Indoctrination

[Resha Caner]

Im a father of a 10 month old, and will raise her agnostic.

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?

 

[Received]

Maybe you could call it preventative indoctrination: taking the extra steps to implicitly reveal the stupidity of one view (theism) by emphasizing its rational alternative (agnosticism/atheism).

But indoctrination is involuntary; it's based in the roots even of one's culture, and culture is mediated mostly through modeling and much less through explicit arguments. Indoctrinating a child in the ways of "looking at the evidence" is indoctrinating it with an evidentialist-leaning rationalism. Indoctrinating a child in the ways of "look at the physical evidence" is even potentially dangerous in that it could lead to scientism (all that's provable is provable through science -- a self-negating statement). If indoctrination, whether with regard to what one sees as rationality or religiosity, is happening in any case, the question must then be: why this form of indoctrination?

And I think the answers are on a continuum: either to fulfill the parents' negative reactions against opposing doctrines or worldviews, or to equip the child with a doctrine or worldview that will aid best in making it happy. All too often it's the former.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

I am not comfortable discussing this without knowing how the person that said it meant it, so I am going to adress it by possible interpretation. (also I'll be assuming atheist because I dont think agnostic is a useful term without it being attached to either theist or atheist)

1. If they intend to raise their child by telling them there is no god. essentially indoctrinating them the other way.

Then I would think that is pretty much just as bad, the child would just be repeating their parents beliefs with no thought involved.

2. If they meant they will raise their child and the child will be aware their parent is an atheist but not push their conclusion on the child.

I dont think there is a problem with that. (Ofcourse it is impossible to entirely get rid of bias.)



This is actually one of the things I often hear brought up among atheists, how to raise their child without indoctrinating it.

The general idea is to teach a child 'how to think' instead of teaching it 'what to think'. So essentially raise a good skeptic by giving them the tools they need, teach them to question and let them form their own ideas by exposing them to many different points of view.

 

[Resha Caner]

Ofcourse it is impossible to entirely get rid of bias.

Agreed. And so I think Received's question is much better (quoted below). I suppose what I'm pointing to is the typical atheist gambit of saying: There are so many religions. Why Christianity? I'm throwing agnosticism and atheism into the mix. Why should those stand out from the pool of religions?

The general idea is to teach a child 'how to think' instead of teaching it 'what to think'.

That's funny, because my dad (a Christian) told me that was his objective with me. I understand the sentiment, but it's not an absolute. It's not even that there is only an unconscious bias. I think there is always deliberate bias. If a child were to conclude that murder is good, we wouldn't clap our hands in joy: Oh, good! Look! He's learned to think for himself.

If indoctrination, whether with regard to what one sees as rationality or religiosity, is happening in any case, the question must then be: why this form of indoctrination?

Yes. Like you say, all forms of indoctrination have their pitfalls. Scientism, as you say, is the problem with emphasizing reason over all else.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Agreed. And so I think Received's question is much better (quoted below). I suppose what I'm pointing to is the typical atheist gambit of saying: There are so many religions. Why Christianity? I'm throwing agnosticism and atheism into the mix. Why should those stand out from the pool of religions?

I would say because it is the null hypothesis. (Does not mean its right, just that its where you have to start. Same for unicorns, they could be out there but untill I see some evidence...)

That's funny, because my dad (a Christian) told me that was his objective with me. I understand the sentiment, but it's not an absolute It's not even that there is only an unconscious bias. I think there is always deliberate bias. If a child were to conclude that murder is good, we wouldn't clap our hands in joy: Oh, good! Look! He's learned to think for himself.

I hope I did not give the impression that only atheists care about skeptical thought, ofcourse theists do aswell such as perhaps your father.

I think you could certainly clap your hands, but you'd also have to proceed to discuss with your child how they came to that conclusion. Perhaps they had an amazing insight, or perhaps you can point to faults in their reasoning and ask about them. (who knows maybe in 20 years everybody will be a murderer and society will be better for it )

Yes. Like you say, all forms of indoctrination have their pitfalls. Scientism, as you say, is the problem with emphasizing reason over all else.

I would suggest being upfront about the pitfalls. And explain why you choose to go with that approach instead of another, think of what we say about democracy.

