Why is it OK to indoctrinate children?

[Catherineanne]

And your correction was incorrect.

I think not. Stalemate.

Children are taught to accept the Bible uncritically. That is indoctrination.

No they are not. Uncritical belief is for totalitarian states such as North Korea. Elsewhere we teach children what we believe, and let them decide for themselves.

It is not up for debate.

Who is debating? I am disagreeing with your premise because it is fundamentally flawed. You asked a question; I answered it.

Also, debate is not even allowed on this forum.

Hahahahahahahaha!

See above.

If you agree that it is wrong to teach the Bible to youngsters without allowing them to evaluate it critically, then maybe lead with that thought and then slip in the incorrect correction.

Thank you for your suggestions but I will post in my own way, not yours.

If you will in turn respond to what I actually say, rather than what you imagine I might have said, that might help.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That likewise is, which I'm assuming is intentional here.




Your definition and mine are not mutually exclusive. All teaching, except maybe a handful of methods (Socratic method, for instance), are indoctrination. When we tell children in school that Columbus sailed in 1492, we don't prove it or ask the children if they agree, we just indoctrinate them. We do this with just about all that we teach children, and adults too, for that matter. Critical argument is managed almost entirely by highly specialized experts for each field, not be the students.


I think its crux is a buzzword (brainwash). Virtually no truths we teach children are done by trying to convince them through argument.


This is a strawman. I'm not attacking liberalism, secularism, humanism, or anything else here. When I say "secular indoctrination," I just mean all indoctrination that does not pertain directly to religion, of which there is quite a bit of. Even if you don't adhere to a religion, chances are you will indoctrinate your children with a morality.

The Holy Spirit does not convict people on whether or not Columbus found land in 1492. But there is a historical event upon which the Holy Spirit comments: the resurrection of Christ. So, on your worldview and on your version of whatever you think indoctrination is, if indoctrination is necessary to convince a student of Columbus' actions it still follows that indoctrination is not necessary to convince anyone of the resurrection. You are making the Holy Spirit out to be useless.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Nihilist Virus
Children are taught to accept the Bible uncritically. That is indoctrination.

No they are not. Uncritical belief is for totalitarian states such as North Korea. Elsewhere we teach children what we believe, and let them decide for themselves.

You are factually in error.

Also, this claim of yours contradicts your statement from above:

Meanwhile if you take another look you will see I corrected you on your semantics, not on your Sunday school memories.

Clearly you were (incorrectly) correcting me on my Sunday school memories. Perhaps they do things differently in Britain. Europe is more progressive than America. Don't underestimate how low we will go over here.

 

[Inkfingers]

Nihilist Virus
Children are taught to accept the Bible uncritically. That is indoctrination.

That is a generalisation.

In some places you will find children taught to accept the Bible uncritically, in some you will find they are taught to look at the bible with reason and see how it speaks the truth, in further more you will find a kind of wishy-washy 'well you don't have to believe it really dear', and in some places you will find them taught to dismiss the Bible uncritiically.

And you could say the same about Liberalism; I've lost count of the number of liberal parents who teach their children to be liberals by demonising all those who challenge the normalising osf same-sex atrtaction, but there are a small number who at least think about the subject (although granted seldom for long).

 

[Nihilist Virus]

In some places you will find children taught to accept the Bible uncritically,

Do you find that to be acceptable? Why or why not?

 

[Inkfingers]

Do you find that to be acceptable? Why or why not?

The Bible itself says 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Proove, dokimazō, meaning 'test'.

It is right to raise your children in your values. As children we do not have the capacity to test the Bible (it takes time for reasoning ability to develop) and so we indoctrinate the children when young, but once old enough to think in a more mature manner it is right that the child is helped to test and understand what they are taught. Try this too soon though and it just confuses them.

It is though, as I said, perfectly normal for parents to wish to raise their children in (and with) the values the parents themselves consider right, true, wise, and good.

 

[Kersh]

I don't have my own definition of the term. I'm going by the standard definition:

I don't think it's right to indoctrinate children on any matter. If they ask why murder is wrong, you shouldn't reply with, "because it is." You explain why.

So, it sounds like the answer to your question is that some Christians are okay with indoctrination, and some are not. Most of us, in my experience, are in the latter camp. We teach our children what we believe to be true and why we believe it, trusting them to evaluate it and decide whether they believe it. A minority of us, mostly those who have not been taught to critically evaluate our faith, but who have "accepted" it out of fear of going to hell, pass this indoctrination on to our children.
I think if you look at it critically, a similar phenomenon exists among all belief (and lack thereof) systems.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

I knew you would get it.....LOL
I

I see this has turned into one of those "I'm right the rest of you are all wrong" threads, no wonder they claim to be critical thinkers... lol...

