So let's look at your points again:
1) This is false, because it doesn't take into account the whole question of using what really boil down to indoctrination techniques.
2) Bingo! And I must say again, many Christians do in fact use indoctrination techniques to promote uncritical acceptance.
3) The problem isn't teaching one's worldview, it's teaching one's worldview without critically assessing the alternatives in the process.
4) Same as 3.
5) Christian beliefs are opinions. And we have proven they are opinions again and again. So we don't have to prove them wrong per se, only that they should not be taught in exclusion of other information. Christians are the ones begging the questions. Refer to these arguments.
6) I will leave it to anti-theists to argue about this point.
7) Christian belief may seem warranted to some believers, but it can never realistically seem warranted to the indoctrinated because they have been denied that kind of education.
The following 5 users Like Alan V's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, julep, brunumb, brewerb, Tres Leches
Reply
#5

Indoctrination
The acceptance or rejection of questioning premises is what differentiates education from indoctrination.

My religious upbringing was most certainly indoctrination.
The following 6 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Alan V, skyking, isbelldl, Aegon, Tres Leches, Kim
Reply
#6

Indoctrination
Quote: “Give me the child for the first seven years and I'll give you the man.”

― Jesuit maxim


Bullshit, Stevie.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • skyking
Reply
#7

Indoctrination
(03-08-2020, 04:18 PM)SteveII Wrote: 3. If your worldview includes the firm belief that Christianity is correct, that is clearly not held in your mind as an opinion that can coexist with the opposite. You believe in the reality that, in a nutshell, humans have a serious problem and there is only one solution. The very nature of Christianity makes it exclusive.

4. If we have warrant to believe these things are true and we love our children, it follows that we would teach them that these things are true. Conversely, if we love our children and were not to teach them these things, that is proof that we don't really believe Christianity is true.

Funny how out of this side of your mouth you argue that holding the Christian worldview and ideology is incompatible with any other, that it is exclusive as you say, and that to not act upon that information would make one not Christian, yet out of the other side of your mouth you claim that Christian persecution of Pagans is a consequence of individual Christians' choices, and not a consequence of the ideology or worldview. You are so full of shit.
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
Reply
#8

Indoctrination
SteveII, if you had grown up in the Middle East, you'd be the perfect little Muslim.  Chuckle
Reply
#9

Indoctrination
exactly this! ^
The following 2 users Like skyking's post:
  • Bucky Ball, Gawdzilla Sama
Reply
#10

Indoctrination
"Religion is very important to people in Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, Latin America."
"Weekly worship attendance is most common where life is shortest".
"Religious commitment is lower in countries with higher education, higher GDP and greater income equality".
"In countries where people attend school longer, they go to church less often".
https://www.pewforum.org/2018/06/13/why-...d-country/

Call whatever you want, THE BEST predictor of which religion anyone will buy into, and follow, is birth culture.
I call that indoctrination.

That bothers Stevie.
I don't give a shit what bothers presuppositionalists.

Quote:A complete defeater of that idea are the millions of adult converts alive today who becomes a Christian after an explanation of the Gospel.
The fact remains, the Christian's belief is warranted based on natural and revealed theology, the events of the first century, and personal experience (of themselves and others).
As always, I only argue from a protestant perspective.

All totally false.
The argument from personal (anecdotal) experience has been debunked far too often to even address it. There are also many more millions of converts to Islam and other religions.
Fail. LOL There are also millions if not billions of non-fundy Christians who have had the gospel explained to them, and DID NOT convert. There are far more of them, than there are converts,
so guess what ? That's a complete fail as an argument. There are also millions of "liberal" Christians who do not buy into Stevie's (WLC) version of Christianity. Certainly the leading contemporary (European) Christian scholars and theologians do not.
https://www.jampole.com/blog/the-argumen...st-friend/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/argument-...fdf61978c2
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ar...afd84880e7
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

The Christian beliefs are certainly not "warranted" by anything, which is why St. Paul told them (and in Protestant Theology AND Catholic Theology) faith is a gift, (of the Spirit)
It is a strange business and a result of the bizarre American Fundamentalism that these people *need* to tell them selves that their belief is "reasonable". LOL
"For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, it is not from works, so that no-one may boast. For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, so that in them we might walk. (Eph 2:8-10)
Fail again.

There is no final agreement of philosophers and scholars that "natural theology" points to Stevie's gods, any god, or other gods. It's totally non-specific. This here, is a dishonest attempt, and Stevie knows that. There is no "revealed theology". Most of the people who follow the OT, (the Jews), do not even recognize Stevie's gods.
It was all cooked up by believers for believers, AND the argument is totally circular, (which Stevie should have recognized).
Fail again.

