Why is it OK to indoctrinate children?

[Hetta]

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.

Hi. I was indoctrinated myself, from an early age, and spent many years struggling with the particular sect of Christianity in which I was raised. However, I always felt (and still do to a certain extent) that it was a good thing to have faith instilled. Over time, by balancing it with other things I have learned, I have not found m/any negatives in being brought up to believe. FF to my own children, and we decided to also raise them as Christians. They went to church and to Christian school for many years. At home, we talked more generally than "just" about God/the Bible. We are both Liberals, and our kids have always known where we stand on the important things in life. They know we believe in evolution, that we are pro-choice, support gay marriage etc. Interestingly, our children have turned out to be a very mixed bunch. We have one very C/conservative child (eldest), one semi-atheist, one Liberal Christian, and two "don't know's." None of them regret attending church or being taught about God, and I don't regret raising them this way because, in the end, they have made their own choice based upon their intellect.

 

[chilehed]

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...

That's probably because we've never before heard anyone propose the loony idea that teaching things to our children is a bad idea.

 

[Widlast]

The term "indoctrination" is a loaded word (as used by moderns).
The term assumes that what is taught is in some way questionable or cultish.

I will teach my children the truth. Whether the world likes it or not does not interest me in the least.
I know that there will be many who will call it "indoctrination", (and worse things).
Frankly, I don't care what stupid people think.

 

[civilwarbuff]

So when does the critical thinking part come into play, before or after they jump???

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

 

[Kersh]

Hi. I was indoctrinated myself, from an early age, and spent many years struggling with the particular sect of Christianity in which I was raised. However, I always felt (and still do to a certain extent) that it was a good thing to have faith instilled. Over time, by balancing it with other things I have learned, I have not found m/any negatives in being brought up to believe. FF to my own children, and we decided to also raise them as Christians. They went to church and to Christian school for many years. At home, we talked more generally than "just" about God/the Bible. We are both Liberals, and our kids have always known where we stand on the important things in life. They know we believe in evolution, that we are pro-choice, support gay marriage etc. Interestingly, our children have turned out to be a very mixed bunch. We have one very C/conservative child (eldest), one semi-atheist, one Liberal Christian, and two "don't know's." None of them regret attending church or being taught about God, and I don't regret raising them this way because, in the end, they have made their own choice based upon their intellect.

For a second there, I thought you that you must be my mother. You just described my upbringing amd my siblings for the most part. I am the conservative one of the bunch (but I am the youngest)

 

[Kristen Johnson]

I was always taught that we are to bring up children "in the way they should go" - meaning in the faith.

 

[crossnote]

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.

If the parents won't the schools will. Parents have the primary duty to raise/teach their children.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

"Indoctrinate" or "Indoctrination" means to teach. So apparently you are against teaching children?

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

It can mean to teach apart divorced from teaching critical thought process. However, I know of no Christian that teaches their children to separate an active intellect from the learning process. Christians are not called to blind faith, nor do I know of any Christian that teaches their children to have blind faith. So the whole premise of your argument is incorrect.

So I take it then that you encourage difficult questions? I'll see you on the apologetics forum. Go ahead and post a thread on any topic in the Bible.

There is no threat to Christianity from thorough examination, because God's word is truth and it never fails. However, the unbeliever is not neutral or unbiased in their thought. They are in rebellion to God, and being in rebellion to God means that they are opposed to any fair examination of God's truth.

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

A key part of Apologetics is teaching. And the Holy Spirit does transform and teach an individual. But God uses believers as a means to do that, through teaching.

At this point it's like you're screaming from the rooftops that you belong on the apologetics forum.

You have a false assumption that man has autonomous free will. He does not. His choices are limited to his nature, and apart from God's grace, the individual can only make sinful or corrupt choices because of the fallen nature of man.

I do not know what your point is here.

The fundamental error in this statement is the assumption that we know who God's elect are, where we do not have this knowledge. And God commands the Christian to proclaim His gospel to all nations, not just the elect.

Then proclaim the gospel to your children. I'm asking about why it is OK to cram it down their throats and hold their noses.

Back to the original thought: Indoctrination is teaching. Unless someone teaches a child, they will not learn. No one is self-taught.

You started off with the incorrect definition. Then you went to the correct one. Now you went back to the wrong one again. Why?

For Christian parents, it is necessary, because it is the most loving thing you can do for a child, is to teach them the truth of God, and secondly because God commands Christian parents to teach their children. The motivation is love, not only so the child can learn about God's holy, perfect and righteous wrath against sin, but moreso that they can learn about God's immeasurable grace, mercy and love. Without a proper understanding of God's righteous justice and wrath against sin, God's mercy, grace and love are robbed of their meaning.