 

[JoeP222w]

This is not a game. At least not for me. Please don't make a mockery of this thread.

I did not say it was.

You're writing a huge check. Why are you not on the apologetics forms?

I do participate there.

I'm asking about why it is OK to cram it down their throats and hold their noses.

No one is cramming it down their throats. This is a mischaracterization. And it is the parents right and responsibility to raise their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

I'm not sure how you've contributed to my thread other than inviting yourself to participate in the apologetics forum.

This is a public access forum, as I understand it. You asked the question. I answered it.

Why not chuck a Bible at the child, tell them the gist of it, encourage them to read it and leave the rest to God?

God uses parents as a means. And again, it is the parents right and responsibility to teach their children the truth of God.

If that is insufficient, then I'd like to know exactly how much help God needs here.

God does not need any help. He choose to use His children to teach others. God uses means.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Let me start by saying that I've never, not even once, seen the indoctrination of children explained to be a bad thing by any Christian. I've never seen one Christian rebuke another for the practice. In fact I don't even know if I've ever even seen a Christian even address this issue at all, apart from perhaps 1.) when a Christian is questioned on it by an atheist, or 2.) when a Christian remarks that someone is not raising their children properly (seeming to indicate a pro-indoctrination stance).

Therefore I will assume, until told otherwise, that all Christians are of the persuasion that indoctrination of children is acceptable. I am curious as to why this is found to be acceptable.

I also am curious as to why this practice is necessary, since, if we suppose that Christianity is the one true religion, there should be no dire need to perpetuate the religion by means of indoctrinating young minds. Christianity, supposing it is true, will withstand the furious scrutiny of any academic nonbeliever, so there is no threat of extinction looming over it. Furthermore, indoctrination should be unnecessary simply because either 1.) apologetics suffices to convince any rational person, or 2.) the Holy Spirit will reach out to everyone, or at least to those who are called, and since this comes from God it will be more effective than human means (indoctrination, apologetics, etc).

I understand that paternal instinct implores one to protect one's children, and in this case the parent is protecting the child from eternal hellfire, but indoctrination is only successful if it stamps out the freedom of choice in the child. This, to me, seems to be a way of telling God that he is doing it wrong because, apart from Calvanists, free will is more or less a staple doctrine. But even the Calvanists must admit that indoctrination is pointless since indoctrination of a child who is not chosen by God will not result in the child being saved whereas failure to indoctrinate a chosen child will do no harm to the child's salvation.

So in summary, please explain why indoctrination is acceptable, why it is necessary, and what the overall motivation/thought process underlying indoctrination is.

Good point. My two youngest are 4 and 5, and I do take them to Mass because if my wife and I are going, we have nobody to watch over them... But no, they don't like it. They squirm and make faces at other parishioners, and all kinds of other things and I smile and let it go on.

...But I DON'T try to explain much more than what they ask. They want to know if the man nailed to the cross is God, and I say yes. Just basic things for now, but I do want to send them to Catholic school when they go into first grade.

My other two are 17 and 20. The 20 year old is an athiest, and I do feel horrible about that because she is very selfish and doesn't speak kindly to her mother now that she's moved out. She's left, and doesn't even come to visit her baby sisters. She's very pessimistic and never attended Catholic schools.

The 17 year old went to Catholic school for a couple years, and she is a firm believer. She has a generous soul, takes good care of her baby sisters, and is doing very well for herself. She is even taking a medical college course as a senior and spends 12 hrs. At school 3 days a week -which impresses me. She sacrifices much of her time for others and her studies and still makes a little time to go out and spend time with friends.

 

[RDKirk]

Nihilist Virus
When parents indoctrinate their children, are they satisfied with the child merely possessing an academic understanding of the faith or do the parents insist on controlling the personal beliefs of their children?

RDKirk
The former. That's all they can discern.

Utterly false. I have an academic understanding of the Bible and I'm quite capable of explaining why I don't believe it. So that is definitely distinguishable from belief, genuine or otherwise.

I don't think you understood what I said.

Parents ultimately cannot control the beliefs of their children. Madalyn Murray O'Hair, for instance, although she was certainly able to make sure her son Michael possessed an academic understanding of her beliefs, was ultimately unable to control his beliefs.

Until he deliberately made his own beliefs known, all she could discern was his academic knowledge of hers.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't know why you expect me to answer your question when you didn't answer any of mine. You only played semantic games.

