Problem with religions

[Pekka]

As some know, I like to constantly figure out what's going on so I ask a lot of questions. I think when it comes to religions in general, people ask the wrong questons trying to understand them or figure out if they're real.

But to me it seems they're too cryptic to be analyzed and claimed as anything in academia. Too cryptic, period, it's like numerology. Few other things with religions, if you were born into this world without the knowledge of it, you would never and I mean never ever accept it as the truth later on.

This is the BIG problem I see, you have to indoctrinate people when they're kids and what kind of... was religion ever reasoned to you? I know it wasn't done in here. It was just nice stories and an adult telling you 'it really did happen'. Repeat 100000000. THis is the problem, because this is a sign of indoctrination that has a power element beyond ethical and moral boundaries, and that's why it is interesting. A question, if you had the book of ANY religion in your hands and didn't know what it was, never heard about it, and say you pick it up when you're 30 years old and read it.... what is your reaction? My estimation is that every single person who says that they'd take is as the real truth are lying to themselves.

So this is a problem, we know religions won't work unless they're embedded in people before they grow up.

So while religions are a powerful tool, a powerful institution with self serving interest, it's not rational, none of them are. That's why it is a belief and you need it, that's pretty simple and clear, but the key point I made here was the fact that you have to pound it in when people are kids. Doesn't that seem wrong to people?

We can rewind the history all we want and see indoctrination of different things, NONE of them were right according to our knowledge. What makes us so sure? Not only do we not have any plain text about it, we got the same cryptic analogies the people who believed in the rock and the loud speakers had. It's the same thing, the names change, that's all. So... if we are sure and.. if we have personal conviction, if we are personally religious, why would we indoctrinate our own kids to it? Of course most people would say that's exactly why they are "taught", but they aren't taught to really question the logic or irrational parts, and let's face it, some of these kids turn out the be the most stupid humans on earth who wouldn't survive on their own. So why the indoctrination?

SO, if you misunderstood this, the point is not to attack any single religion or even religions as a whole, but the practice of indoctrinating children.

[bipolarbear]

Yeah I agree with you. I think a lot of people are very convinced about their correctness regarding religion, and so it seems only right to indoctrinate them (really what good parent would knowingly send their child to hell?).

Personally I think it's better to let your child explore and find out what works for them, but I'm more of a hippie than an expert in parenting.

[Pekka]

Sure sure, but I don't see the rationality for a religious person to indoctrinate their children into the religion itself. To me it seems weird because that person would believe the religions he practices is true, or most likely true, so basically why would the person worry? If it's true and the religion has power, why do you worry about it? Your child will find it, if it was meant to be. You can assist as well, but when they can actually think a bit.

It's like.. where is the value of that? We know that with the structures and resources and the way religions are taught to kdis, we KNOW we could teach them anything. That Coca Cola is God. What ever we want. So why would we disrespect the religion so much, that we have to train our kids to the word instead of let them discover it themselves, no bias, nothing.

THIS would seem logical to me. You might even want to point out all the irrationalities and claim it's not really true, to see if they really can discover the truth. If not, then what's the point? I mean people have done this in all ages. How do we look at them in mos treligions now? Fools. Idiots. Anti-our-religion.

So. The rationale is where? This is a legit question and if you find yourself offended, kill yourself because you are an idiot.

[Robert]

Any view of the parents will be 'indoctrinated' to the kids. Religious views, sociological views, environmental views, etc.

If a parent is 'tolerant' and believes that all ways lead to the truth, then that view will be 'indoctrinated' as well. And the "Everything is true" view is as limited as the "Only this is true" view. Because if 'everything' is true, then someone who says that only his view is true is not right.

Anyway, therefor it's good that all parents can teach their children what they think that's best. It's worse if people try to teach other children their own truth, through governamental ways or something. Thus so called liberals who want to stop religious parents to influence their children are just saying that their children need to adopt their liberal views.

There's a difference between culture and religion, btw. Most teenagers will decide if they'll adopt the religion of their parents. The culture is mostly adopted without any doubt. Religion is culture for many groups. Many people follow their religion because it's a part of their culture. And their culture ofently wants to fight with other cultures.

but if you ask them for the core of their religion, then they do not know much about their religion.