The fact is obvious, Stevie is yet another preacher here, suffering from Dunning-Krueger, who clearly watches WLC videos, but never actually studied theology or the Bible, or anything else relevant.
He's DESPERATELY trying to tell himself that the Christian bullshit has merit. Guess what ? It doesn't.

The fact is, Jesus (if he existed), was a Jew, remained a Jew. His followers were Jews.
He never said anything about most of Christian theology.
They hijacked and CHANGED the meaning of most of Hebrew culture, in cooking up Christianity.
There is nothing reasonable about that at all.

One other thing, ... there is no such thing as the "Protestant" perspective.
They teach FAR DIFFERENT views at Baptist colleges and seminaries than they do for example at Tubingen University, (Hans Kung)
or French Universities, or liberal (Anglican) colleges and universities. There is today, and probably never was any common orthodoxy ... it's why there are SO many sects of Christianity, in which believers think the differences are important enough to breakaway, and form their own communities.
For example, the issue of gay priests and SS marriage has totally split in half, the Protestant Episcopal Church around the world.
Basically Stevie's convert argument is the ad populum falacy. Catholicism has thousands of converts every year, and each protestant denomination has a unique view of many IMPORTANT things, (important enough to not unite with other communities). https://blog.cph.org/read/3-factors-that...ominations

The assumption (false generalization) in the OP, (that all teaching is the same) is the fallacy of defective induction, and the fallacy of generalizing a false premise.
Stevie knows this, but chooses to pretend it's not indoctrination.
Presenting age-appropriate information to children, is FAR different that having trusted adults telling them religious falsehoods,
when they are totally unprepared to push back, or evaluate what and why they are being told the shit they are.
It's actually child abuse.
Reply
#11

Indoctrination
(03-08-2020, 04:18 PM)SteveII Wrote: atheistic/naturalistic worldview
There is no such thing. Do you actually read what others write? Obviously not.

(03-08-2020, 04:18 PM)SteveII Wrote: natural and revealed theology,
Bull.shit

(03-08-2020, 04:18 PM)SteveII Wrote: personal experience (of themselves and others).
Personal experience? What a shockingly low level for believing in the supsernatural/magic.
cetero censeo religionem esse delendam 
The following 6 users Like Deesse23's post:
  • skyking, Bucky Ball, TheGentlemanBastard, Szuchow, Chas, Kim
Reply
#12

Indoctrination
(03-08-2020, 04:18 PM)SteveII Wrote: I hear this charge of indoctrination all the time here. First a definition.

Quote:Indoctrination is the process of inculcating a person with ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or professional methodologies (see doctrine).[1] Humans are a social animal inescapably shaped by cultural context, and thus some degree of indoctrination is implicit in the parent–child relationship, and has an essential function in forming stable communities of shared values.

The precise boundary between education and indoctrination often lies in the eye of the beholder. Some distinguish indoctrination from education on the basis that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2] As such the term may be used pejoratively or as a buzz word, often in the context of political opinions, theology, religious dogma or anti-religious convictions. 

From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination>



A few points:

1. According to the strict definition, teaching any ideas, attitudes cognitive strategies, or methodologies is indoctrination. This would include any values, ethics, navigating interpersonal relationships, priorities, self esteem, etc. etc. That would absolutely include any worldview--including an atheistic/naturalistic worldview--because there is no such thing as a worldview consisting of only empirical knowledge.

2. Of course what most of you REALLY claim is that Christians teach their children these things and to accept them uncritically. While I am sure that may happen in an overt way in some households, the nature of the Christian belief does not put it in the same category as other beliefs about navigating the world (see my partial list above).

3. If your worldview includes the firm belief that Christianity is correct, that is clearly not held in your mind as an opinion that can coexist with the opposite. You believe in the reality that, in a nutshell, humans have a serious problem and there is only one solution. The very nature of Christianity makes it exclusive.

4. If we have warrant to believe these things are true and we love our children, it follows that we would teach them that these things are true. Conversely, if we love our children and were not to teach them these things, that is proof that we don't really believe Christianity is true.

5. Whatever response the atheist gives at this point will probably be something akin to characterization the Christian belief as opinion and failing to point that out to their children. But you can't logically argue someone's warranted belief is an opinion without proving the warrant wrong. None of you can do that however without some version of a question begging argument.