I'm not sure how you've contributed to my thread other than inviting yourself to participate in the apologetics forum. I asked why indoctrination is necessary. I understand that children will not teach themselves mathematics. I don't think the Holy Spirit does that. The Holy Spirit teaches spiritual things with inerrancy. 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? If that is insufficient, then I'd like to know exactly how much help God needs here.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

"Indoctrination" is a loaded term. By definition, it just means to teach.

Referest thou to the archaic definition?

Everyone can choose to raise their kids as they see fit (within reason, of course).

And if you indoctrinate your children, that is, teach them to accept beliefs uncritically, then you are not employing reason. Does teaching something without reason fall in the category of being within reason?

At some point, all children ask existential questions like "Who made us?" and "What happens when we die?" Parents have to answer these questions in some way. For some, the answers are "God" and "We go to Heaven," and for others, it's "We don't really know, we came to be through the process of evolution" and "Nothing". And of course, there is a wide range of ideas in between.

OK.

No matter what, parents can't be completely, 100% unbiased regarding what they teach their kids about life and death. Whether your religion is Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or you are agnostic, atheist, humanist, or a combination of any of these - it's impossible to not steer your kids in some sort of direction. You can choose not to answer your kids' questions at all, but that doesn't seem wise either.

There's a difference between being unable to walk the delicate balance of complete neutrality and simply not caring at all and brainwashing your children.

Ultimately, kids will grow up and make their own choices about what they believe in. But parents make the call about what is the best way to raise their kids.

I've reached the end of your post and I don't see where anything has been answered.

 

[Poppyseed78]

Referest thou to the archaic definition?



And if you indoctrinate your children, that is, teach them to accept beliefs uncritically, then you are not employing reason. Does teaching something without reason fall in the category of being within reason?



OK.



There's a difference between being unable to walk the delicate balance of complete neutrality and simply not caring at all and brainwashing your children.



I've reached the end of your post and I don't see where anything has been answered.

Yes, I guess I was employing the archaic definition, to teach, or instruct. I do not plan to teach my kids to accept beliefs uncritically.

When I said that parents can raise their kids anyway they see fit "within reason," I meant that they can't literally do whatever they please with their kids. Parents are bound by laws to provide certain things.

You are a very argumentative sort lol. I'm not up for this, it's midnight and I'm just not the one.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "indoctrination". I think teaching children a firm moral structure is important and I think teaching them about all aspects of this world that they are curious about is a good thing. I think that showing them what I believe is okay and I hope that they believe the same thing as me. And let's be real here, I don't believe for even a second that if a staunch atheist has children and indoctrinates them that there is no God and that child still finds a faith in something, that they would be happy about that. I know several atheists that ACTIVELY keep faiths out of their house. So, I don't think that's any better.

I'm not convinced that you know any atheists at all since you don't seem to understand what we even believe. We don't claim that there is no God. We don't believe the positive claim that God exists.

Matt Dilahunty puts it like this:

Imagine there is a gumball machine. A person claims that there is an even number of gumballs in the machine. You say that you don't believe the person. Does this mean you're claiming that there is an odd number of gumballs? No! You simply reject the positive claim that there is an even number.

I have to say that the idea of "freedom of a choice" for a child is actually stupid. If you know enough about child development you know that children aren't always capable of making appropriate decisions and that is normally just because they are unable to consider all aspects and potential outcomes (or consequences) of their decisions. Their tiny little brains are still developing. Why do you believe an 8 year old is capable of making good choices for their life? Sexual congress with a minor is considered taboo because they do not comprehend the entirety of the action they are taking apart of. The same is true with moral development. Parents are there to guide the process as they see fit.
And it is CATAGORICALLY innappropriate (and always coming from someone who doesn't have kids), to suggest that parents should not have an intrinsic part of that process.

So this means that parents should be allowed to force religious beliefs upon their children?

What I can't understand is the idea that allowing children to, essentially drift through their existence with no rudder, is considered the more appropriate and viable.

Are you saying that a person is incomplete if they don't have some set of religious principles?

If you are choosing the word "indoctrinate" in lieu of "teach", then that seems more like an attempt to be inflammatory

I chose my terms carefully because the two that you offer mean different things.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You ask: "I am curious as to why this is found to be acceptable."
I reply: ????? Are you suggesting that I don't teach my child?????

I didn't read the rest of what you've said because I'm getting tired of this. Teaching and indoctrinating are not equivalent. You can fix your post and let me know so I'll read it, or else I don't care what you have to say.

