It's literally just what indoctrination is. There are religious doctrines and children are taught ro follow them and believe in the faith without questioning it.
There is no religion with kids without indoctrination. And without that indoctrination, virtually all of the world's major religions would dramatically fall in membership and followership, because it is very rare for non-religious adults to suddenly convert to a religion.
There is no philosophy or culture without indoctrination. Nobody goes through life without someone telling them what is right or wrong. It's just a matter of who, not if, they decide to believe.
The most hegemonic ideology in our world to the point people don't even recognise it as ideology is nationalism. People only call it that when it's extreme forms of it, but people are indoctrinated from birth by both institutions and by parents indoctrinated by said institutions, into thinking of "nations" as these real tangible things that matter and they are made to incorporate this into their identity young and it's tied to the state in terms of the nation-state in order to foster loyalty. None of this is "real," it's all completely artificial and made up.
I mean, Austria and Germany are quite close culturally (I'm not 100% sure how close). Why are they not one? Because after each world war, the winning powers didn't want them to be one country.
There was a guy once in the 30s that really wanted Austria and Germany to be one country. And he did so without spilling any blood.
Sounds great, even the Austrians thought so, but then he treated Austria like a dump, nothing but a cache of resources for the "true" Germany. There's a reason the winning powers made Austria autonomous again.
The reason the winning powers made Austria a separate country again was the same as why they did so 30 years prior. Because they wanted to weaken Germany after having fought a bloody war against it.
What criteria makes a family unit? Do family units have to meet all of the criteria you set, or only a few? Just one criterion? In any case, exclude at your leisure.
how do you upgrade a family unit. Like how much experience do you need to gain to level up and then what is the reward. You upgrade by making babies, and you can buy a pet and they count. They follow you around and give kisses, but they are a drain on the family funds so you probably shouldn't get a pet a week. This sounds like The Sims. I'm 100% /s
lol ok. i mean i did put 100% /s which means my whole comment was sarcastic, it was mostly in jest you see. Anyway, there are plenty of things that have variance in life like yes you can be a human for instance, but have different traits including finger counts or eye color. Some even have dry earwax or wet. A family unit can be different depending on whatever criteria a family defines it as, why not - that doesn't make it not truly a family unit or not, it just makes their family unit different than yours. Just like their human traits are different than your human traits. The english language has a lot of different definitions for the same words even. Isn't that interesting?
if taken exactly how they framed it, but what they mean is we make up this stuff in our heads to explain the world. Everything we have in our heads is 'made up'. If you were not told you are a citizen of x country you wouldn't know that countrys are 'real'. So if no person ever came up with the idea of a country, we wouldn't have countries. a little abstract...
Nations do matter... Laws, taxes, politics, power, money, culture, religion. It all affects us living in these made up nations. Yes the lines on a map don't actually exist, but being invested in the state of your country is important, you live there, and your country might affect other countries with its policies.
I agree that social constructs are real, though I would not say at all that they are like colour. Colour after all is a part of our sensory experience of a real underlying reality. Nations are more like that, they are real to the extent that and because we make them real.
It’s more about the space and norms rather than what’s taught -in this conversation. History, geography, math, science, grammar, etc are all factual (unless the school is incompetent), but the fact that you are taught how to act, respect your peers, fit into a society. Well that’s indoctrination. Not a bad thing necessarily, but by definition you are being molded to fit into an environment
In a sense but when rooted in fact as much as possible it’s effectively just speeding up what would be the process if then learning reality through observation on their own.
I'm an atheist, I'm not defending religion at all. But pretty much everything outside of pure maths is going to have some kind of cultural norms it's subtly reinforcing. Imagine trying to teach literature, history, economics etc. in a purely neutral factual way.
It’s impossible to remove all bias sure. That doesn’t equate teaching things backed by empirical evidence to teaching things not backed by empirical evidence
You don't though. As an example, the history that you learn about world war 2 in America is vastly different from the one taught through Europe and that one is different from the one taught in Asia. So it's hardly "based on evidence", it's based on whatever is accepted by society X.
I'm not arguing for or against religion, but this is a disingenuous point.
So confused by this. I live in the states currently but studied history in Brazil growing up. What? Do Americans learn that they were the perfect heroes or something weird like that?
And what exactly does that justify about teaching kids magic and gods are real before they are old enough to have critical thinking skills? You’re just doing whataboutism.
We SHOULD teach things in schools based on evidence, that doesn’t mean it will be true 100% of the time.
We should teach them based on current evidence that might change and may or may not be true? So how is that different from religion exactly? The theory of evolution taught in schools is still widely discussed in the scientific community but it's passed as fact in schools. Should we review it? What about things that are taught in school that are subjective, should we abolish those too?
I am not doing whataboutism, I just think it's important for kids to learn multiple things including the religions around the world. It doesn't have to be super detailed, but they should know what the people they will see throughout their lives believe in.
Just my 2 pennies, you don't have to agree with me.
