Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You are missing three points:

    (a) it is quite possible, indeed likely, that the OP was brought up in a religious family and made his escape into rationality,

    (b) bringing up a child to hold no specific irrational beliefs and allowing them to make their own choices when they are mature enough and educated enough to do so on their own is not indoctrination (rather the reverse) and

    (c) the indoctrination of children with specific irrational beliefs is likely to be long-lasting and difficult to escape from, which is why people stay with their family's religion.
    Again, you're demonstrating your hypocrisy by not seeing that this is an issue of philosophical worldviews. You are asserting that naturalism is rational.

    You can't see the validity of what I'm saying, because you're a hypocrite. It would be very clear if you were to question your presuppositions.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Yes, it was but it had the merit of not involving irrational beliefs and being entirely neutral in outlook.
    Think about what you're saying. You are defining the word "rational" any way you want to. What about "truth" or "true beliefs"? If you know that your child is not truly more valuable than a toaster, but you're teaching them to believe the incorrect [untrue] belief that they are more valuable, then how is that rational? In reality, it's an inconsistent worldview, therefore it can't be rational.

    Even if you were to say that it's important for human survival, you would still be asserting a subjective view that survival rather than truth is the greater good.

    You're being a hypocrite. Think it through. At least understand what I'm trying to say.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    Think about what you're saying. You are defining the word "rational" any way you want to. What about "truth" or "true beliefs"? If you know that your child is not truly more valuable than a toaster, but you're teaching them to believe the incorrect [untrue] belief that they are more valuable, then how is that rational? In reality, it's an inconsistent worldview, therefore it can't be rational.

    Even if you were to say that it's important for human survival, you would still be asserting a subjective view that survival rather than truth is the greater good.

    You're being a hypocrite. Think it through. At least understand what I'm trying to say.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yeh, its not as simple as 'religious parents indoctrinate their children into religion' and 'non religious people are neutral'. Its probable that most parents indoctrinate their kids against religion when they themselves are against it.

    One of the reasons why this is such an overrated topic.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meridian0)
    You are a Hipster/SJW/Edgy Geezer because your buddies are Hipsters/SJWs/Edgy Geezers
    They taught you Hipster/SJW/Edgy Geezer 'tudes.
    . This is indoctrination. Yet you don't question your beliefs. You think your belief - the one you were taught since Year 7 - is the correct one. You probably haven't even looked at other 'tudes. You just keep your blind faith. Why?????

    I know this doesn't apply to everyone but it applies to the vast majority of online people.
    indoctrinated much

    :yep:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    Think about what you're saying. You are defining the word "rational" any way you want to. What about "truth" or "true beliefs"? If you know that your child is not truly more valuable than a toaster, but you're teaching them to believe the incorrect [untrue] belief that they are more valuable, then how is that rational? In reality, it's an inconsistent worldview, therefore it can't be rational.

    Even if you were to say that it's important for human survival, you would still be asserting a subjective view that survival rather than truth is the greater good.

    You're being a hypocrite. Think it through. At least understand what I'm trying to say.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    There are no "true beliefs". A belief is acceptance of something existing or being true, especially if there is no proof of it. So "true belief" is an oxymoron.

    The child is more valuable to the parent than the toaster because of parental instinct and the passing on of genes. It is, as you have even pointed out, a part of human survival. If your parent tells you that you are more valuable than a toaster, that's because they actually do value you more. Not to mention society in general values a human being, a member of our own species more than a cheap object that toasts bread. Teaching a child to believe in a set of beliefs uncritically is indeed indoctrination, because you're telling them something baseless and unproven is true. "Truth" is based on evidence and logic, it is based on fact and reality so what the parent is teaching them cannot be "true."

    "Rational" is based in accordance with reason and logic. How can you define it differently?

    (Original post by JamesDobson)
    What's the difference between this and being brought up an atheist because your family is athiest?
    I don't really understand this stance from some people that atheism is somehow a belief system? It isn't...it's an absence of belief, so in effect you don't bring your child up as anything, you just instil them with the knowledge and skills to prepare them for adult life. Simple values of what's right and what's wrong are taught because it will benefit the child socially and keep them out of trouble.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum7)
    There are no "true beliefs". A belief is acceptance of something existing or being true, especially if there is no proof of it. So "true belief" is an oxymoron.