 

[Received]

dp

 

[Received]

Yes. Like you say, all forms of indoctrination have their pitfalls. Scientism, as you say, is the problem with emphasizing reason over all else.

The difficulty I have is that I'm very wary of the idea that the most rational approach (whatever that even means) is necessarily the one that makes a person the most happy. Appealing to theism arguably has as much philosophical validity as atheism or agnosticism, but appealing to religion is where you really can get psychological support for things like life meaning, support systems, and other variables that tend toward happiness; not at all that atheism or agnosticism (or evidentialism, etc.) aren't compatible with happiness. I'm going to lean toward happiness when needed by bringing up my child in the ways of my religion. But it's a very ecumenical, tolerant, non-Hell-raising religion, commensurate with looking at the evidence (in a philosophical, not necessarily scientific, sense), and open in general to other possible options, if the child ever does get the urge to look the other way. The point is that I'm looking to my child's happiness, and not rationalism for its own sake, which in my view is missing the point of rationality.

 

[Resha Caner]

I would say because it is the null hypothesis. (Does not mean its right, just that its where you have to start. Same for unicorns, they could be out there but untill I see some evidence...)

This just circumvents the issue. How do you know it is a matter of evidence and not one of your indoctrination regarding how to view the evidence - what to consider as evidence and what to discard?

I think you could certainly clap your hands, but you'd also have to proceed to discuss with your child how they came to that conclusion. Perhaps they had an amazing insight, or perhaps you can point to faults in their reasoning and ask about them. (who knows maybe in 20 years everybody will be a murderer and society will be better for it )

I have a quote from G.K. Chesterton lying about somewhere - something to the effect that what skeptics eventually discover is that they have removed the floor on which they stand and replaced it with nothing.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm going to lean toward happiness when needed by bringing up my child in the ways of my religion. But it's a very ecumenical, tolerant, non-Hell-raising religion, commensurate with looking at the evidence (in a philosophical, not necessarily scientific, sense), and open in general to other possible options, if the child ever does get the urge to look the other way. The point is that I'm looking to my child's happiness, and not rationalism for its own sake, which in my view is missing the point of rationality.

I would disagree that happiness is the ultimate goal.

 

[KCfromNC]

Agreed. And so I think Received's question is much better (quoted below). I suppose what I'm pointing to is the typical atheist gambit of saying: There are so many religions. Why Christianity? I'm throwing agnosticism and atheism into the mix. Why should those stand out from the pool of religions?

Because they're not religions? I'm not sure what the question is here.

Scientism, as you say, is the problem with emphasizing reason over all else.

I'd have thought that scientism would be trusting empirical evidence over all else. Rationalism would be closer to trusting reason over all else. But I have no evidence that scientism exists outside of the imagination of some believers so I guess it can be whatever they want it to be.

The point is that I'm looking to my child's happiness, and not rationalism for its own sake, which in my view is missing the point of rationality.

This is all assuming that rationalism or scientism is designed to address the same sorts of questions as you see religion answering. A more typical replacement for religious beliefs in this area are atheistic systems of morality or, for lack of a better term, spirituality (things like secular humanism or the UU church).

Religion is often cited as a way to get answers about questions which don't have objective answers. Confusing that with non-religious views which work to give objective answers to questions which have them isn't a realistic representation of how the non-religious view these tools.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

This just circumvents the issue. How do you know it is a matter of evidence and not one of your indoctrination regarding how to view the evidence - what to consider as evidence and what to discard?

But it would not matter what position I have or how I got to it. Atheism would still be the null hypothesis.

I am not sure what you are asking me?

I have a quote from G.K. Chesterton lying about somewhere - something to the effect that what skeptics eventually discover is that they have removed the floor on which they stand and replaced it with nothing.

The good man was wrong.

 

[KCfromNC]

But it would not matter what position I have or how I got to it. Atheism would still be the null hypothesis.

I am not sure what you are asking me?

Probably going for the "you've been indoctrinated to ignore all of the evidence for Jesus" approach.

The good man was wrong, he just saw skepticism as destructive.

Or he could just be saying that some people prefer to make up and confidently believe in wrong answers rather than admit that they don't know. Some people prefer certainty instead of truth.

