Thread: Religion and Children

I have removed this response from the 'Religion and the age of consent' thread to here because it is an interesting topic and certain people taking part in the discussion in the '.....age of consent' thread are behaving like obnoxious arrogant pathetic insulting fools and they are ruining what could be an interesting discussion!

Children act better than they do and they should grow up!

Concerning the indoctrination of children to religion, here is an argument in favour of religion in childrens lives, what do you think?

Pavlos & Dayton please don't get involved if all you are going to do is clog the discussion up with arguments and insults at one another.

------------------------------------------------

I wish I had been indoctrinated by religious parents when i was younger. It would have made rebelling more fun!

Instead i had parents who worshipped the T.V and the only mention of God was in the form of a cuss or a curse.

I would have loved to learn about God, or at least had some sort of religious background, so at least it would have given me an understanding of religion, as well as spirituality, even if i chose not to accept it when i got older.

Now I am learning about different forms religion as part of my degree. One of the things that has struck me with all the religions that I have studied so far is the sense of community and orientation towards family life each of them seem to have.

As a child being part of a religion must have enriched life a great deal. For example, the religious festivals, customs, different types of food and dress amongst many other dimensions which make up a religion.

Not only do the family share in these things, but usually the whole community.
I would have loved that as a kid. Instead we spent Sundays being told to shut up because something was on the telly, and there was little family closeness or the feeling of sharing and being part of something, let alone feeling part of a community.
I think this is an important element to childhood that children of non-religious parents can miss out on.

Another thing religion teaches is the possibility of a spiritual life.
Because my parents were totally non-religious and they never considered the idea of God or the spirit, it was never discussed or raised at home.
I didn't have a clue about what a spiritual life was, or even that i had a spirit, not until i suffered some misfortunes and had bad times as a teenager and i did some soul searching.

Only then did i discover and realise that there were much deeper levels to the person I thought I was, and much more profound possibilities opened up as well as finding more strength from this to cope with the problems and difficulties.

I never found the kind of God that most religions seem to advocate, but I found the possibility that something which some might describe as God might exist on the outside. But most importantly what I did discover was a spirit on the inside and i found a much deeper part of myself that i never even thought existed which gave me lots of strength to cope with the problems and taught me to appreciate life.

Children brought up in religious families have all these advantages and a head start in knowing a spiritual life and that inner part of themselves that is great, even if they turn their backs on their religion when they get older, they can still pursue and develop their spiritual inner life.

Yes some kids do suffer because of the severity of indoctrination they receive. And people can remain trapped within a religion because it is also part of their culture.
You see that is another aspect to religion. It is far more complicated than just being a religion. Most religions are cultural traditions deeply ingrained into the societies in which people live.
Even us in the supposed 'free west' are affected by the Christian influence prevalent for many centuries.

I don't believe in a personification of God with human qualities, or the idea of one particular God being better than another. But i do believe in the spirit esoteric and exoteric.

Given the choice, i would have liked to have had the advantages of being part of a religious tradition as a child rather than having to pay homage to the telly every day with my parents going 'ssshhh' every time you tried to talk, because i didn't know any better!

*ACTUAL CHURCH WEBSITE*
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
*ACTUAL CHURCH WEBSITE*

This is why indoctrination to children is bad.


http://www.thesignsofthetimes.net/sp...0407_ghtw.html
(pay attention at the VERY end)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_suicide_bomber

The "education" is most effective when religious elements of the large-group identity are provided as solutions for the personal sense of helplessness, shame, and humiliation. Replacing borrowed elements sanctioned by God for one’s internal world makes that person omnipotent and supports the individual’s narcissism. I found that there was little difficulty in finding young men interested in becoming suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank. Repeated actual and expected events humiliate youngsters and interfere with their adaptive identifications with their parents because their parents are humiliated as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. 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. As such it is used pejoratively. Instruction in the basic principles of science, in particular, can not properly be called indoctrination, in the sense that the fundamental principals of science call for critical self-evaluation and skeptical scrutiny of one's own ideas.

Now tell me... is indoctrination good? It's ment to convince people while their young to conform them and control them.

I know what you are saying, and the links you provide give valid examples of the misuse of religion but..

