Kids and religion

[bluequill]

Hitler youth were "taught" about Germany's great destiny. Hitler youth were "taught" about the superiority of the Aryan race. There's a very thin line between teaching and indoctrination.

Just a thought:

Teaching something... at least in a modern context... means to present the facts or ideas or concepts, the arguments, the questions, and to allow someone to gain more knowledge and challenge their current understanding of a certain issue through the use of critical thinking and conversation with others.

Indoctrination means insisting that someone follow a preconceived notion simply because it exists, and is considered correct, generally without open dialogue and most often without critical thought.

Even as a non-believer, I will one day happily teach my children about the many schools of thought and belief that are available to them, including my own. I've made a point of teaching myself about the major world religions, and about several major lines of philosophy, just because I love that stuff. But as readily as I will teach them about these things, I'd never indoctrinate them into any one of them. That's their choice, not mine, to make.



Idea for a podcast topic: should we raise children to follow the faith or non-faith their parents have? If not, what should we do? What are the pros and cons of deciding for them, or letting them decide for themselves?

[spongebob]

I disagree that the line between teaching (education) and indoctrination is "fine". To me, they are distinctly different activities. "Education" suggests passing on information or methods. These things may be correct or bogus; the act of "teaching" them makes little difference. For instance, people were certainly taught that the oceans dropped off into a void, and that there were dangerous creatures out on the high seas that attacked an sunk ships. This information was clearly incorrect; but was taught, nonetheless. The fact that sea-bearing explorers such as Columbus dared to challenge these ideas suggests that they were not indoctrinated, but that such ideas were not easily challenged.

Indoctrination includes education, but goes much farther. It's what we have popularized as brainwashing. To indoctrinate suggests more than simply passing on information to be absorbed by the learner. It suggests a forced internalization. Many different techniques can be used for this, none of which are included in traditional education. Shielding from counter-information, for example. Teaching someone how to do math includes both the wrong way to do it and the right way to do it. In many cases, the wrong way can easily be demonstrated.

Another technique of indoctrination is that of making the "truth" mysterious. It cannot always be proved or it demonstrated, but one must believe it nonetheless. You won't see this in acceptable teaching practices. Anything worth being taught can usually be demonstrated in some way. Victims of indoctrination are prohibited from questioning the validity of the material they are being forced to accept. This can take the form of mild chastisement to physical punishment, and anywhere in between. At any rate, they are encouraged to simply accept the material based on the authority of the indoctrinating figure or some other figurehead. This is NOT acceptable practice in education.

All one has to do to see the difference between education and indoctrination is attend a 5th grade Science class and a 5th grade Sunday School class. In the Science class, you will see the teacher encouraging questions and even following the logic of those questions to their natural end point. In SS class you may hear questions from the children, but the answer will always be the same; this stuff is true and you must believe it or you will go to hell. The added bonus is that every adult in this church knows this to be true, so you should believe them.

[Brad]

Right on and exactimundo, Spongebob!

Also, for anyone particularly interested in this topic, I highly recommend episode 59 of the Reasonable Doubts podcast, in which one of the hosts worries about the possibility that he might be indoctrinating his own children - toward atheism - in a way that would diminish their thinking capacities. An excellent discussion ensues, which among other things, discusses the difference between teaching or guiding, and indoctrination, as I recall.

Also, it should probably be noted that lots of atheists, most recently and notably Daniel Dennett, advocate teaching the basic history and tenets of all major world religions to children in school.
Betcha can't guess which parties think that's a terrible idea - or why they might feel that way...

[NH Baritone]

I disagree that the line between teaching (education) and indoctrination is "fine". To me, they are distinctly different activities. "Education" suggests passing on information or methods. These things may be correct or bogus; the act of "teaching" them makes little difference. For instance, people were certainly taught that the oceans dropped off into a void, and that there were dangerous creatures out on the high seas that attacked an sunk ships. This information was clearly incorrect; but was taught, nonetheless. The fact that sea-bearing explorers such as Columbus dared to challenge these ideas suggests that they were not indoctrinated, but that such ideas were not easily challenged.

But, then, how exactly do you propose teaching History? (E.g., was slavery the cause of the US civil war, or economics, or variant interpretations of the US Constitution?)

Or World Literature? (e.g., Dante's Divine Comedy, Milton's Paradise Lost, or Homer's Iliad and Odyssey)

Or Philosophy? (From the ancients to the moderns)

Science & math classes fill only a small portion of a student's day. In any subject where interpretation is an integral part of the topic (and precise measurement is an absent element), a teacher is providing "indoctrination." When a professor discusses the sexual elements of lashing Odysseus to the mast so he can listen to the Sirens' song, the student may walk out believing it, but in truth it represents only one of several possible interpretations.

Instead, education should include a method of evaluating all forms of information, i.e., critical thinking. Lessons in Literature, History, and Philosophy inevitably contain opinions, but one hopes these are informed opinions, developed after learning about context and the interweaving of various influences. Critical thinking students will ask about how the ideas put forward fit into the rest of culture at the time it was written.

