Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But looking at all expressions or introductions to religion to that "end" would be just as bad as doing to all other ideologies universally. When looking at it objectively, religion is just like any other ideology; it is adapted to the needs of the group and the individual.
........
Until it doesn't. Religion is not really big on adapting. The inflexibility of a group becomes the indoctrination.
Those who feel disenfranchised either leave, or start believing there must be something wrong with them.
Religion counts on a whole bunch of people believing they are sinners, and something is wrong with them.
The indoctrination is making people believe that very thing.
Last edited by RonkonkomaNative; 02-24-2015 at 05:22 PM..
Reason: spelling
Until it doesn't. Religion is not really big on adapting. The inflexibility of a group becomes the indoctrination.
Those who feel disenfranchised either leave, or start believing there must be something wrong with them.
Religion counts on a whole bunch of people believing they are sinners, and something is wrong with them.
The indoctrination is making people believe that very thing.
Germanic neo-paganism is much different that Protestant Christianity, Hinduism is much different than Judaism, and Taoism is much different than SanterĂa.
Your use of such a broad brush leaves out an awful lot.
But we're getting quite off topic for this thread.
Germanic neo-paganism is much different that Protestant Christianity, Hinduism is much different than Judaism, and Taoism is much different than SanterĂa.
Your use of such a broad brush leaves out an awful lot.
But we're getting quite off topic for this thread.
My point is indoctrination is done by people in authority irrespective of religion.
Indoctrination does not allow question of authority. It is unheard of, and very much on topic.
My point is indoctrination is done by people in authority irrespective of religion.
Indoctrination does not allow question of authority. It is unheard of, and very much on topic.
Indoctrination is the opposite of teaching critical thinkings.
Precisely. It's programming people with what to think, rather than teaching them how to think. Indoctrination is the imposing of a doctrine on somebody. It's an especially insidious thing to do to people who are vulnerable, impressionable, or gullible -- like children. Which is why things like religion, nationalism, and patriotism get drilled into kids' heads at an early age. Imprint the ideas on their impressionable minds, and they'll have a hard time shaking those ideas as their lives unfold.
Indoctrination does not allow question of authority.
Which is why the word often goes hand-in-hand with repressive regimes. Anyone old enough to remember the Cold War knows that good Americans were told they were righteous and just and pure, while the Soviets indoctrinated their children with communism and anti-American propaganda.
On a smaller scale, cultural conservatives today still complain about public schools that indoctrinate kids with leftist ideas.
In just about any setting, the connotation is not a positive one.
The term "indoctrination" is generally intended to imply exploitation of impressionability to bring about belief, contrasted with the manner by which people come to belief through the evidence of their own senses. The former establishes a master/slave-like relationship between the source of the indoctrination and the recipient. The latter reverses that relationship, putting the believer in control of their own belief.
The term "indoctrination" is generally intended to imply exploitation of impressionability to bring about belief, contrasted with the manner by which people come to belief through the evidence of their own senses. The former establishes a master/slave-like relationship between the source of the indoctrination and the recipient. The latter reverses that relationship, putting the believer in control of their own belief.
I don't know if it's "generally" or just "often" used with a negative connotation. Technically, in and of itself, it has no moral bias one way or the other. I think that with young children, who are not fully baked yet and fully able to think logically for themselves, it is really the only option and the question becomes what do you indoctrinate them WITH. And do you encourage their development of intellectual self-sufficiency or encourage continued intellectual dependence -- on you, your church, or other power structures.
A healthy relation to a young child isn't so much master/slave as mentor/ward. You're installing first principles: human dignity (yours and others), the golden rule, cooperation, sharing, grooming habits, etc., and gradually, it transitions from instilling or indoctrinating to cultivating and aiming their innate curiosity. WHY is it important, for example, to share? What is generosity and what is its utility in civil society, and its limitations? How does it interact with healthy personal boundaries? When does it become dysfunctional or codependent? Ideally you're moving from "because someone said so" to "because I understand why it's important and want to" in all these things.
But you still start with what is essentially indoctrination. Young children take teachings on faith at first, because they can't understand them, at least not fully. If someone knows how to reason with a three year old I'd love to hear how they do it!
I don't know if it's "generally" or just "often" used with a negative connotation.
To be clear, I would leave that up to the reader to decide whether the applicable aspects (exploitation of impressionability; making the believer subservient to the belief) are negative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
And do you encourage their development of intellectual self-sufficiency or encourage continued intellectual dependence -- on you, your church, or other power structures.
Precisely the point. The development of self-sufficiency with regard to the development of religious perspective is contrasted with the exploitation of impressionability and subservience to the belief mentioned above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
A healthy relation to a young child isn't so much master/slave as mentor/ward.
A distinction without sufficient difference to warrant mentioning. I'll accept your amendment as friendly and just move on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