6. I have even heard here that indoctrination is required for Christian belief. That is not true by the definition of the word. 'Inculcating' requires the notion of persistence over time. A complete defeater of that idea are the millions of adult converts alive today who becomes a Christian after an explanation of the Gospel.

7. The fact remains, the Christian's belief is warranted based on natural and revealed theology, the events of the first century, and personal experience (of themselves and others).

As always, I only argue from a protestant perspective.

Religions use indoctrination because they can't rely on facts.
                                                         T4618
The following 2 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • Tres Leches, Kim
Reply
#13

Indoctrination
(03-08-2020, 04:18 PM)SteveII Wrote: 1. According to the strict definition, teaching any ideas, attitudes cognitive strategies, or methodologies is indoctrination. This would include any values, ethics, navigating interpersonal relationships, priorities, self esteem, etc. etc.

There is a not so subtle difference between the critical examination of factual material as presented by modern education and the required unthinking acceptance of the allegory, myth, bigotry, and flat out bullshit that constitutes your average church service.

If you can't spot this difference it is likely because you have been indoctrinated to believe that religion is fact. I hope that this clears up your misunderstanding.
The following 5 users Like Paleophyte's post:
  • Szuchow, Alan V, brunumb, Deesse23, Fireball
Reply
#14

Indoctrination
From atheist author, and secular humanist J D Brucker‘s  book Reason Over Faith: Antitheism & the Case Against Religion...

Brucker explains why childhood indoctrination is one of the most powerful weapons in religion’s arsenal:  
To state it plainly, indoctrination means to heavily influence someone into believing a particular set of ideas,
whether they are political, cultural, or religious. Most often, this is done when the individual is particularly
young, when he or she lack the ability to reasonably conclude whether or not a statement is true. Those
who've experienced heavy indoctrination may be unaware of competing theories, alternate hypotheses, or
even whether the ideas hold any merit at all; those ideas are simply believed and held dear for an unknown
period of time.

Children are typically open to believing almost anything told to them, without question. During early childhood,
they're most receptive, which is why education is most important during this period of time. Children are generally
open and willing to accept new information without inhibition. The age of reason is typically considered to be
around 6 or 7 years, when the child begins to have the capabilities to weigh options and reach conclusions.
This is when we must be vigilant when trying to help them develop the how to think approach rather than
solely what to think. The Socratic Method effectively helps the child develop the critical thinking skills
needed to maintain a healthy thought process. This period of time hasn’t gone unnoticed by those who seek
to mould the mind of the young for religious reasons.

Most Christian church organizations heavily involve children in many different events. Sunday school, summer
bible camps, wilderness retreats, catechism or confirmation, plays, and musical ceremonies top that particular list.
These organisations are quite aware how impressionable children are and it appears as though they’re
taking full advantage of that. Some evangelical Christian organisations fully and publicly acknowledge what they’re doing.

—It's actually quite funny (or sad?) that SteveII who claims there's no such thing as religious indoctrination is a
classic example of the proof that there is.    Oh, the irony.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 3 users Like SYZ's post:
  • Alan V, brunumb, Tres Leches
Reply
#15

Indoctrination
(03-08-2020, 04:59 PM)Alan V Wrote: Google: indoctrination
1) the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
"I would never subject children to religious indoctrination"
2) ARCHAIC: teaching; instruction.

If some Christians do not use indoctrination techniques to condition their children into parroting certain beliefs, great.  Lots of Christians still do.  They use threats of hell and promises of heaven, social pressures, loaded terminology, and limited or cherry-picked information all the time.

So let's look at your points again:
1) This is false, because it doesn't take into account the whole question of using what really boil down to indoctrination techniques.
2) Bingo!  And I must say again, many Christians do in fact use indoctrination techniques to promote uncritical acceptance.
3) The problem isn't teaching one's worldview, it's teaching one's worldview without critically assessing the alternatives in the process.
4) Same as 3.

3/4. You are asserting that the worldview was not critically assessed. How would you know that apart from a question begging argument (Christians are wrong, therefore we know they have not critically assessed their worldview)?

Quote:5) Christian beliefs are opinions.  And we have proven they are opinions again and again.  So we don't have to prove them wrong per se, only that they should not be taught in exclusion of other information.  Christians are the ones begging the questions.  Refer to these arguments.

You are making an assumption that information pertaining to the truth of the matter was excluded. We have classes at our church for the teenagers teaching them the objections to Christianity and then the responses? Can you characterize that as "a process of teaching...to accept a set of beliefs uncritically?"