But there are also religious people who really are into their religion. It mostl was their decision, based on ratio and facts, combined with emotion. (fortunately).

I do not agree with you that religious parents do not use evidence to indoctrinate their children. Maybe some do, but I have never been indoctrinated in any way. There was also reason and discussion.

You have a pre-set view on religion, mostly because you have been raised self in a certain cultural-religious way, or because you know people who have been.

[Pekka]

CyberyShy, OK, what evidence parents use showing their religion is true?

"But there are also religious people who really are into their religion. It mostl was their decision, based on ratio and facts, combined with emotion."

Ratio and facts? Please elaborate.

"If a parent is 'tolerant' and believes that all ways lead to the truth, then that view will be 'indoctrinated' as well."

Sure, but can't you make the dinstinction here? Are you really just trying to spin this using a logical train that is crashing the wall? It's like "So hating racism is still hating". OK, show me a thought that isn't indoctrination, you already stated everything is.

I do agree that it is sort of indoctrination, if not the very same, but there are always different levels of it. You haven't provided a justification to it or any depth perception. According to this logical train, I can send my kids to Hitler Jugend, because well, it sort of reflects my views and that's a 'must', because it can't be avoided and I acted on the information I had at hand and thought I was doing the right thing.

Also, if you can't make a distinction between culture and religion, you're just scrambling. They are different sets all together. Just like information, knowledge, data, these are all different things, you ccan't scramble culture, tradition and religion just because they have similarity in them.

"Maybe some do, but I have never been indoctrinated in any way. There was also reason and discussion."

So, according to your opening statements, your parents were never in contact with you? Whereas I had a "cultural-religious" upbringing, whatever the hell that means, or KNEW someone who had it? This makes no sense what so ever.

[Japher]

I'm with CyberShy in that it could be rationally argued that any teaching of any sort could be viewed as indoctrination so far as kids begin life trusting adults. Regardless, viewing religion as merely the teaching of lovely little stories writen on ultra thin paper with some nifty little organ music or chanting in the background as some distinguished looking dude tells you the same thing over and over until you believe it is a very sad view of religion, however this is sadly sometimes the case.

Religion is foremost a philosophy (based on faith) that appeals to the rationale of human nature at a very primal psycological level. It is something that has always been sought after by our species, ever since Socrates, Plato, and Aristatol though religion wasn't what they called it. Mystics and Theologians have carried the burden of proof for centuries, many of the arguments couldn't be covered in one thread on the subject.

However, to awnser your question about where the rationale is in religion. Why people would freely choose to believe despite all of science and practical/physical world saying otherwise? Emotional stability. There is no metric that can define it, and there is no test that can prove it, but there is no denying it when it is lost, no question that it isn't there when it is gone. Man can endure great sufferings when they know that there is a end to it. Religion tells you, reminds you, assures you that there is an end. Not only that there is an end, but that if you live as they define justly, that it will be worth it.

There is a deep desire within all of us that makes us need to feel important, to have self worth. Religion pulls on that need, feeds it, and allows us to persever, move forward, be loved when know one else loves us. In some cases it goes too far, in some cases it indoctrinates people, but that was not it's intent, no more than the sun means to burn as well as to heal.

[Pekka]

Ok what I'm doing here, and I don't want you to interpret this as hostility, is basically just re-introducing what the question is. Your answer IMO now is, that you think there's nothing wrong in it, if you yourself really believe the religion you are having is true.

Don't continue with relativist arguments or justification, because that'll just end up in denial and pwnage, because it's all circumstancial and all religions can be then challenged into a deadlock of time, location and current ruling power.

Basically you still don't have an argument justifying it except that if you believe it's true, there's nothing wrong in it. So what about Hitler Jugend? Or that liberal views are also indoctrination. But it's a different level kind of argument that really has nto much to do with this issue now does it? According to you it might, because if not, you have no arguments left and you might hold on to this and go on a 'NO' mode. But do continue without scrambling and questioning what concepts really mean, we are past that phase.

[Pekka]

Japher, dude, this thread isn't about afterlife or why people like religions. I'm not an atheist.