(I hate to think about people a century in the future reading about the flying spaghetti monster and believing 21st century Americans considered it a real deity. Only in the context of pervasive fundamentalist Christianity does such a comic caricature have true relevance, and without that context, the FSM seems like any other cult.)

[tirtlegrrl]

brad wrote: Also, it should probably be noted that lots of atheists, most recently and notably Daniel Dennett, advocate teaching the basic history and tenets of all major world religions to children in school.
Betcha can't guess which parties think that's a terrible idea - or why they might feel that way...

Au contraire (in my experience)...the "party" I was raised in was all for students studying other religions...

...but only in the context of learning why they were inferior to Christianity, judged by the standards of Christianity. I.e. they are all "works-based," or as Ray Comfort's preface to the Origin of Species puts it, they don't provide an adequate solution to the "reality" of Hell as described by fundamentalist Christianity.

[KomradRed]

My history books in Catholic school and High School, on the various regional parts of the world like Indian, Middle Eastern, Roman, and Chinese, history, would include short, informative chapters on the other "major" world religions, like Islam, Hinduism, especially Buddhism, and Confucianism. I remember first reading about the Eightfold Path and the Four Noble Truths in the fifth grade. Unfortunately, there is only so much watered down history you can fit into a pre-college textbook some faiths like the Sikhism, Jainism, Shintoism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism were left out.

[spongebob]

But, then, how exactly do you propose teaching History? (E.g., was slavery the cause of the US civil war, or economics, or variant interpretations of the US Constitution?)

I don't think history is all that different from any other subject. The lessons written in history books are a compilation of research into documents, architecture and archeology, among others. All of these things go into lines of evidence based reasoning. There are numerous accounts of history being re-written due to the finding of new evidence. So, just as in science class, it's the duty of the instructor to inform the student of what we know from such evidence. Questioning it is still allowed.

Actually, the slavery question is a very good example. Despite history class teaching that slavery was a major, if not the key, component of the Civil War (read: war of northern aggression), Southerners routinely reject this notion for a more colloquially acceptable belief that the North was threatened by the South's economic power. Of course reality is never so black and white. And with this issue we have ample historical documents to draw rational conclusions with confidence. But to the average Southerner, slavery had little to do with it and no amount of argument will change their mind. So, clearly, we are talking education and not indoctrination. You can present the facts and evidence, but you can't force them to believe it.

Or World Literature? (e.g., Dante's Divine Comedy, Milton's Paradise Lost, or Homer's Iliad and Odyssey)

Are you asking how we teach of the existence of these works, or the meaning of them? Two very different things. The first follows my previous examples. The latter is more about interpretation, and if there's an instructor looking to indoctrinate his pupils on what he believes the Iliad means, then good luck. He has control of their grade and little else. The next semester, anything not internalized is gone.

Or Philosophy? (From the ancients to the moderns)

There's two parts to this, logic, which is demonstrable, and meaning, which follows as above.

Science & math classes fill only a small portion of a student's day. In any subject where interpretation is an integral part of the topic (and precise measurement is an absent element), a teacher is providing "indoctrination." When a professor discusses the sexual elements of lashing Odysseus to the mast so he can listen to the Sirens' song, the student may walk out believing it, but in truth it represents only one of several possible interpretations.

Sure, but unless the instructor is using any of the aforementioned techniques to dispel any dissension, then the student is still open to their own interpretation. Merely announcing his own opinion of the meaning and having a student write it down does little to actually internalize the information. As I mentioned before, people were taught that the world was flat; it didn't mean it was. They were still able and allowed to go test it for themselves, which they eventually did.

Instead, education should include a method of evaluating all forms of information, i.e., critical thinking. Lessons in Literature, History, and Philosophy inevitably contain opinions, but one hopes these are informed opinions, developed after learning about context and the interweaving of various influences. Critical thinking students will ask about how the ideas put forward fit into the rest of culture at the time it was written.

Absolutely! This is exactly my point. Interpretations are part of an educational experience, but insisting that a student accept one, and only one, interpretation is not a real form of education. To do so robs the student of his own cognitive experience and potentially cripples them. Look, this is why education is so difficult. The teacher can't force you to internalize something. If he does, he's indoctrinating. Most likely the student will resent it and so will mom and dad. The teacher has to motivate and inspire students, which is much more difficult to do than indoctrinating. Indoctrination is easy; just tell someone a story and tell them they have to believe it or (some terrible thing will happen). Get enough people to conspire with you on this and you have a bona fide cult. Three words...L Ron Hubbard.

[Magenta]

I thought I'd just add my tuppence worth - Christians who believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God are commanded to indoctrinate their children with Bible principles – refer Deuteronomy 6:6,7 - And these words that I am commanding you today must prove to be on your heart; and you must inculcate them in your son and speak of them when you sit in your house and when you walk on the road and when you lie down and when you get up.
Free choice?!