I think it is important to realise

what ever it may be......

there is always a positive side and a negative side to everything as well as a diverse blend of these in between.

There is certainly benefits to be got from a religious education as i have described above, and I am hoping that people on this forum who have been raised in a religious family might come forward and verify that there the advantages i have described. After all i am coming from the context perhaps of 'wishful thinking' or imagining' and not empirically, because i did not experience religion as a child within my family.

And it is also fair to say there has been much harm caused as well by religious education, no doubt about it.

But i think we should be careful here in pointing our fingers at religion being the baddie in this cause.

It is the way religion is regarded by people and the way it is taught that does the harm, not necessarily the actual religion itself.

It is similar to an analogy of a man given a knife to cut paper for books in order for books to be produced to educate people, but instead the man regards the knife as a tool for power and a weapon and uses it to hurt and maim instead.

It is not the knifes fault.

It is the person who chooses to wield the knife who is at fault.

Religion certainly has a lot of power in the human psyche. The argument could be claimed that we have a religious impulse which comes from the search for the truth and what might be beyond the capabilities of our limited perception.

In this circumstances it is difficult to discover the truth to this argument and much of religious experience is subjective and non-physical and is therefore difficult to prove. So there is a great risk of people being misled by gurus, religious leaders, prophets who claim to have experienced revelations and know the answers.

It is not just these people who misuse religion and wield it for power which does harm.

But it is ordinary people who follow these religions and misunderstand what the nature of religion is and readily accept certain teachings uncritically.

Religion is connecting with a God and discovering the natures of the spirit in relation to this God within whatever name the 'religion' calls itself.
Therefore religion is an inner subjective process and experience, and so how can anyone tell another what to experience?

Until this is realized, yes there will always be harmful indoctrination of children which is akin to brain-washing and force.

I believe human consciousness evolves and develop through a process which is similar to the development of a baby to adult.
And i believe currently the human condition is at the stage of a child still whereby it looks for a 'parent' to tell it how to live and what to do. This is why we are susceptible to looking for a leader or guru to guide us, and this is also why we as nations are led by a parental figure such as our politicians and presidents. As well as why the huge majority seem to be incapable as yet to standing up to these authoritative figures and becoming independent, because we have not developed far enough to be able to do that. I am talking about the majority, not a small minority that feel they can.

Which is why we still have this idea of 'nanny-states' and religions still wield control over the masses, we are little children needing guidance and direction.
It is inevitable that one day the mankind will enter what might be described as a 'teenage' phase and learn to rebel and find individuality and be able to make decisions for themselves. I'm sure this will be a painful process, as is reflected in the process of teenagers and the relationship with their parents.

Until that time comes, we will keep seeing harmful indoctrination of our young, unfortunately.

So what you are saying is that you MUST have religion to have morals? I find that offensive good sir. Very offensive indeed!

Whats the difference between your parents saying, "Believe in god and do good in gods eyes"

and

"Do good to others. It's the right thing to do and you never get ahead by being an ass"

The end result is the same.

The only difference? There is room for fanatics with the former. Who has heard of anyone saying, "I must crash this plane into a building to do everyone good and to not be an ass." ?

Now, I know for certain I hear this alot.. or things that are similar, "I believe in 'my god' and will do good for his eyes. I will do what my god has asked me and crash these planes into a building"

You don't need religion to be good. You just need competent parents who don't have their head up their ass.

All religion does is it controls you and controls the way you think. You become a sheep. Now, do you really want to be known as a sheep? Or do you want to take control of your life and become a wolf? ... I'm a wolf, how about you?

Minxy

Not attacking you (as though I ever would), nor the thoughtful post you have quoted here, but would like to point out that even here there are 'points of view' issues.

Originally Posted by Absum!

------------------------------------------------

I wish I had been indoctrinated by religious parents when i was younger. It would have made rebelling more fun!

Instead i had parents who worshipped the T.V and the only mention of God was in the form of a cuss or a curse.

I would have loved to learn about God, or at least had some sort of religious background, so at least it would have given me an understanding of religion, as well as spirituality, even if i chose not to accept it when i got older.