But yeah, it's not as if I can't find quotes from random people saying that, for example, Lutherans are working for the devil. People say all sorts of wacky stuff.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Probably going for the "you've been indoctrinated to ignore all of the evidence for Jesus" approach.

While that is what I might normally assume I had the idea we were having a very good discussion so far, so I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt here and ask for clarification.

Or he could just be saying that some people prefer to make up and confidently believe in wrong answers rather than admit that they don't know. Some people prefer certainty instead of truth.

But yeah, it's not as if I can't find quotes from random people saying that, for example, Lutherans are working for the devil. People say all sorts of wacky stuff.

I do not know who he is or what context he may have said it in, so I just went with how it appeared to me.

 

[The Paul]

The original quote isn't even "I'm going to raise my child atheist." It was "I'm going to raise my child agnostic."

So a kid asks tricky questions about gods, spirits, afterlives, etc, and their parent tells them, "I don't know. I don't think anyone actually knows."

I mean... aside from simply disappearing in a cloud of smoke without saying anything at all, what could be farther from indoctrination than agnosticism?

 

[Resha Caner]

But it would not matter what position I have or how I got to it. Atheism would still be the null hypothesis.

I am not sure what you are asking me?

This just takes us into the game of "Why?" I could ask why you've been indoctrinated to think you must form a null hypothesis (because I don't believe people start from null with everything), but I'm not interested in chasing after that. It will just keep looping back to the same basic question: Why this indoctrination?

It was just an observation on my part. It seems we agree that bias will never be completely eliminated and so everyone will pass some of that bias on to their children. As such, I don't really see that atheism (or agnosticism) holds any special place of objectivity in the theological spectrum. It is just one of the many choices.

The good man was wrong.

So what floor do skeptics stand on then?

 

[Resha Caner]

While that is what I might normally assume I had the idea we were having a very good discussion so far, so I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt here and ask for clarification.

KC always assumes I have an ulterior motive. I agree it was just a good discussion - no particular goal in mind.

Do I like to have my views confirmed? Sure. But I don't expect you're going to completely agree with me, so let's just continue on as we were.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

This just takes us into the game of "Why?" I could ask why you've been indoctrinated to think you must form a null hypothesis (because I don't believe people start from null with everything), but I'm not interested in chasing after that. It will just keep looping back to the same basic question: Why this indoctrination?

Ah I think I understand.
I agree people do not start from null with everything.
But that doesnt mean its the best idea though. (but it is more practical sometimes.)

It was just an observation on my part. It seems we agree that bias will never be completely eliminated and so everyone will pass some of that bias on to their children. As such, I don't really see that atheism (or agnosticism) holds any special place of objectivity in the theological spectrum. It is just one of the many choices.

I think the main difference is that atheism (or agnosticism) do not claim they are absolutely true, but just that you do not belief.

So what floor do skeptics stand on then?

The one thats supporting their weight.

Seriously though I am not sure how to answer that question, could you rephrase?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

KC always assumes I have an ulterior motive. I agree it was just a good discussion - no particular goal in mind.

Do I like to have my views confirmed? Sure. But I don't expect you're going to completely agree with me, so let's just continue on as we were.

Can do

 

[Received]

This is all assuming that rationalism or scientism is designed to address the same sorts of questions as you see religion answering. A more typical replacement for religious beliefs in this area are atheistic systems of morality or, for lack of a better term, spirituality (things like secular humanism or the UU church).

Right. I suppose my point was that assuming you have to start with some type of indoctrination (given that culture is transmitted primarily indirectly, through modeling for example), I'm going to start with a rational, ecumenical, tolerant type of Christianity. Both because I think it's true, and because (or therefore because) it's easiest to transmit in bringing up a child. Having a household where there was a distinguished lack of similarity in values and worldviews, at least vaguely, would be incomprehensible for a child, and terribly confusing even for many adolescents. You have to start with something, and 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.

 

[Resha Caner]

But that doesnt mean its the best idea though.

Hmm. Maybe we've already run our course. The reply that came to mind would just spin us off into issues of free will.

Seriously though I am not sure how to answer that question, could you rephrase?

Would the skeptic's motto be: question everything?

If so, should the skeptic question questioning everything? Should the skeptic question everything every time? IOW, can a skeptic be a perfect skeptic, or must something be taken for granted?