[Brad]

Misc. comments:

The sort of "educational" situations described by tirtlegrrl and Komrad Red are not at all the sort of thing suggested by Dennett and many other atheists, who recommend a full course on comparative religion for all public school students. They, or may I say we, think a course like that would be a tremendous learning experience, not just for its content directly, but for people to learn about how humans as individuals and as societies tick and to develop critical thinking skills, which is to say, life skills!
In such a course, whether for kids or adults, people might possibly learn, among other things, how many of the tales in both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles have antecedents in other religions from the Eastern Mediterranean region.
They would probably learn something about the history of the Bible's development up until the time the English KJV was created, and something about who put the canon together - and what was left out.
They would learn the time lines of religious origins and development throughout the world, and would learn that, for example, Buddhism and Confucianism were highly developed as practical philosophies for living long before Jesus was born. (This would be a lot different than learning in passing the "Four Noble Truths" and the "Eight-fold Path" as seen by the Catholic church.)They would probably notice that virtually nobody in India or China had ever heard of Abraham, and didn't seem the worse for it. They would compare the supernatural claims made by the various religions, and they might even have a class or two on the "new" religions like Mormonism, Scientology, Rael, etc.
Young people having the benefit of such a comprehensive course would be able to consider why certain themes, such as honesty, generosity, family dedication and loyalty, forgiveness, and service, are common to most religions and what that might mean. And as a wonderful side benefit, they might be a lot less likely to be suckered into "magic bullet" solutions of any sort in life, wouldn't they?

But of course, they might also tend to see the dogmas of their parents in a less all-encompassing light, and of course seriously believing Christians, Jews, and Muslims can't have that, can they? Why would that be?


Magenta's excellent Biblical example illustrates one of the many forms of the Christian shell game, in this case as played by JWs. The Old Testament / Hebrew Bible is said to be "just background" or "no longer the law" and so forth, except when Christians want to use it as though it were current law. At that point the bits they like are selected and interpreted as desired. Then when somebody comes along and asks, "Why don't you follow this other command from the Old Testament?" it becomes "just background" or "no longer the law" again.
Yes, the real Christianity is under one of these shells...

Last, NHB and Spongebob - aren't you guys really basically in agreement about the really important aspects of this subject?

I'd add only that indoctrination is by no means always direct, as in, "BELIEVE THIS DOGMA OR ELSE!" It can come in lots of more subtle forms.
Yesterday while house cleaning I actually went back and re-listened to the Reasonable Doubts episode I recommended above to make sure I had characterized it correctly (yes). In the podcast, one of the "freethought moms" described a situation in which a woman had been invited to bring chickens and eggs to a public elementary school for a sort of "show and tell." The woman told the children that God had put the yoke inside the eggs for the chick inside to eat so it could grow and that chickens had to "be married" before they could make eggs . Neither Bible nor Christianity was mentioned, but wouldn't it be fair to say there was a wee attempt at indoctrination there?

[spongebob]

Last, NHB and Spongebob - aren't you guys really basically in agreement about the really important aspects of this subject?

Absolutely!

I'd add only that indoctrination is by no means always direct, as in, "BELIEVE THIS DOGMA OR ELSE!" It can come in lots of more subtle forms.
Yesterday while house cleaning I actually went back and re-listened to the Reasonable Doubts episode I recommended above to make sure I had characterized it correctly (yes). In the podcast, one of the "freethought moms" described a situation in which a woman had been invited to bring chickens and eggs to a public elementary school for a sort of "show and tell." The woman told the children that God had put the yoke inside the eggs for the chick inside to eat so it could grow and that chickens had to "be married" before they could make eggs . Neither Bible nor Christianity was mentioned, but wouldn't it be fair to say there was a wee attempt at indoctrination there?

Well, this example definitely represents a woman displaying inappropriate comments for a public school. I doubt I would characterize it as indoctrination since she was only doing a single presentation, but it was certainly religiously charged and inappropriate. But this is a good example of what this woman probably does at church. If she were to lead a childrens SS class, I imagine that the kids would get a steady diet of this kind of thing. When a kid asked her how she knows it was god, she's likely to quote some scripture or some other rhetoric that suggests the subject is not negotiable. This is exactly why I find such "teaching" reprehensible.

[Brad]

Oh, I very much agree that a single instance of misinformation does not indoctrination make!
But such can be an example of a pattern of indoctrination or an example of typical absurdity put forth by a person who has previously and successfully been indoctrinated into a non-evidence based ideology.

I think another interesting thing to consider, both in that example and with indoctrination in general, is that no malice or specific intent to deceive is necessary for the person attempting the indoctrination. I’ll bet the woman with the chickens in my example thought she was really doing a service for the children, and because her assertions seemed to support her Christian ideology (which just can’t be bad), she probably didn’t even recognize herself in a direct way that what she was saying was nonsense, even if she was otherwise reasonably intelligent.

So maybe the real key distinction between teaching and indoctrination is content – verifiable and falsifiable information vs. unsupportable beliefs and ideologies – rather than technique or method?

I also agree, at least from my own experience, that Sunday Schools (and camps and Vacation Bible Schools, etc.) are examples of indoctrinations that tend to reduce the ability of children to think critically, at least about religion.
And speaking of indoctrination techniques, I just remembered again how we used to be made to literally march around the room to the rhythm of rousing Christian songs when I was a kid. Lawwwd have mercy...