I cannot help it if someone yearned for religious indoctrination as a child but I can say that indoctrination is indoctrination because it does it best to preclude the possibility of rebellion. Thus if the writer had genuinely had religious indoctrination, the chances of rebelling against it would have been a lot smaller than s/he imagines. Possible, of course, but perhaps not very probable.

Worshipping television is not necessarily a good thing, but why does the alternative to that have to be religion? Are these the only two extra-curricular activites the writer can imagine his/her parents engaging in? What about long walks, nature studies, Scrabble, discussions on Picasso, politics, games and sports to be played, friends and family? None of these requires religion. None of these requires television.

And why people believe religion has a lien on spirituality, or some special relationship to it I do not know. I appreciate that the emotibots tend to rate notions like spirituality rather highly, but I have never been able to figure out why. But, as I said, this is all points of view stuff and perhaps the opinion that spirituality is about something real, or a is a real quality that ught to be admired is, I suppose a point of view.

Originally Posted by Absum!

Now I am learning about different forms religion as part of my degree. One of the things that has struck me with all the religions that I have studied so far is the sense of community and orientation towards family life each of them seem to have.

As a child being part of a religion must have enriched life a great deal. For example, the religious festivals, customs, different types of food and dress amongst many other dimensions which make up a religion.

Not only do the family share in these things, but usually the whole community.
I would have loved that as a kid. Instead we spent Sundays being told to shut up because something was on the telly, and there was little family closeness or the feeling of sharing and being part of something, let alone feeling part of a community.
I think this is an important element to childhood that children of non-religious parents can miss out on.

But so can children of religious parents.

Again, as I'd like to point out, community and ritual aare not restricted to religion and choosing religion over television seems to me simply to be a case of not even having considered all the other options available.

FWIW I was brought up by parents who, whilst not terribly religious, did ensure I participated in all the commuity aspects of it: the hours of waiting while an obscure and dreadfully squeal-like religious ritual was performed in the distance; the ghastly food that was suddenly 'sacred' and part of any form of engagement with it; the censuring of people without allowing their ideas to be considered because they were patently absurd, being against the religious conventions; the notion that 'we' were better than 'they': Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists (they're all untouchables anyway); I could go on...

And this was in a non-doctrinaire family in a relatively non-donctrinaire community of Hindus. I told them I was an atheist when I 12, and ceased to participate in the religious maundering in the community activities when I was 14. There was no hullaballoo, no ostracism, no constant pestering or harrassment - that's how non-donctrinaire they were. But spending even a couple of years not engaging in this alleged religious community was what halped me see how closed-minded it was without ever even beginning to understand how closed-minded it was.

Again, you might just say: "Points of view, eh?"

Originally Posted by Absum!

Another thing religion teaches is the possibility of a spiritual life.
Because my parents were totally non-religious and they never considered the idea of God or the spirit, it was never discussed or raised at home.
I didn't have a clue about what a spiritual life was, or even that i had a spirit, not until i suffered some misfortunes and had bad times as a teenager and i did some soul searching.

Only then did i discover and realise that there were much deeper levels to the person I thought I was, and much more profound possibilities opened up as well as finding more strength from this to cope with the problems and difficulties.

Here, of course, I am completely lost. I dare anybody to make universal sense of the notion of spirituality. I have read as much as I can about the literature and it eventually boils down to: Well, it can't be explained, only experienced.

Fair enough. Then for us weirdos who have not experuienced it and never expect to, there is still the possibility of understanding something of it by observing the behaviours of those who have. But that's not helpful because their behaviours never show any difference form the behaviours of those who are known to be deluded (albeit ever so slightly) in one way or the other.

What then is thing called spirituality and how do you distinguish it from a cognitive delusion?

I dunno.

Originally Posted by Absum!

I never found the kind of God that most religions seem to advocate, but I found the possibility that something which some might describe as God might exist on the outside. But most importantly what I did discover was a spirit on the inside and i found a much deeper part of myself that i never even thought existed which gave me lots of strength to cope with the problems and taught me to appreciate life.

Children brought up in religious families have all these advantages and a head start in knowing a spiritual life and that inner part of themselves that is great, even if they turn their backs on their religion when they get older, they can still pursue and develop their spiritual inner life.