It was about what you do with the kids and how do you justify it.

[Japher]

How do I justify it? I'm not an apologetic.

How do you justify science, history, math, psychology, music? Maybe if you give an example of this justification you are looking for in another field of study we could better awnser your question. I've seen religion have a profound impact on groups and individuals that would, IMO, justify it as something useful, truthful, and needed.

[Pekka]

I gave few examples already. I'm not apologizing anyone either, but at least my question as recieved 0 arguments besides the one that says one should follow their own moral compass. But I do see godwin attempts here, a few of them, they just won't stand. Even a teapot one, wow.

If you can't make a distinction here, this can all be justified with the only argument, moral compass. That's why I said Hitler Jugend. Many parents must have been happy about it, a great chance for a kid.

Basically you can't justify it because there is no way you ever could. So you take all kinds of comparative issues that really are aimed to keep debate 'at war' instead of admitting you have no arguments, and that's why all the 'how do you justify music'. Religion != Music. Or do you mean why woudl you teach them to a kid, again, you have a problematic argument here, and I can continue your list, why would you not teach your kid Satanism, why would you not show hardcore porn to your child?

These aren't arguments, none of these are. You're going to make a mistake if you are trying to NOW distinct porno and math, I'm saying this never was an argument and unless you can show it actually is, and not just a relative, very extreme position, then we can look at it again but before that, this thread is about giving _real_ arguments justifying indoctrinating kids into religion, because if they aren't, chances are they won't pick it up by themselves anyway. And that's the "problems with religions" part.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Japher
I'm with CyberShy in that it could be rationally argued that any teaching of any sort could be viewed as indoctrination so far as kids begin life trusting adults. Regardless, viewing religion as merely the teaching of lovely little stories writen on ultra thin paper with some nifty little organ music or chanting in the background as some distinguished looking dude tells you the same thing over and over until you believe it is a very sad view of religion, however this is sadly sometimes the case.

Religion is foremost a philosophy (based on faith) that appeals to the rationale of human nature at a very primal psycological level. It is something that has always been sought after by our species, ever since Socrates, Plato, and Aristatol though religion wasn't what they called it. Mystics and Theologians have carried the burden of proof for centuries, many of the arguments couldn't be covered in one thread on the subject.

However, to awnser your question about where the rationale is in religion. Why people would freely choose to believe despite all of science and practical/physical world saying otherwise? Emotional stability. There is no metric that can define it, and there is no test that can prove it, but there is no denying it when it is lost, no question that it isn't there when it is gone. Man can endure great sufferings when they know that there is a end to it. Religion tells you, reminds you, assures you that there is an end. Not only that there is an end, but that if you live as they define justly, that it will be worth it.

There is a deep desire within all of us that makes us need to feel important, to have self worth. Religion pulls on that need, feeds it, and allows us to persever, move forward, be loved when know one else loves us. In some cases it goes too far, in some cases it indoctrinates people, but that was not it's intent, no more than the sun means to burn as well as to heal.

You always freak me out when you make serious posts.

...

There's a good point to be made here. A legitimate justification for indoctrinating children into a religion is the fact that pretty much all studies show that humans are better off with religion. Humans are happier when they have faith.

Now, you could take the cynical route and say that this is justifying bliss through ignorance and well, uh, I do take that route. So I guess that kind of ends my contribution to the thread.

[Elok]

If you want to have a real argument, why don't you start by not using scare-words like "indoctrinate?" That's kind of like holding a fair and reasonable discussion with liberals to determine "why they want the terrorists to win."

I honestly don't see what the problem is here. As has been said by others here, all kinds of knowledge can be passed on from parent to child. We also "indoctrinate" children to say please and thank you, to brush their teeth, and to refrain from picking their noses. If we did not tell them to do such things, they would probably not learn to do them by themselves...and that's problematic. What are you trying to get at, Pekka?

[Pekka]

Lorizael, so that's another argument I'll accept. According the _some_ studies say, that humans are more happy on average than not with religion. Adn in the future, do not twist the words of studies into something they aren't, such as that humans are betrter off with religion, unless that's the exact quote, because it's different than more happy.