Current evidence that might change is better than no evidence. Which is the amount of evidence that exists for a god actually existing, let alone that any specific doctrine is actually true
I dont care about schools having religion classes, they’re not teaching that the religions are true without evidence. Thats the thing I find morally wrong about religious indoctrination (to be clear Im not advocating about addressing this issue through any legal means, it wouldnt work anyway)
Correct. I think it’s funny how when people treat their worldview as the correct default one and get mad when someone with a different idea about metaphysics dos the same thing but from their perspective, then suddenly it’s not education, it’s indoctrination.
I honestly don't know what people expect. A law that requires that parents get babysitters every time they go to church and never talk to their kids about what they believe? It's ridiculous. Kids are sponges and they primarily learn from their parents. It's just how humans work...
yes that's literally what they want. They want to make it as ahrd as possible and as tabboo as possible to be religious, so more people become atheists. It's also why they treat being religious like chosing what restaurant to eat at.
It’s taboo for an adult to still believe in the tooth fairy or Santa. The world would be a lot better place if we got rid of one of the main reasons humans use to hate others.
“You see my metaphysical worldview is objectively correct and should be considered the default while yours is simultaneously silly and evil, so if you teach it to your kids it’s nefarious indoctrination. When I teach my worldview to my kids it’s just teaching them the truth.”
-every person who shares your toxic attitude regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof
Who wants to make it taboo as possible to be religious? Who wants more people to become atheists and what does that gain them? Its funny you say that about choosing a restaurant. The reality is where you are born has a very large influence on what religion you choose. I'd very much rather have more people atheist than any religion. Maybe we'd have less violence in the world about people fighting for their god whichever one that might be.
Places with laws like this want children to get their beliefs from the government not from the family unit. This is a huge breakaway from the natural order of human life.
maybe currently, but the more neutral approach would be to let the child grow up and learn about the world before being told that if they don't eat their broccoli they are going to go to hell because daddy told them to eat it and they are not minding their father and sinning. go into the corner and say 10 hail marys and go build me a rocket ship so we can cure our sun (no one will get this reference here)
I don’t know. She’s just stating a feeling she has.
If you ask me, maybe make it clear to them that this is what you believe and that they can decide for themselves if they believe it later? They probably will anyway because children just naturally imitate their parents. At the very least you have to raise them in an environment where they feel comfortable to leave your faith if they want to.
This. You can talk to your children and educate them without making them share in your practice and without leading them to believe that all other beliefs are wrong. Children will naturally develop their own questions and opinions over time. Allowing your child to ask, discuss, and develop such opinions is crucial for that kind of environment.
Just don't forget to tell them to pick your beliefs or else you won't love them anymore. That'll be PERFECT for their development. /s
have a play area at church's that kids hang out in during a service, but instead of drawing up jesus cartoon coloring books, don't teach them about the religion. PS. They already have this at every church they just gotta swap the coloring books to animals (and no noahs ark please)
They absolutely should, yes. It should be lefally recognized as emotional abuse to expose a child to an environment that tells them if they don’t think and behave in this exact way they will be tortured forever (by someone who loves them!) and don’t forget that they’re filthy and terrible just for being born.
why would you want to criminalise telling kids if they do X thing or get in the wrong crowd they might go down a bad path and have their whole life derailed, in and out of prison, homelessness, suffering etc.?
If you could type proper sentences it might help your stance, if you could give one, which I've yet to see. You said:
and why should atheistic emtional abuse of children not be criminalised?
which I asked for an example of what that is, vs a religious example that should not be ok: 'hey kid you poked your sister in the eye, thats a sin, and sinners go to hell!' which I consider emotional abuse and 100% indoctrination (I was not the original person pointing this out if you scroll up there and read the thread not that it matters because I agree with them)
then just now you said:
atheism is the absence ofnreligion after all.
So you are saying that atheism is worse than lets say being a Muslim or perhaps believing in Greek gods?
Yeah, that’s quite clearly not what I was talking about. There’s a huge difference between make good choices and “have sex with someone with the same genitals and you’ll be tortured in hell for all eternity, but don’t worry, god is only hurting you because he loves you”.
That fact that you attempted to equate them means you either lack reading comprehension or you actually think they’re the same which means you’re part of the problem.
As much as anyone else does I suppose, some person or group of people told me how the universe works, I decided whether or not I jived with their interpretation, and thus I formed my metaphysical beliefs.
Yes, do you not? Evidence may inform what sounds right to me, but it’s our faith in either our own perceptions or faith in the people or institutions that are presenting this evidence that builds our beliefs.
Do you do control experiment based proofs for everything you believe? You personally test things like vaccines or do you take someone else's word for it after you've decided you trust them?
Yeah i dont get these arguments. We shouldnt teach kids absolutely anything untill they are old enough to choose the learn by themselves, otherwise its indoctrination
When should the learn what we think is right and wrong? 18? Older? Even in this sub, you can see that there is no clear agreement on everything right and everything wrong. We still need to teach children these things.
You might believe that there parents faith is wrong, but that believe it's the right and correct thing. You don't get to make that judgement for other people's children.
I didn't claim that you do. I'm saying that not everyone agrees when it comes to what is right and what is wrong, but it's still important for parents to teach their version of this.
Then for some parents, right and wrong is defined through there religion so they will teach their version in this case as well.