    The child is more valuable to the parent than the toaster because of parental instinct and the passing on of genes. It is, as you have even pointed out, a part of human survival. If your parent tells you that you are more valuable than a toaster, that's because they actually do value you more. Not to mention society in general values a human being, a member of our own species more than a cheap object that toasts bread. Teaching a child to believe in a set of beliefs uncritically is indeed indoctrination, because you're telling them something baseless and unproven is true. "Truth" is based on evidence and logic, it is based on fact and reality so what the parent is teaching them cannot be "true."

    "Rational" is based in accordance with reason and logic. How can you define it differently?



    I don't really understand this stance from some people that atheism is somehow a belief system? It isn't...it's an absence of belief, so in effect you don't bring your child up as anything, you just instil them with the knowledge and skills to prepare them for adult life. Simple values of what's right and what's wrong are taught because it will benefit the child socially and keep them out of trouble.
    Ofcourse there are true beliefs, by many accounts in epistemology, true beliefs would essentially come under knowledge http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/#2.4. Your definition of what a belief is, is far too narrow.

    You could hold a belief that Hitler had a tattoo on his ass. This could also be true, even if you had insufficient reason to think it true, that is why there is a difference between belief and truth. Generally (very generally) knowledge is where truth and belief overlap, or where you have justified belief. There is no such clean distinction between truth and belief.


    I think that your last point about atheism being a lack of belief overlaps well with what i take to be his point about the value of children. He says its an inconsistent world view (i assume) because atheism cannot defend the intrinsic value of human beings. At best it appeals to the biochemistry going on in a parent when they think about the child, or to evolutionary psychology say. That it is hypocritical of an atheist to accuse theists of indoctrination, when they themselves instill beliefs (like the intrinsic value of a human) that, he'd probably argue, the atheist's worldview cannot justify. It would be the same type of belief he castigates the theist for.

    My personal opinion is that atheism certainly is much more than a lack of belief system, in that it can dictate or is dictated by other beliefs within ethics, consciousness, realist vs antirealist views of universals, epistemology etc.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    Think about what you're saying. You are defining the word "rational" any way you want to. What about "truth" or "true beliefs"? If you know that your child is not truly more valuable than a toaster, but you're teaching them to believe the incorrect [untrue] belief that they are more valuable, then how is that rational? In reality, it's an inconsistent worldview, therefore it can't be rational.

    Even if you were to say that it's important for human survival, you would still be asserting a subjective view that survival rather than truth is the greater good.

    You're being a hypocrite. Think it through. At least understand what I'm trying to say.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Ah! You have now introduced the word "truth", which wasn't there in your first post. That is a philosophical horse of a different colour.

    I don't see how it is hypocritical to teach children a system of moral values to enable them to fit into society in their early years, while pointing out that it is your own and/or society's, advising them to follow it but teaching them that they must work out their own in due course.

    This is the reverse of what religious people do, yet it leads to the development of adults capable of functioning positively in a modern, peaceful society unfettered by irrational beliefs foisted on them from an ancient culture that died out thousands of years ago.

    I wouldn't (and didn't) teach my children a "truth" that they are more valuable than a dog or a toaster (or any other philosophical truths. I leave them to make their own moral judgements and to evaluate their own worth.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whitewell)
    Ofcourse there are true beliefs, by many accounts in epistemology, true beliefs would essentially come under knowledge http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/#2.4. Your definition of what a belief is, is far too narrow.

    You could hold a belief that Hitler had a tattoo on his ass. This could also be true, even if you had insufficient reason to think it true, that is why there is a difference between belief and truth. Generally (very generally) knowledge is where truth and belief overlap, or where you have justified belief. There is no such clean distinction between truth and belief.


    I think that your last point about atheism being a lack of belief overlaps well with what i take to be his point about the value of children. He says its an inconsistent world view (i assume) because atheism cannot defend the intrinsic value of human beings. At best it appeals to the biochemistry going on in a parent when they think about the child, or to evolutionary psychology say. That it is hypocritical of an atheist to accuse theists of indoctrination, when they themselves instill beliefs (like the intrinsic value of a human) that, he'd probably argue, the atheist's worldview cannot justify. It would be the same type of belief he castigates the theist for.