It's a fair clarification question. You said:

Let me start by saying that I've never, not even once, seen the indoctrination of children explained to be a bad thing by any Christian. I've never seen one Christian rebuke another for the practice.

You didn't specify that you only meant "indoctrination into Christianity." So are you against teaching children moral standards that you expect them to accept uncritically (such as "It's wrong to bite other children") across the board, or are you only offended specifically by the indoctrination of Christianity?

 

[Landon Caeli]

Define indoctrination though...

...Because normally, that word has negative connotations to begin with since it involves the "forced" acceptance of something. In that sense, I'd say I've never indoctrinated any of my children. Ive only "influenced" them, which is what humans do, and is what we all do on these forums and in nearly every social encounter we take part in.

To influence is what we humans do.

 

[RDKirk]

Define indoctrination though...

...Because normally, that word has negative connotations to begin with.

Only very generally and currently. Dictionaries define general usage, not meaning. For instance, one of the definitions of "cow" is "a bovine creature of any age or gender." And for a kid in Manhattan, that's the general usage of "cow." But it doesn't work for a kid on a dairy farm--trying to milk a calf or a bull is futile at best: "Cow" is very specific for him.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Only very generally and currently. Dictionaries define general usage, not meaning. For instance, one of the definitions of "cow" is "a bovine creature of any age or gender." And for a kid in Manhattan, that's the general usage of "cow." But it doesn't work for a kid on a dairy farm--trying to milk a calf or a bull is futile at best: "Cow" is very specific for him.

I prefer "influence" over "indoctrination", but that's just me.

 

[Catherineanne]

The Holy Spirit does not convict people on whether or not Columbus found land in 1492.

Let me get this right; you, a self declared atheist, are telling Christians on a Christian Forum how the Holy Spirit works, and what he does and does not do?

You couldn't make this stuff up.

 

[Catherineanne]

You are factually in error.

Oh no I am not!!!

Pantomime season is early this year.

Clearly you were (incorrectly) correcting me on my Sunday school memories.

Sanctimonious twaddle.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The Bible itself says 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Proove, dokimazō, meaning 'test'.

It is right to raise your children in your values. As children we do not have the capacity to test the Bible (it takes time for reasoning ability to develop) and so we indoctrinate the children when young, but once old enough to think in a more mature manner it is right that the child is helped to test and understand what they are taught. Try this too soon though and it just confuses them.

It is though, as I said, perfectly normal for parents to wish to raise their children in (and with) the values the parents themselves consider right, true, wise, and good.

Children sniff out the bizarre claims of the Bible at a very young age. Are you saying you'd suppress those questions during the indoctrination phase, and then allow the questions and answer them to the best of your ability when they reach a certain age?

 

[Catherineanne]

Children sniff out the bizarre claims of the Bible at a very young age.

Correct. In which case your term 'indoctrinate' is clearly inappropriate; we teach children what we believe and they make up their own minds, even from the very earliest age. Children are not daft.

As I said above, children are not as easily manipulated as you seem to think.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Good point. My two youngest are 4 and 5, and I do take them to Mass because if my wife and I are going, we have nobody to watch over them... But no, they don't like it. They squirm and make faces at other parishioners, and all kinds of other things and I smile and let it go on.

...But I DON'T try to explain much more than what they ask. They want to know if the man nailed to the cross is God, and I say yes. Just basic things for now, but I do want to send them to Catholic school when they go into first grade.

My other two are 17 and 20. The 20 year old is an athiest, and I do feel horrible about that because she is very selfish and doesn't speak kindly to her mother now that she's moved out. She's left, and doesn't even come to visit her baby sisters. She's very pessimistic and never attended Catholic schools.

The 17 year old went to Catholic school for a couple years, and she is a firm believer. She has a generous soul, takes good care of her baby sisters, and is doing very well for herself. She is even taking a medical college course as a senior and spends 12 hrs. At school 3 days a week -which impresses me. She sacrifices much of her time for others and her studies and still makes a little time to go out and spend time with friends.

So basically you butter me up in the beginning there and then out of nowhere hit me hard with the idea that atheists are just worse human beings than Christians, or Catholics in particular. I don't think atheists are worse people. It's just that Christians, and Catholics in particular, get held to a much, much lower standard.

Ask yourself what would happen to an atheist organization if it was discovered that it was deliberately perpetuating and covering up the rape of thousands of children on a global scale for decades or more.

Define indoctrination though...

...Because normally, that word has negative connotations to begin with since it involves the "forced" acceptance of something. In that sense, I'd say I've never indoctrinated any of my children. Ive only "influenced" them, which is what humans do, and is what we all do on these forums and in nearly every social encounter we take part in.

To influence is what we humans do.