I don't think children brought up in religious families have any particular advantages - albeit children brought up in television-worshipping families may certainly find their horizons limited.

As I've said before it isn't, I think, one versus the other. There are better options than either available to us. And to our parents.

Originally Posted by Absum!

Yes some kids do suffer because of the severity of indoctrination they receive. And people can remain trapped within a religion because it is also part of their culture.
You see that is another aspect to religion. It is far more complicated than just being a religion. Most religions are cultural traditions deeply ingrained into the societies in which people live.
Even us in the supposed 'free west' are affected by the Christian influence prevalent for many centuries.

Yes I agree. Now let's discuss the percentage of people whos cognitive abilities, whose education, whose range of freedoms of thought and whose range of free activities have suffered because of being brought up in a religious background such as the writer hankers after. If we have some numbers we can decide whether Dawkins is right, and formal religions are deeply deleterious to the health of the child and the subsequent humans these chidlren become, or that, as the common compromise would have it - each ot his own, it's not that bad after all.

Originally Posted by Absum!

I don't believe in a personification of God with human qualities, or the idea of one particular God being better than another. But i do believe in the spirit esoteric and exoteric.

As I said earlier - give us a clue. Show how, to someone like me, I can distinguish between this, and a delusional attitude.

Originally Posted by Absum!

Given the choice, i would have liked to have had the advantages of being part of a religious tradition as a child rather than having to pay homage to the telly every day with my parents going 'ssshhh' every time you tried to talk, because i didn't know any better!

If those were the only two choices you could conceive of as you thought and wrote about this, I'm glad you're at Uni, because you will probably appreciate some horizon-expanding.

I repeat: It is not now, nor has it ever been, a question of TV versus religion.

Originally Posted by Absum!

There is certainly benefits to be got from a religious education

And it is also fair to say there has been much harm caused as well by religious education, no doubt about it.

But i think we should be careful here in pointing our fingers at religion being the baddie in this cause.

It is the way religion is regarded by people and the way it is taught that does the harm, not necessarily the actual religion itself.

Yes, it is the religion itself. The religion will demand you to worship and believe in their god, or you will burn in eternal hellfire, bottom line. Hence, you MUST accept this doctrine, uncritically. That is indoctrination.

i wouldint say uncritically, christian scholarship is built on being critical, the construction of the nt cannon, Origen, Justin Martyr, thomas aquantis, cs lewis, bliblical scholarship over the last 400 years or so, translation interpretation ect, all extremely critical

Originally Posted by ishmaelblues

i wouldint say uncritically, christian scholarship is built on being critical, the construction of the nt cannon, Origen, Justin Martyr, thomas aquantis, cs lewis, bliblical scholarship over the last 400 years or so, translation interpretation ect, all extremely critical

Sorry you cant be critical of a thing, if you come from a basis of belief in the said thing.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Sorry you cant be critical of a thing, if you come from a basis of belief in the said thing.

That is true of the Thing itself. But belief does spur fresh thinking, with the Thing as lens. For example Gaia hypothesis sees the Earth as a single organism, which may not be true, but that sure does enable insights we would otherwise overlook. We're often right for the wrong reasons, and I believe the wealth of insights built from Abrahamic theology proves it.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by ishmaelblues

i wouldint say uncritically, christian scholarship is built on being critical, the construction of the nt cannon, Origen, Justin Martyr, thomas aquantis, cs lewis, bliblical scholarship over the last 400 years or so, translation interpretation ect, all extremely critical

Sorry you cant be critical of a thing, if you come from a basis of belief in the said thing.

On the contrary, practically the opposite is true. Anyone can be critical of anything, but the criticism of the uninitiated is the criticism of an ignoramus. For example, the criticism of science by the non-scientist is the meaningless blather of loudmouth, who hasn't the slightest idea what he is talking about. Criticism of something which you have no intimate knowledge of, is the kind of ignorance that is indistinguishable from bigotry.

The same goes for religion. Only those who have been involved in it can really criticize it meaningfully. This is why when it comes to other religions I predominantly speak about the religious freedom and tolerance, but when it comes to Christianity I criticize ruthlessly. There are other religions I have had some contact with like the Moonies, Mormons, Jehova Witnesses and Catholics and I can certainly speak about what turned me off about them. The more contact I had with them the better I can offer an evaluation of their merits and flaws.

