| Philosophy The forum for the discussion and debate of general philosophy & epistemology |
 | | 
18th January 2012, 12:57 PM
|  | Expert Fool
    
| | Join Date: 16th September 2010
Posts: 2,219
Blessings: 140,642
Reps: 109,238,068,449,798,592 (power: 109,238,068,449,803) | | Originally Posted by The Paul  I mean... aside from simply disappearing in a cloud of smoke without saying anything at all, what could be farther from indoctrination than agnosticism?
It depends. If the agnostic doesn't even tell the child to look for evidence, does not tell them to use reason, that would be a lesser indoctrination ([edit] given that the agnostic's position is: I've seen no evidence for God, therefore I have no opinion).
Two questions, then:
1) What is the minimal amount of interaction a parent & child could have that would allow the child to survive? Wouldn't that be the minimum indoctrination?
2) If one goes above that minimum, is that a bad thing?
__________________
sola gratia |
18th January 2012, 01:00 PM
| | Expert Fool
| | Join Date: 16th September 2010
Posts: 2,219
Blessings: 140,642
Reps: 109,238,068,449,798,592 (power: 109,238,068,449,803) | | Originally Posted by Received I think it isn't the belief or worldview or value being transmitted ("indoctrinated") in itself that is good or bad, but the closemindedness with which a person views alternatives that's bad. Fostering your own values, beliefs, or worldviews is good so long as it's attended by openness to alternatives. That is, so long as you value free thinking or at the very least tolerance for opposing views along with your own.
The same challenge I gave to Exile, then. Do you really mean completely free thinking, or are there some appropriate limits?
__________________
sola gratia |
18th January 2012, 01:00 PM
| | Legend
55 
 | | Join Date: 15th May 2005
Posts: 26,461
Blessings: 47,390,780 My Mood 
Reps: 53,003,453,531,894,808 (power: 53,003,453,531,929) | | Originally Posted by Resha Caner I don't mean to pick on BB specifically. I've seen statements like this several times, so this was just a convenient one to start the conversation.
I find statements like this very interesting. If agnosticism (or atheism) is so obvious, a conviction rooted in firm evidence, why would one need to raise a child in any specific way? Isn't the evidence going to convince the child to go that route?
If a child is indoctrinated in such a way as to bias them toward agnosticism, is it a pure agnosticism or merely a deference to the parents?
I have no idea how one can possibly indoctrinate a view like agnosticism, to begin with.
I guess thatīs why you took the statement which originally spoke of "raising" and "agnosticism" and then asked about "indoctrinating" and "atheism".
Personally, I think itīs very important to offer your children your positions, values, ethics etc.
Itīs also very important to allow and invite them to find out about othersī positions, values and ethics and finally decide for themselves what to adopt and what to reject.
__________________ "Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing, and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there."
(Rumi) |
18th January 2012, 01:06 PM
| | Expert Fool
| | Join Date: 16th September 2010
Posts: 2,219
Blessings: 140,642
Reps: 109,238,068,449,798,592 (power: 109,238,068,449,803) | | Originally Posted by quatona IPersonally, I think itīs very important to offer your children your positions, values, ethics etc.
Itīs also very important to allow and invite them to find out about othersī positions, values and ethics and finally decide for themselves what to adopt and what to reject.
Would you ever challenge their conclusions?
__________________
sola gratia |
18th January 2012, 01:21 PM
| | Newbie
| | Join Date: 17th June 2011
Posts: 343
Blessings: 14,215
Reps: 2,161,871,878,858,075 (power: 2,161,871,878,861) | | Originally Posted by Resha Caner 1) What is the minimal amount of interaction a parent & child could have that would allow the child to survive? Wouldn't that be the minimum indoctrination?
It gets weird. Certain skills have to be conveyed, and in a certain light its going to look like indoctrination.
But regarding religious questions I can't see how you could possibly do anything less like indoctrination than saying "I don't know." Originally Posted by Resha Caner 2) If one goes above that minimum, is that a bad thing?
Well, if you do nothing at all there's the problem of someone else will always be eager to indoctrinate the kid into their religion... which is why I imagine most agnostics will in practice add, "I don't think anyone really knows." To offer some protection against the indoctrination attempts at others.