 

[rockytopva]

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically"

Like thus ? :

"all that matters is Yahweh's commandments and not man-made oral traditions."
and
"Simplicity in following Jesus , remaining blameless, living holy lives, not sinning,
doing what is right no matter what, never harming anyone (be harmless as doves),
having totally changed lives (from pagans and from the life before being born again),
are
hallmarks, signs, indications(vital ones), testimonies of YHWH'S PEOPLE no matter where they are on earth, no matter what country, church, community or culture they were brought up in or live in."
and
"The obedience of the Christian to God ought to be unconditional."

 

[RDKirk]

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?

The former. That's all they can discern.

 

[rambot]

I'm not convinced that you know any atheists at all since you don't seem to understand what we even believe. We don't claim that there is no God. We don't believe the positive claim that God exists.

So that affects my point how?

So this means that parents should be allowed to force religious beliefs upon their children?

I've kind of answered this question; but with less sex language than "force". I'm sure that's what you are gunning for, I'm just not up for playing that game.

Are you saying that a person is incomplete if they don't have some set of religious principles?

No, I'm not.

I chose my terms carefully because the two that you offer mean different things.

So indoctrination is a KIND OF teaching, you mean.
I have taught my children about God. The elder ask questions and I engage her in a discussion. I don't force them to believe, but I set up situations that encourage a belief. What I don't do is act like a passive observer of their spiritual life.

I'm sure there are christians who shut down those conversations and do what they can to force their children to believe (though frankly, that doesn't work anyways).

I don't.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I don't think the poster was referring to "classically liberal" which would be closer to libertarian.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by a creator with certain unalienable rights."

The Founding Fathers thought that government must serve the people because people are created in God's image.

It will be impossible for you to extricated Christians from rationality, science, philosophy, and education in the West as they dominate all of it from the fall of the Roman Empire to the 19th century.

Further, why called indoctrination?

His seems like a rhetorical (pronounced "propagandistic") strategy common to the New Atheist.

The point is to get the opponent (the Christian parent) to accept such a poisoned term! And no more work need to be done to convince the weak-minded whether they be on the fence atheist or dies in the wool.

Do we live on an external world? Prove it.

Do we believe in other minds (that other people exist besides ourselves)? Prove it.

Do we believe in the reality of the past? prove it.

These and the very presuppositions that logic is based on are not provable. And unless we adjust our epistemic justification level (what we count as provable) we are going to have nothing to teach our children whatsoever!

So to your question why do we need to teach if it is true?

You seem to think religious knowledge is obtained through some sort of osmosis.

Much mathematical knowledge is true so why do we teach math? Science, history, literature.

Obviously because we are beings that are able to scaffold knowledge over time to more accurately describe the external world around us. It can take decades to get from basic addition to a quantum mechanical description of the small-scale forces of our universe.

There are a dozen theories or so floating about the QM world. Suppose I teach the Copenhagen model, to my high school senior who is taking an AP Physics coarse. Am I indoctrinating him or her?

Of coarse not. As a parent, regardless of religious ideology, one tries to advance the child's way in the world by given them the most true beliefs and fewest false ones.

With theism and particularlyJudeo-Christian religions, God's existence, best explains:
1 - the evidence for the beginning of he universe from nothing 13.7 billion years ago,

2 - the fine-tuning of the initial constants and laws to support life

3 - the existence of objective (culturally independent) morals,

4 - the nature of my soul or consciousness being immaterial

5 - the universal desire for meaning and purpose humans have.

There are many other inferences to the best explanation of the external world we see that are experienced by Christians such as miracles and certain types of evil, and profound experiences of God.

As to your point of seeing Christian complain that others aren't raising their children properly, (those pesky Christian butinskis) did you miss the fact that your whole post is you telling all Christians "how to raise their kids." Was this meant to be a test to see if we could spot hypocrisy?

As to apologetics and the work of the HS one wonders given your track record above how sincere you are. But the apologetics is considered useful when people have certain rational limitations that are trapping them into a false internal construction of the world. So helping people eliminate false beliefs, such as the false belief that there is no God, is as simple a question to answers as the question I alluded to earlier, "why teach math?"

If someone let's say Larry Krauss, says "the universe came from nothing, and I can prove it, nothing is a vacuum, there was a high-energy state, in a false vacuum (see I used the word vacuum) can produces Higgs particles fluctuating into and out of existence, therefore the universe created itself."
(a universe forNothing)

Apologetics can point out that Krauss' "Nothing," includes space, time, QM laws, a false vacuum, and high-energy states that are unstable.

Nothing means -having no (zero) attributes.

Using apologetics we can apply rationality to claims that the evidence point to need for something like God (Eternal, all-powerful, all-knowledgable, and personal (due to agency) is actually self-starting. Without apologetics, we would be unable to expose this argument as fallacious.

