Indoctrinating Children

[nick]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

Most of what we believe, we believe because we accept the credibility of the source. Most of what we "know" we have not experienced or seen the actual proof. Who told you about atoms? how do you know dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago and not ten thousand? The only way you know these things, is that you accept a credible source with a seemingly credible story.

If you are an atheist or a so-called christian, you think you came to that decision on your own. In fact, you have selected specific influences or sources of info as your metaprogrammer. Good job!

You played some part in your indoctrination, but you tend to think you arrived at these positions independently, as if you can have any thoughts independent of a life time of influences.

You're confusing "indoctrination" with, well, I'm not sure exactly. But you're definitely confused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).[1] It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2] As such it is used pejoratively, often in the context of education, political opinions, theology or religious dogma. Instruction in the basic principles of science, in particular, can not properly be called indoctrination, in the sense that the fundamental principles of science call for critical self-evaluation and skeptical scrutiny of one's own ideas, a stance outside any doctrine

To use your example:

I believe that atoms exist. I have never seen an atom, or done any experiments that deal especially rigorously with atoms. From a young age I did other experiments to prove or confirm other phenomena (easy chemistry and physics experiments, etc). As my education (where I was encouraged to question and learn things for myself) continued I got more into physics and math, and eventually I earned a mechanical engineering degree. Now I've spent two decades confirming various scientific theories or mathematical equations, etc. (I know why planes stay in the air, and I've built working aerofoils to prove it. Etc.) Based on this, I can say that I trust other people who have done similar work and based their theories on similar actions and educations. If there is a subject that I am particularly interested in I can read books about it and do my own research and even my own experiments (for example, there are more people than you might thing doing their own experiments with nuclear physics, every time you fly in an airplane and drive in a car, you are confirming many scientific principals, even if you don't know them yourself)

So I trust other people in scientific fields because I have a similar background to many of them, and because I can review their work, and many people do.

As opposed to an example of indoctrination where:

I was taught that god exists as a trinity of three; the father, son, and holy spirit. I was told that it was true, and that is it. I've never heard of anyone doing an experiment to verify this. I was never given the option to read more about how this works, or what causes it. There are no good reasons for believing om that trinity. All religious ideas fall into the same category of indoctrination.

As an aside, it is possible that someone could be indoctrinated into believing in evolution, or any other scientific theories (true or not). That would also be wrong to do. But just because it is possible, doesn't mean it has happened with me (or anyone else) because I have an opinion on something.

[SqueakyOnion]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

If you are an atheist or a so-called christian, you think you came to that decision on your own. In fact, you have selected specific influences or sources of info as your metaprogrammer. Good job!

You played some part in your indoctrination, but you tend to think you arrived at these positions independently, as if you can have any thoughts independent of a life time of influences.

I agree with you, up until your last sentence, where I'm not sure what you mean. Are you supposing that our "life time of influences" merely provides subject matter for thoughts, or the stronger claim that our "life time of influences" determines or causes our beliefs, negating any truth to the notion of free will?

[SqueakyOnion]

Originally Posted by nick

I was taught that god exists as a trinity of three; the father, son, and holy spirit. I was told that it was true, and that is it. I've never heard of anyone doing an experiment to verify this. I was never given the option to read more about how this works, or what causes it. There are no good reasons for believing om that trinity. All religious ideas fall into the same category of indoctrination.

I disagree. Maybe in some instances religious ideas are indoctrinated, but in my experience, plenty of evidence was offered. Much of it was subjective, unconvincing, and in principle not capable of being verified by scientific research, but it counts as evidence nonetheless. I was encouraged to read books that discuss such evidence.

Religious truth, in principle, cannot be verified by science; they are separate domains.

Even scientific truth requires a leap of faith, though perhaps a smaller leap than belief in religious ideas.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by SqueakyOnion

I agree with you, up until your last sentence, where I'm not sure what you mean. Are you supposing that our "life time of influences" merely provides subject matter for thoughts, or the stronger claim that our "life time of influences" determines or causes our beliefs, negating any truth to the notion of free will?

Influences is not as far down the continuum as determines or causes. It refers to things that contribute to your choices.

Is it really a fully informed "decision" on your part that you don't have much Chinese opera in your iTunes? Or that you haven't listened to any Chinese opera in weeks now? I wonder if the environment and the lifetime of influences had some impact on you and your experience of Chinese opera?

Why are some Nobel Prize winning scientists/researchers atheists, while others are persons-of-Faith? Do they flip a coin and take a position? Do they grunt and think hard about it? Has the atheists thought hard about it? And the person-of-Faith not?

Billy

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by nick

I was taught that god exists as a trinity of three; the father, son, and holy spirit.

Did god exist as a trinity BEFORE Jesus?

Was god ever ONE, like the Muslims and Jews believe?

Do Christians believe god was two before Jesus?