    My personal opinion is that atheism certainly is much more than a lack of belief system, in that it can dictate or is dictated by other beliefs within ethics, consciousness, realist vs antirealist views of universals, epistemology etc.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    All "true belief" appears to be is holding evidence of something which leads you to believe a statement is true. That evidence is in fact false, but the statement is true because there is evidence the statement is true. You just aren't aware of it. Therefore you are correct due to "luck."

    Something isn't true until the factual evidence is revealed. If evidence is found that later shows something to be untrue, including previous evidence, then it is no longer a truth.

    Until there is evidence that there was in fact a tattoo on Hitler's arse, then it is merely a possibility. There are infinite possibilities in regards to all sorts of things. Just because a belief has a possibility of being true, doesn't make it any more true unless it is actually proven to be so.

    Not all humans value each other or value their children, that is very evident as well. If you look at the behaviours in other animals you'll see that generally they value their young much the same. Many animals are evolved to have an emotional attachment to their young to help them survive and pass on their genes, though there are all kinds of different species of animals that function in different ways, not all the same as us. There are many factors such as the environment that can have an effect: an animal might eat it's offspring for example; if food is low and it knows it has a better opportunity of surviving and producing offspring later after conditions improve. Instincts and bodily chemical reactions have many interesting effects and sometimes they don't work perfectly either. Nobody said evolution and living things in general work perfectly.

    Such views are often subjective to what someone perceives to benefit themselves. A religious person probably values the morales/ethics of their religion because it benefits them: socially and through other beliefs such as the reward of a blissful afterlife if they ad-hear to those ethics. People in general might value their offspring and other humans because of the beneficial bonds they have with those people, or they have the empathy to put themselves in the shoes of others. Humans are social animals and shared values are required for them to function coherently. Of course, people are different and this is why we form different groups based on similarities and familiarity.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum7)
    All "true belief" appears to be is holding evidence of something which leads you to believe a statement is true. That evidence is in fact false, but the statement is true because there is evidence the statement is true. You just aren't aware of it. Therefore you are correct due to "luck."

    Something isn't true until the factual evidence is revealed. If evidence is found that later shows something to be untrue, including previous evidence, then it is no longer a truth.

    Until there is evidence that there was in fact a tattoo on Hitler's arse, then it is merely a possibility. There are infinite possibilities in regards to all sorts of things. Just because a belief has a possibility of being true, doesn't make it any more true unless it is actually proven to be so.

    Not all humans value each other or value their children, that is very evident as well. If you look at the behaviours in other animals you'll see that generally they value their young much the same. Many animals are evolved to have an emotional attachment to their young to help them survive and pass on their genes, though there are all kinds of different species of animals that function in different ways, not all the same as us. There are many factors such as the environment that can have an effect: an animal might eat it's offspring for example; if food is low and it knows it has a better opportunity of surviving and producing offspring later after conditions improve. Instincts and bodily chemical reactions have many interesting effects and sometimes they don't work perfectly either. Nobody said evolution and living things in general work perfectly.

    Such views are often subjective to what someone perceives to benefit themselves. A religious person probably values the morales/ethics of their religion because it benefits them: socially and through other beliefs such as the reward of a blissful afterlife if they ad-hear to those ethics. People in general might value their offspring and other humans because of the beneficial bonds they have with those people, or they have the empathy to put themselves in the shoes of others. Humans are social animals and shared values are required for them to function coherently. Of course, people are different and this is why we form different groups based on similarities and familiarity.
    True belief is when we are justified enough to say that a proposition or belief is true. Thats it. You are confusing epistemology with ontology when you say 'something isn't true until the factual evidence is revealed'. Ofcourse it is, if the proposition 'Hitler has a tattoo on his arse' is true, it is true regardless of whether someone else has sufficient evidence to think its true. Truth is not dependent on humans, the proposition about Hitler doesnt suddenly become true because we have enough evidence later to accept it. Truth is mind independent, it's ontology isnt affected by anyone.