And technically that's trying to indoctrinate the child to resist indoctrination, but I wouldn't consider it a bad thing. |
18th January 2012, 01:35 PM
| | Expert Fool
| | Join Date: 16th September 2010
Posts: 2,219
Blessings: 140,642
Reps: 109,238,068,449,798,592 (power: 109,238,068,449,803) | | Originally Posted by The Paul It gets weird. Certain skills have to be conveyed, and in a certain light its going to look like indoctrination.
Because, I think, it is. Though I suppose we could find a euphimism that sits better. I agree with what you said later. Call it what you like, it's not necessarily a bad thing to indoctrinate your children. Originally Posted by The Paul But regarding religious questions I can't see how you could possibly do anything less like indoctrination than saying "I don't know."
Even that carries a message. Why don't you know? Because you're no longer searching or because it's impossible to know? Whatever the reason, one of those messages will come through. Originally Posted by The Paul Well, if you do nothing at all there's the problem of someone else will always be eager to indoctrinate the kid into their religion...
And apparently that is bad ... from your perspective. So you will try to indoctrinate your kids to think like you do. What if, in spite of your efforts, they adopt some religion?
__________________
sola gratia |
18th January 2012, 01:35 PM
|  | Dylan = Deity
29 
| | Join Date: 21st March 2002
Posts: 9,884
Blessings: 1,079,624 My Mood 
Reps: 64,805,175,083,758,160 (power: 64,805,175,083,779) | | Originally Posted by Resha Caner The same challenge I gave to Exile, then. Do you really mean completely free thinking, or are there some appropriate limits?
If by completely free thinking you mean the ability to think without being bound by any beliefs, worldviews, ideas, etc., and have your thoughts unfiltered to some degree by these things, then no. By "free thinking" I mean the ability to look beyond to some degree one's current beliefs and values.
__________________ What can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
--Wittgenstein The enemy I see wears a cloak of decency.
--Bob Dylan |
18th January 2012, 01:40 PM
| | Expert Fool
| | Join Date: 16th September 2010
Posts: 2,219
Blessings: 140,642
Reps: 109,238,068,449,798,592 (power: 109,238,068,449,803) | | Originally Posted by Received If by completely free thinking you mean the ability to think without being bound by any beliefs, worldviews, ideas, etc., and have your thoughts unfiltered to some degree by these things, then no. By "free thinking" I mean the ability to look beyond to some degree one's current beliefs and values.
OK. That's not too far from what I think, but I'm a bit more conservative. I don't try to hide that I want my kids to believe the same things I do. I'm OK with them knowing about other religions, but really only for 2 reasons. First, so I have a chance to explain why I disagree with others. Second, to be sure they understand others. I don't want to raise someone who will issue a fatwa against someone else.
__________________
sola gratia |
18th January 2012, 01:58 PM
| | Dylan = Deity
29
| | Join Date: 21st March 2002
Posts: 9,884
Blessings: 1,079,624 My Mood
Reps: 64,805,175,083,758,160 (power: 64,805,175,083,779) | | | I agree with that. It's why I think it's not a matter of the value itself as to why people are all the rage about sensitivity to indoctrination and being open minded with alternatives. It's the value or belief that is being indoctrinated and how it's being indoctrinated in relation to openness to other views. That's the theory, anyways. I think a lot of times this cry against indoctrination in terms of religious upbringing (see Dawkins, etc.) assumes that religion is by definition damaging, and so you shouldn't be allowed to stamp your religious beliefs on another person and should instead give your children alternatives. The problem with this is that giving them alternatives is itself a type of indoctrination -- toward rationality and/or free thinking. So it's not a matter of whether or not indoctrination is taking place, but what is being indoctrinated, as well as the style of this indoctrination in terms of how open it allows children to be toward other possibilities.
__________________ What can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
--Wittgenstein The enemy I see wears a cloak of decency.
--Bob Dylan |
18th January 2012, 02:29 PM
|  | Only toke me 1 year to work out how to change this
| | Join Date: 7th January 2010
Posts: 2,188
Blessings: 1,044,550 My Mood 
Reps: 74,687,208,637,708,112 (power: 74,687,208,637,714) | | | I just noticed something in this thread.
When did indoctrinate become a synonym of raised?
Would telling your kids that brown bread is better then white bread be indoctrinating?
I think somewhere along the way the meaning got lost. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