So we are just defending the inference that God best explains the external world we have.

Similarly the HS function qua non-Christians is to reveal knowledge that they are morally defective in a significant way (guilty of not meeting God's sand are, namely perfection MT 5:48) and that Jesus' death on the cross is God's only answer to our moral dilemma. That is it. The HS does these functions in largely unknown ways. Again, no osmosis knowledge here.

But your osmosis view is not without intuition. God does reveal something's about himself for everyone to perceive sans apologetics, indoctrination, or even H.S.

1. Certain universal moral values and duties. (Death camps are wrong)
2. The beauty and awe of nature points to God's existence and creativity.
3. Circumstances that create instant overwhelming fear of death ( fox holes being shelled by the enemy)

Birth of children are also often in this category. So you are right to bring up osmosis as a category, you have just extended that notion too far, that's all.

Hope this response helps and is on track in the info you were looking to receive.

It's difficult for me to make sense of everything you're saying. I can't even tell if you're talking to me or about me.

With regards to this part:

So to your question why do we need to teach if it is true?

You seem to think religious knowledge is obtained through some sort of osmosis.

Much mathematical knowledge is true so why do we teach math? Science, history, literature.

My understanding is that the Holy Spirit does not teach mathematics but that it does teach spiritual things. So yes, religious knowledge is obtained through some sort of osmosis.

Your list about God's existence needs to be taken to the apologetics forum.

Finally, with regards to this part:

As to your point of seeing Christian complain that others aren't raising their children properly, (those pesky Christian butinskis) did you miss the fact that your whole post is you telling all Christians "how to raise their kids." Was this meant to be a test to see if we could spot hypocrisy?

What is the hypocrisy you're referring to?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. I believe that people who come to believe this are blessed as a result. In order for a person to earnestly decide to believe something, that person must first have a certain level of understanding of the topic.

I love my children, and I want them to be blessed. Therefore, I want them to believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. So, I teach them enough about Jesus to allow them to come to sufficient understanding of the Gospel to be able to make a decision as to whether they believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

If this is indoctrination, in your opinion, then I would have to concede that I am who supports indoctrination of children. But, I would argue that, if that is the case, any parent who holds to any belief system (whether spiritual, materialist, philosophical, or otherwise) and teaches that belief system to their children, supports indoctrination. And, if that is the case, I don't know that I have met a parent of any religion or lack thereof, who loves his or her children, who does not engage in this type of "indoctrination".

If this does not constitute, in your definition of the term, "indoctrination", then I think your premise (i.e., that all Christians seem to support indoctrination) is flawed.

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.

 

[Received]

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.

Well, let's keep in mind that for many, perhaps most, religion (including Christianity) is about propagation of memes rather than adherence to its tenets for their own sake. IMV, pretty much all indoctrination as "forcefeeding" a set of beliefs fits with this type of religion.

But if by indoctrination you simply mean implanting your beliefs into children, I don't see how there's any way to avoid this given that children learn more through modeling than through explanation. Even the person who has a doctrine against indoctrination still expresses a doctrine. So the question isn't against indoctrination (if we understand this as meaning a non-forcefeeding type of deal), but the quality of doctrine you'd like to instill in children.

Yes, pluralism and tolerance can be exceptional doctrines to instill. But there are indeed, believe it or not, many strands of Christianity and other religions that are exceptional as well, both in terms of providing the child with a firm source of meaning as well as an ethos that betters society. Personally, I'm down with the pretty conservative Christian apologist and philosopher J.P. Moreland who has told his children that if Christianity ends up being untrue (and I would emphasize to some degree how happy it makes you) they're justified in rejecting it.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hi. I was indoctrinated myself, from an early age, and spent many years struggling with the particular sect of Christianity in which I was raised. However, I always felt (and still do to a certain extent) that it was a good thing to have faith instilled. Over time, by balancing it with other things I have learned, I have not found m/any negatives in being brought up to believe. FF to my own children, and we decided to also raise them as Christians. They went to church and to Christian school for many years. At home, we talked more generally than "just" about God/the Bible. We are both Liberals, and our kids have always known where we stand on the important things in life. They know we believe in evolution, that we are pro-choice, support gay marriage etc. Interestingly, our children have turned out to be a very mixed bunch. We have one very C/conservative child (eldest), one semi-atheist, one Liberal Christian, and two "don't know's." None of them regret attending church or being taught about God, and I don't regret raising them this way because, in the end, they have made their own choice based upon their intellect.

Despite what you say about your own upbringing, it sounds like you didn't indoctrinate your children. From that, I'd infer that you are against the idea of indoctrination.