    What you are talking about is epistemology, or when people can include that they know the truth. What we think is true is liable to change, if evidence later changes or fundamental errors in reasoning happened.

    The mere possibility of a proposition being true has nothing to do with it, its about the clear distinction between what truth is, what belief is and when belief becomes knowledge.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whitewell)
    True belief is when we are justified enough to say that a proposition or belief is true. Thats it. You are confusing epistemology with ontology when you say 'something isn't true until the factual evidence is revealed'. Ofcourse it is, if the proposition 'Hitler has a tattoo on his arse' is true, it is true regardless of whether someone else has sufficient evidence to think its true. Truth is not dependent on humans, the proposition about Hitler doesnt suddenly become true because we have enough evidence later to accept it. Truth is mind independent, it's ontology isnt affected by anyone.

    What you are talking about is epistemology, or when people can include that they know the truth. What we think is true is liable to change, if evidence later changes or fundamental errors in reasoning happened.

    The mere possibility of a proposition being true has nothing to do with it, its about the clear distinction between what truth is, what belief is and when belief becomes knowledge.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes, things can be true without anyone being aware of it. Humans cannot know what is true without factual evidence though. You need to acquire the evidence first before you can know something is true. Truth is irrelevant until it is apparent. The point is that you cannot know there is a tattoo on Hitler's arse, you cannot know it is true unless you have the evidence. It's pointless to believe there is a tattoo, it makes no sense to believe one is there without a pinch of evidence. You could perhaps theorise that there is one from knowledge of his lifestyle and habits for example, increasing the probability of him having one, but that in itself would act as some kind of evidence.

    So how can you justify that a belief is true without evidence? Where does the justification come from?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redleader1)
    Thats what your saying about religion ? You said how parents taught their children beliefs and understanding of religion right ? And that is indoctrination.

    So I was saying as a child you were also sent to school and was taught a range of subjects and isnt that indoctrination ?

    Should it matter if its a legal requirment.
    No, that's called education.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z33)
    1) probably
    2) true
    3) i do
    4) i do - though not the version I was taught since birth, that was more culture and tradition than anything imo and im tryna separate them
    5) it's convenient, I aint got time, doin an intensive uni course, though I would love to - maybe in the summer
    I appreciate your honesty. Some religious people will deny that they follow a particular religion because their parents follow it and brought them up with it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    Let me make another illustration.

    I assume in your secular upbringing, you were shown love by your parents. I assume your parents tried to teach you that you were special. They tried to teach you that you were loved, and that you should love yourself and others. They taught you, I'm sure, that there's a big difference between you and say, a pet dog, in terms of value, or something non-living, like a toaster.

    Was that indoctrination?
    If my upbringing was secular I would hardly care about religious indoctrination to be honest.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meridian0)
    I appreciate your honesty. Some religious people will deny that they follow a particular religion because their parents follow it and brought them up with it.
    thanks
    yeah I would go as far to say most tbh
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum7)
    There are no "true beliefs". A belief is acceptance of something existing or being true, especially if there is no proof of it. So "true belief" is an oxymoron.
    Do you believe those sentences to be true?

    You don't know what you're saying. As somebody else has pointed out, you haven't thought through your epistemology.

    The child is more valuable to the parent than the toaster because of parental instinct and the passing on of genes. It is, as you have even pointed out, a part of human survival. If your parent tells you that you are more valuable than a toaster, that's because they actually do value you more. Not to mention society in general values a human being, a member of our own species more than a cheap object that toasts bread. Teaching a child to believe in a set of beliefs uncritically is indeed indoctrination, because you're telling them something baseless and unproven is true. "Truth" is based on evidence and logic, it is based on fact and reality so what the parent is teaching them cannot be "true."

    "Rational" is based in accordance with reason and logic. How can you define it differently?
    You have clearly misunderstood what I was saying. Re-read it. I was demonstrating hypocrisy.

    I don't really understand this stance from some people that atheism is somehow a belief system?
    I know you don't understand it. That's clear from your first few sentences. Whether someone follows a religion, or whether they identify as an atheist, they have beliefs. They have a philosophical standpoint, a worldview. I explained this already. At least understand my points, and then reply.