Back to my point, if I love my children, it simply is not rational that I teach them that other people's opinions on the matter are valid when they are demonstratively invalid. That is all your treatise is--opinions based on inferences from more opinions, bias, strawmen, and question-begging arguments. There are literally no successful arguments for naturalism or atheism anywhere. If you think there are, you don't actually understand them.

Quote:6) I will leave it to anti-theists to argue about this point.
7) Christian belief may seem warranted to some believers, but it can never realistically seem warranted to the indoctrinated because they have been denied that kind of education.

I'm not sure that makes sense. A belief cannot be warranted unless a person has been presented with conflicting opinions? So an adult converting to Christianity from atheism does then have warrant for their belief? How about people like Francis Collins?
Reply
#16

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 03:19 AM)SteveII Wrote: 3/4.  You are asserting that the worldview was not critically assessed. How would you know that apart from a question begging argument (Christians are wrong, therefore we know they have not critically assessed their worldview)?

You have got to be kidding. 
Pew reported that 50 % of Lutheran's don't know who Martin Luther was, and 50 % of Catholics don't know what transubstantiation is. 
What a joke you are.
The following 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post:
  • TheGentlemanBastard, Szuchow
Reply
#17

Indoctrination
(03-08-2020, 04:55 PM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: LOL, he wants us to believe his shit makes sense.

And, is willing to poison the well to do so. [Image: Eye_Roll.gif]
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
Reply
#18

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 03:25 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(03-09-2020, 03:19 AM)SteveII Wrote: 3/4.  You are asserting that the worldview was not critically assessed. How would you know that apart from a question begging argument (Christians are wrong, therefore we know they have not critically assessed their worldview)?

You have got to be kidding. 
Pew reported that 50 % of Lutheran's don't know who Martin Luther was, and 50 % of Catholics don't know what transubstantiation is. 
What a joke you are.

He also, conveniently, ignores the thousands of "I came to jeebus through magic a miracle" stories versus the handful of claims of finding jeebus through study.

More damning to his "argument" (for want of a better word), he ignores those who lost faith because of their study of the theology.
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
The following 2 users Like TheGentlemanBastard's post:
  • julep, brewerb
Reply
#19

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 03:19 AM)SteveII Wrote: You are asserting that the worldview was not critically assessed. How would you know that apart from a question begging argument (Christians are wrong, therefore we know they have not critically assessed their worldview)?

From personal experience and by talking with other people.  Just because many Christians may attempt to critically assess their beliefs doesn't mean they can be successful in doing so.  They need access to the tools which will enable them to do so, the information and the thinking tools.  Without those, they merely flounder around.

This is where the restriction of information in indoctrination systems really takes its toll. People can be well-meaning and sincere, and still be trapped.

(03-09-2020, 03:19 AM)SteveII Wrote: There are literally no successful arguments for naturalism or atheism anywhere. 

Evolutionary theory is a very successful argument for naturalism as well as for atheism if understood properly. So are scientific advances in brain studies.

(03-09-2020, 03:19 AM)SteveII Wrote: A belief cannot be warranted unless a person has been presented with conflicting opinions? 

Someone's belief can't be warranted if they are merely indoctrinated.  I'm not addressing specifics, but general principles.
The following 1 user Likes Alan V's post:
  • brunumb
Reply
#20

Indoctrination
(03-08-2020, 06:30 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(03-08-2020, 04:18 PM)SteveII Wrote: 3. If your worldview includes the firm belief that Christianity is correct, that is clearly not held in your mind as an opinion that can coexist with the opposite. You believe in the reality that, in a nutshell, humans have a serious problem and there is only one solution. The very nature of Christianity makes it exclusive.

4. If we have warrant to believe these things are true and we love our children, it follows that we would teach them that these things are true. Conversely, if we love our children and were not to teach them these things, that is proof that we don't really believe Christianity is true.

Funny how out of this side of your mouth you argue that holding the Christian worldview and ideology is incompatible with any other, that it is exclusive as you say, and that to not act upon that information would make one not Christian, yet out of the other side of your mouth you claim that Christian persecution of Pagans is a consequence of individual Christians' choices, and not a consequence of the ideology or worldview.  You are so full of shit.

Your point requires that this Christian "information" be vague. It is not vague. It is specific. It is certainly a core Christian belief that understanding and accepting the Gospel is of the utmost importance. On the other side of your point, it is decidedly not a Christian ideal to persecute anyone. So, your point is obviously wrong: Christianity compels AND limits actions.
Reply
#21

Indoctrination
(03-08-2020, 04:18 PM)SteveII Wrote: I hear this charge of indoctrination all the time here. First a definition.