However a new convert, especially one with very little experience with religion in general is probably NOT a good source of balanced information about a religion. He is like a person who has just fallen in love and only sees the good side and has yet to see things with an objective eye. As for someone who is raised in a religion, that is an example that I should not comment on because I have no first hand experience. My suspicion is that such people vary a great deal from those who are incapable of thinking outside the ideology to those who only see the negative side of it and hold it in complete contempt. And so just the fact that they were raised in it does not make them a good source of criticism of that religion. For example, their feelings are probably entangled with their experience of their parents as an added source of bias. But that is just my unsubstantiated suspicion.

The scuffle has moved

I shall respond to your post sunshine warrior when i have caught up with work (and manicured my nails into a very sharp point), i haven't forgotten................oh no

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by ishmaelblues

i wouldint say uncritically, christian scholarship is built on being critical, the construction of the nt cannon, Origen, Justin Martyr, thomas aquantis, cs lewis, bliblical scholarship over the last 400 years or so, translation interpretation ect, all extremely critical

Sorry you cant be critical of a thing, if you come from a basis of belief in the said thing.

On the contrary, practically the opposite is true. Anyone can be critical of anything, but the criticism of the uninitiated is the criticism of an ignoramus. For example, the criticism of science by the non-scientist is the meaningless blather of loudmouth, who hasn't the slightest idea what he is talking about. Criticism of something which you have no intimate knowledge of, is the kind of ignorance that is indistinguishable from bigotry.

The same goes for religion. Only those who have been involved in it can really criticize it meaningfully. This is why when it comes to other religions I predominantly speak about the religious freedom and tolerance, but when it comes to Christianity I criticize ruthlessly.

From a Science perspective criticism is welcomed, however Science is not a belief system, so it is a poor analogy.

In regard to religion, Pavlos is correct as that is a belief system, and as such, proponents of said religion will not condemn it.

My husband at one time was a salesman, he told me once that if someone is persuaded and I mean persuaded, to buy a product, once they acquire it. they would sing it's praises regardless of it's use or function, rather than appear the fool for purchasing it. (the Emperors new clothes) They have belief in the product.

This falls firmly into place in regard to religion, people are indoctrinated into a religion and as such will only sing it's praises, they have belief in their product.

However one denomination will criticize another denomination, but that does not count, as that isn't really criticism, thats just petty bickering.

Originally Posted by Absum!

The scuffle has moved

I shall respond to your post sunshine warrior when i have caught up with work (and manicured my nails into a very sharp point), i haven't forgotten................oh no

I look forward to a sharp response, then!

Oh, and please forgive me for all the typos that crep into that unedited post.

I continue to be amused at this sort of discussion which seems to operate from the standpoint that religion is the only type of indoctrination we face. It also seems to intimate that religious indoctrination, especially of children, is an insidious force because that is why there are so many Christians.

All of this is being said by people who are seemingly oblivious to the fact that if such indoctrination is taking place in Christian churches, it is perhaps the least effective indoctrination being conducted today. Below I have listed four links to somewhat recent articles relating to the loss of youths from churches. The search on this topic turned up scores of similar articles, some dating back more than 20 years.

http://www.christianpost.com/article...th-fallout.htm

http://www.prophecynewsheadlines.com...eaving-church/

http://theworldfrommywindow.blogspot...s-leaving.html

http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/10/2...-in-droves.htm

Indoctrination is most effective in a closed society where all contravening information is blocked or attacked via preemptive action.

I could not deny that, in the strictest sense of the word indoctrination, children are subjected to many types of indoctrination, including religion in a religious home. But they are also subjected to moral indoctrination, political indoctrination, fiscal indoctrination and just about any values or practices which their parents may hold or reject. I suppose, in a home where there were strong ethnic feelings, some form of ethnic indoctrination would take place. Certainly children can be indoctrinated by a doctrine of hatred as in hatred of religion.

I just do not see that the teaching of parental values is a strange thing no matter what those values might be. But when someone gets all excited about unsuccessful indoctrination, it seems to be sort of misplaced energy.