[Praestigiator]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

Did god exist as a trinity BEFORE Jesus?

Was god ever ONE, like the Muslims and Jews believe?

Do Christians believe god was two before Jesus?

Yes, God existed triune before Jesus, except that because he was always a trinity, there was no 'before Jesus' "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God" John 1:1 Jesus was/is the 'Word', the 'Good News' of salvation for all the world, not to mention the Way, the Truth, and the Light.

Yes, Muslims, Jews, and Christians all believe that God is one; Christians that He is also three. I would have you note that Judaism and Christianity are the same religion divided by a point in time. In other words, Christianity is the JudaismPLUS program. As for the Muslims, C.S. Lewis said that "Islam is the greatest of the Christian heresies" This is because Muslims believe that Jesus existed and was a great teacher/prophet. But, as Lewis argues, if Muslims do not believe in Jesus' divinity, then He is a liar to them, because He claimed to be the divine Son of God. To say this, there are only three conceptions of Jesus: the He is a liar, a madman, or one who is telling the truth. And because Muslims call Jesus neither madman nor liar, He must, to them, be telling the truth- which makes Islam but a greatly heretical version of Christianity which can only base its arguments to Jesus' non-divinity in irrationality.

Christians say that God was, is, and always shall be three. There has always been a Father- a permanent fixture of Heaven, a Son- an entity who is physical and exists as a resident of both Heaven and Earth, and the Holy Spirit. A good analogy in C.S.Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia. In the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Jesus preaches, dies and rises again in the form of Aslan. In the prequel, The Magician's Nephew, it is Aslan who represents the physical component of the creation of the world, similar to the story which appears in Genesis. When God walks in the garden of Eden, talking to Adam and Eve, both before and after the fall, he is like Aslan in a form recognizable to the limitations of human perception within the physical world. Though He is not called Jesus in the garden, it was the same physical component of the Trinity from the New Testament who addressed Himself to Adam and Eve.

Does this answer your questions?

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by Praestigiator

To say this, there are only three conceptions of Jesus: the He is a liar, a madman, or one who is telling the truth.

Why only three? Many people believe he was simply not quoted accurately. Or that he was, originally, but the words and/or meaning got changed over time and translation.

That makes four, but there are plenty more ways to interpret that one area of religious belief.

[57UniRider]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

Why are some Nobel Prize winning scientists/researchers atheists, while others are persons-of-Faith? Do they flip a coin and take a position? Do they grunt and think hard about it? Has the atheists thought hard about it? And the person-of-Faith not?

I've always wondered about that myself. It still baffles me. Not only Nobel prize winners, but highly intellectual, influential, scientific or philosophical thinkers in general.

[wobbling bear]

Originally Posted by Praestigiator

Yes, God existed triune before Jesus, the

In all monotheist religions you can find traces of religions/belief that existed beforehand.
I think that this trinity thing existed before in old religions . What is strange is that those were religions in the indo-european realm not in the oriental cultures that saw the emergence of judaism/christianity/islam. So is there _really_ an explicit mention of this idea in the early versions of the bible? or was it imported later (like priest celibacy -here an "oriental" feature-).

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

Why are some Nobel Prize winning scientists/researchers atheists, while others are persons-of-Faith?

Because Nobel Prize winners are people too, just like everybody else.

[nick]

Originally Posted by 57UniRider

I've always wondered about that myself. It still baffles me. Not only Nobel prize winners, but highly intellectual, influential, scientific or philosophical thinkers in general.

It is because once ideas are put into your head at an early age, those ideas are very hard to break out of. It's called indoctrination...

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by Praestigiator

Yes, God existed triune before Jesus, except that because he was always a trinity, there was no 'before Jesus' "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God" John 1:1 Jesus was/is the 'Word', the 'Good News' of salvation for all the world, not to mention the Way, the Truth, and the Light.

Does anyone suspect that it was Jesus, rather than GOD, who put Eve in the Garden but cleverly neglected to leave her any clothing

[Zzagg]

Originally Posted by nick

It is because once ideas are put into your head at an early age, those ideas are very hard to break out of. It's called indoctrination...

Not exactly, it MAY BE a form of indoctrination, but you can also be indoctrinated as an adult.
For me, indoctrination is a result of social pressure. And yes, parents are a powerfull social environment for kids...
It's part of their job, though.
If your statement was true, then raising a child with respect to every religion would also be indoctrination.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by nick

It is because once ideas are put into your head at an early age, those ideas are very hard to break out of. It's called indoctrination...

Lots of ideas are put into adult's heads through indoctrination, too. Just look at the continuing research that shows that people who get their news primarily from Fox endorse myths that PBS news listeners know are false. Fox indoctrinates adults.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by johnfoss

Because Nobel Prize winners are people too, just like everybody else.

and nothing makes a person invulnerable to indoctrination?