Quote:Indoctrination is the process of inculcating a person with ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or professional methodologies (see doctrine).[1] Humans are a social animal inescapably shaped by cultural context, and thus some degree of indoctrination is implicit in the parent–child relationship, and has an essential function in forming stable communities of shared values.

The precise boundary between education and indoctrination often lies in the eye of the beholder. Some distinguish indoctrination from education on the basis that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2] As such the term may be used pejoratively or as a buzz word, often in the context of political opinions, theology, religious dogma or anti-religious convictions. 

From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination>



A few points:

1. According to the strict definition, teaching any ideas, attitudes cognitive strategies, or methodologies is indoctrination. This would include any values, ethics, navigating interpersonal relationships, priorities, self esteem, etc. etc. That would absolutely include any worldview--including an atheistic/naturalistic worldview--because there is no such thing as a worldview consisting of only empirical knowledge.

2. Of course what most of you REALLY claim is that Christians teach their children these things and to accept them uncritically. While I am sure that may happen in an overt way in some households, the nature of the Christian belief does not put it in the same category as other beliefs about navigating the world (see my partial list above).

3. If your worldview includes the firm belief that Christianity is correct, that is clearly not held in your mind as an opinion that can coexist with the opposite. You believe in the reality that, in a nutshell, humans have a serious problem and there is only one solution. The very nature of Christianity makes it exclusive.

4. If we have warrant to believe these things are true and we love our children, it follows that we would teach them that these things are true. Conversely, if we love our children and were not to teach them these things, that is proof that we don't really believe Christianity is true.

5. Whatever response the atheist gives at this point will probably be something akin to characterization the Christian belief as opinion and failing to point that out to their children. But you can't logically argue someone's warranted belief is an opinion without proving the warrant wrong. None of you can do that however without some version of a question begging argument.

6. I have even heard here that indoctrination is required for Christian belief. That is not true by the definition of the word. 'Inculcating' requires the notion of persistence over time. A complete defeater of that idea are the millions of adult converts alive today who becomes a Christian after an explanation of the Gospel.

7. The fact remains, the Christian's belief is warranted based on natural and revealed theology, the events of the first century, and personal experience (of themselves and others).

As always, I only argue from a protestant perspective.

Nice try, and I would have made a very similar argument 30 years ago.

While there are of course individual variances in the degree to which Christian beliefs are allowed to be fairly compared and contrasted with other beliefs and with good-faith critiques, in my experience and observation such permissiveness is very much the exception, not the rule.

The basic problem with presuppositionalism is that it asserts non-falsifiable premises. You can talk about "natural and revealed theology", the stories from the first century, and personal experience all you want, but you can't get around that.

For this reason you are obliged to teach your children that something is truth, which cannot be actually established as truth. And if you are anything but utterly indifferent to the judgments your children make about that, or whether they choose to follow it, then you by definition ARE indoctrinating them.

All that said, I am not suggesting this is done with nefarious (or anything really but the best) intent. To the extent people are limiting the beliefs of their children, or "protecting" them from divergent beliefs ("error" or "heresy"), they do it because they themselves are indoctrinated to fear and loathe such "wrong" beliefs, and to imagine that they lead to unhappiness and depravity, and ultimately, to perdition.
The following 3 users Like mordant's post:
  • Alan V, Deesse23, brunumb
Reply
#22

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 12:46 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-08-2020, 06:30 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(03-08-2020, 04:18 PM)SteveII Wrote: 3. If your worldview includes the firm belief that Christianity is correct, that is clearly not held in your mind as an opinion that can coexist with the opposite. You believe in the reality that, in a nutshell, humans have a serious problem and there is only one solution. The very nature of Christianity makes it exclusive.

4. If we have warrant to believe these things are true and we love our children, it follows that we would teach them that these things are true. Conversely, if we love our children and were not to teach them these things, that is proof that we don't really believe Christianity is true.

Funny how out of this side of your mouth you argue that holding the Christian worldview and ideology is incompatible with any other, that it is exclusive as you say, and that to not act upon that information would make one not Christian, yet out of the other side of your mouth you claim that Christian persecution of Pagans is a consequence of individual Christians' choices, and not a consequence of the ideology or worldview.  You are so full of shit.

Your point requires that this Christian "information" be vague. It is not vague. It is specific. It is certainly a core Christian belief that understanding and accepting the Gospel is of the utmost importance. On the other side of your point, it is decidedly not a Christian ideal to persecute anyone. So, your point is obviously wrong: Christianity compels AND limits actions.