So now we got 2 arguments.

But do notice, that this question derives from the point, that kids accept these things easier than if they are adults, find a book of religion, you know... they won't take it as the truth, very few would. That's the point and that's the whole question about the problem so the answer is you need to get them as kids, otherwise it's going to be very difficult.

So none of the arguments address the real problem and the reason it is done, so we need some more.

[Pekka]

Elok, That's because it is exactly the right term to use in this case, I don't know if there would be more perfect situation.

The rest of your post was already handled earlier, so I won't be addressing your questions until you make new stuff up.

[Robert]

Rationalism and reasoning when teaching christianity?
I'll give some, but not to start to debate them (any form of ratio is debatable!), but just to show that there's more then indoctrination in teaching children (or other people) about christianity.

- Do you reckognize sin in yourself, or are you perfect? Do you cause pain on others, even against your will?

- Prophecies from the Bible that were fullfilled long after the last book of the Bible was added, like Israel 1948, Hitler's 3rd Reich, individualism, globalisation, scattering of the Jews, Jerusalem becoming the main problem of the world, Jews being hated

- The beauty of the creation shows the beauty of God, which stills hines, even through this fallen creation.

- Death is not what we are here for, death is unnatural, we are made to live.

- Jesus Christ lessons and deeds (and his death most of all) is not something humans would made up. He's not a hero-type that humans would invent to create a god. (like other prophets/gods in other religions)

- The centuries after Jesus' death the church growed, instead of being scattered after their founded was murdered.

- Living according to the Bible (loving, being humble, not reach for money, power, etc.) makes you happier, do you reckognize that in your own life? It's not being rich, powerfull, etc. that satisfies, what satisfies is loving others and giving them whatever they need.

those are just a selection of the many issues we have talked about and discussed. All those things are things that one can reflect on. I can reflect on the question if I'm a sinner, if I'm beyond repair. That's what I was encouraged to think about as well.

Christianity is not about just adopting the thoughts of your parents. We don't believe in 'believing the christian facts' or something. It's not as if repeating that what your parents / teachers told you saves you.

One has to be re-born, which just means that after self reflection one needs to learn to know himself, and decide if he needs help from the outside, or if he thinks that he can fix himself. Just repeating what you are told is no good. No christian believes that indoctrinating is a good way to spread the gospel.

On the differences between culture and religion, I'm absolutely aware that those are two different concepts, but religions is a part of culture for many people. They belong to a cultural group and religion is a part of that. The problems in Northern Ireland are not based on differences between protestants and catholics. No, it's a long term cultural problem, and they use all cultural differences they can find to accuse each other. It's more belonging to a certain cultural group then having a faith that's in their hearts. Most terrorists overthere hardly know the Bible or Jesus. My wife has interviewed ex-terrorists from both the catholic and the protestant sides there, and they both admitted that. They hardly knew anything about their faith, they just used it.

Same with the christians and muslims in Indonesia. It's just two cultural groups that fight with each other. And do you think that all muslims in the ME have a personal faith in Allah? It's just as with all catholics in europe in the middle ages. They're all muslims because they're all muslims. Like we all used to be christians because we used to be all christians.

Indoctrination comes from the general opinion. The general opinion has the biggest influence on people. If all your friends smoke, then there's a huge change that you'll start to smoke as well.
In europe it's hardly possible to indoctrinate children with christian views. They hear the non-christian messages every day. Do you think that my parents could indoctrinate me? Nah. All they could do is telling me their views, and compare them to the atheistic/agnostic views I learned everywhere.

Reflection, consideration, debating and discussing, those are the words that apply to the way my parents raised me. Not indoctrination.

Indoctrination most probably accounts more to general children born in a general dutch family that are teached about all atheistic/agnostic 'facts' and 'values' without ever hearing other sides of the story.

And yet, there are also agnosts who read their children stories from the Bible and the Koran. I respect that very much.

But in the end the believe system of the parents will always be some kind of an idoctrination. But I won't call that indoctrination. I'm glad if parents teach their children those things that they think that they are imporant. Blame those parents who do not care enough about their children to teach them that what they condider to be most important.