    It isn't...it's an absence of belief, so in effect you don't bring your child up as anything, you just instil them with the knowledge and skills to prepare them for adult life. Simple values of what's right and what's wrong are taught because it will benefit the child socially and keep them out of trouble.
    You imply that the aim is to "benefit the child socially", but haven't yet seen that those are subjective concepts, and that they are also based on the subjective view that we should try to help our offspring. Those are philosophies.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meridian0)
    If my upbringing was secular I would hardly care about religious indoctrination to be honest.
    Why do you think I asked you the question? What was the point I was trying to make? Would you like me to make it again?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum7)
    Yes, things can be true without anyone being aware of it. Humans cannot know what is true without factual evidence though. You need to acquire the evidence first before you can know something is true. Truth is irrelevant until it is apparent. The point is that you cannot know there is a tattoo on Hitler's arse, you cannot know it is true unless you have the evidence. It's pointless to believe there is a tattoo, it makes no sense to believe one is there without a pinch of evidence. You could perhaps theorise that there is one from knowledge of his lifestyle and habits for example, increasing the probability of him having one, but that in itself would act as some kind of evidence.

    So how can you justify that a belief is true without evidence? Where does the justification come from?
    I didnt say you justified a belief without evidence. I pointed out that there is such a thing as a true belief and that there is no such clear line between fact and belief.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Ah! You have now introduced the word "truth", which wasn't there in your first post. That is a philosophical horse of a different colour.
    Did you think about why I introduced the word "truth"? I was referring to what you were implying the word "rational" means. Instead of approaching my point, you have changed the subject.

    I don't see how it is hypocritical to teach children a system of moral values to enable them to fit into society in their early years, while pointing out that it is your own and/or society's, advising them to follow it but teaching them that they must work out their own in due course.
    Oh trust me, I know you don't see it. That's evident from your replies and your inconsistent ideas. I was explaining it very simply, but you still can't see it, because if you did see it, it would have massive implications on your life.

    The bible explains this very well in Romans 1.

    I explained to you how it was irrational, and I talked about the inconsistency of the worldview, and pursuing survival or societal norm rather than truth. You will have to re-read my points. Your reply shows that you didn't understand. Romans 1 explains why.

    This is the reverse of what religious people do, yet it leads to the development of adults capable of functioning positively in a modern, peaceful society unfettered by irrational beliefs foisted on them from an ancient culture that died out thousands of years ago.

    I wouldn't (and didn't) teach my children a "truth" that they are more valuable than a dog or a toaster (or any other philosophical truths. I leave them to make their own moral judgements and to evaluate their own worth.
    That's simply a lie (or you've deceived yourself).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    That's simply a lie (or you've deceived yourself).
    I think the only self-deceiver here is you. Romans 1 spouts very little more than pious, sententious nonsensical and irrational beliefs concerning mythical beings and the punishments that will be visited on non-believers. It clearly demonstrates how nasty your god is, if it exists.

    No doubt you were indoctrinated into believing in it when you were at an impressionable age, and will go on to inflict the same shabby treatment on your own young children instead of allowing to make their own assessment when they are old enough to understand what silliness they are being asked to buy into.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I think the only self-deceiver here is you. Romans 1 spouts very little more than pious, sententious nonsensical and irrational beliefs concerning mythical beings and the punishments that will be visited on non-believers. It clearly demonstrates how nasty your god is, if it exists.

    No doubt you were indoctrinated into believing in it when you were at an impressionable age, and will go on to inflict the same shabby treatment on your own young children instead of allowing to make their own assessment when they are old enough to understand what silliness they are being asked to buy into.
    If I have been indoctrinated to believe what I believe, why are you so annoyed? Why do you insult me? With your logic, it's not my fault I'm indoctrinated. It's not my fault I will indoctrinate my kids, and that they will indoctrinate their kids and so on and so on...

    It's incredible how inconsistent you are (you're stealing the theistic idea that people are culpable for their actions, and then saying that it's "silliness"), and you don't see it. I keep explaining it, and you just don't see it.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 3, 2016
The home of Results and Clearing

2,131

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.