It is not a question of specificity, but of supportability.
Reply
#23

Indoctrination
(03-08-2020, 04:49 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:
(03-08-2020, 04:18 PM)SteveII Wrote: I hear this charge of indoctrination all the time here. First a definition.

Quote:The precise boundary between education and indoctrination often lies in the eye of the beholder. Some distinguish indoctrination from education on the basis that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2] As such the term may be used pejoratively or as a buzz word, often in the context of political opinions, theology, religious dogma or anti-religious convictions. 

From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination>
....

7. The fact remains, the Christian's belief is warranted based on natural and revealed theology, the events of the first century, and personal experience (of themselves and others).

As always, I only argue from a protestant perspective.

Education is about facts.  Indoctrination in the not acceptable sense is when one ignores facts and abandons logic to believe in nonsense.

There are no facts and there is no logic that shows the Christian worldview wrong. All you have are competing opinions and really bad arguments as we will see in a second. But notice that to show "Indoctrination in the not acceptable sense", you NEED facts and valid arguments that are being ignored.

Quote:I have given good reasons to believe that the basic foundations of Christian theology are logically self contradictory, incoherent, and thus wrong.  I have not seen any real attempts to demonstrate where i am wrong.  No real theodicies et al.

As I told you on more than one occasion, you picked 5-point Calvinism to beat up on. A minority position that I do not hold. Take it up with a Calvinist. But what is really interesting is your failure to understand that beating up a minority doctrine that you don't fully understand does not affect Christianity in general--but it is telling about your grasp of logic and argumentation.

Quote:Let us start with revelation.  Bible, Quran, book of Mormon et al.  If Christianity is a true revelation, the Quran and BoM et al are not.  How does one establish that fact?  If mankind is probe to making false revelations, some of which last centuries and have billions of followers, all supposed revelations are suspect.  can it be that all supposed revelations are false?  Yes.

If Christianity is true, the others are not. With you there.

How do you tell? You examine the claims of each. Can they all be false? Yes.

Quote:So supposed revelations cannot be used to establish facts about God or God's attributes or nature.  Nor can these things, being mere hypotheticals, be used to establish any knowledge about God or related subjects.  Revelation cannot be trusted without hard evidence to prove them true.

You have a non sequitur there: if all claims cannot be true, "supposed revelations cannot be used to establish facts about God or God's attributes or nature". That is logically invalid. Also, as is typical of the internet atheist, you need everything to be as vague as possible to support your conclusions. The claims of each of those religions are very specific and therefore not at all the same. As such, you have to deal with the individual claims and not roll them into one thing called "religious claims" and dismiss with a non sequitur.

Quote:The many incoerencies and problems we can find in major supposed revelations like omniscience and free will, the Problem of Evil et al, make the Christian revelation rather disproven.

What are the foundations for your theological system?

In order from the general to the specific: Natural theology, general revelation (OT), specific revelation (NT), and personal experience (of myself and others).
Reply
#24

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 03:19 AM)SteveII Wrote: There are literally no successful arguments for naturalism or atheism anywhere.
No need for arguments for atheism. Atheism is the result of having no arguments for the belief in adeity Facepalm

As i said: you clearly dont read what others are writing, and you clearly arent here to learn. You are here to argue and win an agument (or probably prop up your belief). whatever it is, is pointless to try to engage you in honest discussion, and thats why i will keep pointing out your dishonety and be ridiculing you.
cetero censeo religionem esse delendam 
The following 1 user Likes Deesse23's post:
  • Szuchow
Reply
#25

Indoctrination
(03-08-2020, 08:32 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:
(03-08-2020, 04:18 PM)SteveII Wrote: 1. According to the strict definition, teaching any ideas, attitudes cognitive strategies, or methodologies is indoctrination. This would include any values, ethics, navigating interpersonal relationships, priorities, self esteem, etc. etc.

There is a not so subtle difference between the critical examination of factual material as presented by modern education and the required unthinking acceptance of the allegory, myth, bigotry, and flat out bullshit that constitutes your average church service.

If you can't spot this difference it is likely because you have been indoctrinated to believe that religion is fact. I hope that this clears up your misunderstanding.

Please share the "factual information" that proves Christianity wrong. If you give me some, I will be sure to get it to my children.

This is a great example of needing to be vague because the underlying support for such a position evaporates or becomes an obvious list of unsupported opinions if examined.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)