There is another side to this coin. You would think that with such a high percentage of youths leaving the church, that it would be only a couple of generations away from extinction. However, it appears that many of the youths who leave the church at around 18 years of age, tend to return to the church after they have obtained jobs, been married and have children. Perhaps with experience in both worlds, they have determined that the non-religious world has nothing to offer them.

The real problem isn't religious education, it's the teaching that faith is a virtue that's the problem. Faith can be a dangerous psychosomatic disorder, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Obviously

The real problem isn't religious education, it's the teaching that faith is a virtue that's the problem. Faith can be a dangerous psychosomatic disorder, in my opinion.

Well I'm an atheist who'd be lost without faith. :?

Maybe it depends on whether we mean defensive faith (i.e. fanaticism as Susan described) or we mean deliberate faith (the "leap of faith").

Obviously said:

The real problem isn't religious education, it's the teaching that faith is a virtue that's the problem. Faith can be a dangerous psychosomatic disorder, in my opinion.

I hope you realize that someplace there is someone saying that people who believe the Universe started by accident, life started by accident and evolution took place by accident have more faith than those who believe in God.

Faith can be misplaced, but I am not sure it often produces dangerous psychosomatic disorders. Perhaps Obviously has some examples of faith producing such a result whether it be faith in God or faith in one political beliefs.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

I hope you realize that someplace there is someone saying that people who believe the Universe started by accident, life started by accident and evolution took place by accident have more faith than those who believe in God.

You make it sound as if it's a bad thing. You also seem to imply it's a faith despite of evidence confirming it; and the consistency found in the logic, predictions, experiments and evidence of this "faith".

And who believes it happened by accident? Those who believe in God? Because by accident you seem to apply some indirect intention. I would rather use "natural" or even "chance". Accident doesn't apply for me at least.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Faith can be misplaced, but I am not sure it often produces dangerous psychosomatic disorders. Perhaps Obviously has some examples of faith producing such a result whether it be faith in God or faith in one political beliefs.

There are plenty of examples. All from Heaven's Gate to communism. Of course, it depends more upon the people who are influenced by faith than the ideas themselves. Then again, if the ideas are extreme the followers will most definitely be psychotic.

Originally Posted by ishmaelblues

i wouldint say uncritically, christian scholarship is built on being critical, the construction of the nt cannon, Origen, Justin Martyr, thomas aquantis, cs lewis, bliblical scholarship over the last 400 years or so, translation interpretation ect, all extremely critical

Perhaps your definition of critical differs from the actual definition, or you've made up the definition to suit your purpose? Nonetheless, if one were to be critical and their entire knowledge of the world was encapsulated within the bible alone, then your statement might be technically correct. Is that what "Biblical scholarship" refers?

But, to be critical of the bible is to carefully evaluate and judge the bible on it's own and find and call attention to flaws and errors based on knowledge of the world outside of the parameters of the bible. In that, the bible is merely a book of myth and superstition. And, it is the myth and superstition which theists accept, uncritically.

Obviously said:

You make it sound as if it's a bad thing. You also seem to imply it's a faith despite of evidence confirming it; and the consistency found in the logic, predictions, experiments and evidence of this "faith".

I don't think my statement of those people's position in any way cast a good or bad or indifferent evaluation on either position. I merely stated that some people think what appears to be your position takes as much, or more, faith as their position. If you wish establish a good or bad value on either position, that is your prerogative. I merely point out that there is a difference of opinion which exists.

Those people would say of your follow up that they are not convinced the evidence which has been presented actually confirms a specific belief either way on the matter. Nor would they agree that the position you take is logically consistent with that evidence. They would suggest that predictions and experiments do not always seem to produced the predicted results through experimentation.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

I hope you realize that someplace there is someone saying that people who believe the Universe started by accident, life started by accident and evolution took place by accident have more faith than those who believe in God.

Would that someone be an uneducated moron who doesn't understand the meaning of faith? Would that someone be you?

Faith can be misplaced, but I am not sure it often produces dangerous psychosomatic disorders. Perhaps Obviously has some examples of faith producing such a result whether it be faith in God or faith in one political beliefs.

Faith can have two meanings, one of which you are evidently unaware.