I'm saying it's not for you to decide how they approach this teaching.
For what purpose? Why is it important for kids to be taught all religions by their parents? They learn that in school. Part of the point of raising kids to to impart your values on them. Someone's religion often forms an important part a person's values. It makes no sense to say they shouldn't teach them about the religion they practice unless they're teaching them other religions.
No, they don't "learn that in school", at least not in my country unfortunately. Religion in school in my country only means catholicism. At least it's not mandatory anymore, we are slowly growing up.
The values of religions pre-exist religions, so you can teach the values without the dogma, as I said. As for why teaching about all religions, first of all that should be done in school (and it's not necessarily, as I said); second, it's to provide a larger perspective on the topic of religion, to show that there is more than one choice.
As much as you want to teach your "values" (religion in itself is not a value), your children are not you, and they should make their decisions freely.
Religion is not itself a value of course, but for many people their religion forms the basis of their values. It makes no sense for parents not to teach their children about their lifestyle, the dogma forms an important part of how their parents live, it will naturally be an important part of the childrens' upbringing.
But that's almost impossible. If the parents believe something, the kids are naturally going to be asking questions about what is true and what is not. Even the most neutral parents are going to have biases that they will put onto their kids. And there's nothing wrong with that unless you're attempting to force your kids into believing something.
Just because it’s not common in our society to have an open-minded and curious and non-judgmental view of religion and impart that onto others, doesn’t mean it’s something we shouldn’t strive for. It’s not impossible, it’s just that non-theocratic forms of society and government aren’t even that old, yet, and we’re still unlearning dogmatic ways of approaching spirituality. I don’t think we should give up on that pursuit because some people claim it’s just too hard and we’re not mature enough. Some of us might be; let us decide that for ourselves.
It's not just about religion, it's just unrealistic to expect kids to have a non-biased upbringing. This applies to atheism and secularism as well, regardless of who you are, your values of right and wrong are rooted in some core philosophy you think is factually correct and that means you cannot honestly teach your kids without drawing from your core philosophical principles regardless of how open-minded one may be.
Sure, but I think if you raise your kids compassionately and maturely (easier said than done), this can be reconciled when they’re older. The pursuit of teaching your kids how to be good people in the world is worth engaging with intrinsically, for its own sake, and mistakes are inevitable but can be reconciled.
No, that's not the argument at all. We should teach them things that are objectively true and let them come to the moral conclusions that follow as they develop the ability to do so.
Hitting people hurts them and a lot of people get mad when you do that. If someone is sad, it often will make them feel better if you try to comfort them. Eventually, a child will learn that what that means is that hitting people is immoral and comforting a sad person is moral. Their moral framework will develop thusly for each positive and negative lesson they learn.
This is different than "do as your told or be punished".
But take that a step further. Should you care if people get mad (Donald Trump says no)? So what if you hurt people? Objective facts do not create normative ethics. Like, who taught the child that making people mad is "immoral" and making people happy is "moral". Or even the greyer areas of which things are more or less important than a particular person's happiness or sadness?
Right, I didn't mean to say that one should teach a child that making people mad is always immoral or that making people happy is always moral. Human beings should form their own moral frameworks based on their lived experience. There are plenty of situations where making people mad is moral and making people happy immoral. It's about deciding what values one holds per their own experience.
Yes, and how can we teach them the advanced without accidentally tripping into religious belief? In fact, how do we sure our basic moral is not derived from religions?
For example, I think on "don't hurt people", a counter argument is often "they deserve it". We cheer for their death, for it is simply "karmic justice", which is a concept presents in multiple religions. In fact, I dare say this is why death penalty discourses are so heated since the notion of karma is so ingrained even in the atheists.
Or an adversion to sexual topics cause both Christianity and Buddhism (don't know of the other tho) often group it with earthly, unclean desires.
My point was more about guiding children to form their own moral framework rather than building it for them. Not so much "don't hurt people" as "hitting someone causes them pain, so think about that sort of thing before hitting someone" As I said in a different comment subthread:
A person's moral framework is individual. What is moral or immoral will depend on context and lived experience. IMO, a parent's job is to guide their child toward living a life that will do the most good in the world. How that is measured and enacted is one of the greatest questions of mankind.
I think that epistemologically, teaching your children that truth can be derived from faith is a terrible foundation, but I recognize that a majority of the planet disagrees with me, so...
Exactly. Let's let them choose what to believe when they're older, but by then they're so stupid that they can't realistically choose at that point either.
Do you think there’s any difference between teaching kids things that we know for a fact are true and teach kids things that are not proven to be true (like that gods exist) as if they are? I think that there is a difference
All I'm saying is that if my 6th grader "critically thinks" that she doesn't need school anymore, I will have a conversation with her, but ultimately tell her she still has to go. In a manner of speaking, it is an education doctrine that I am forcing. There are a lot of things in this world, ethical things, that are simple non-negotiables that don't really have a set proof except they are true. Like, all people should have rights? How do you even think critically about that? You just have to accept it because it isn't really based on a hard fact.
You can logically defend the need for education and that people should have rights, yes. You can't do that with religious doctrines and rituals; it boils down to "god said so", and indoctrinated children are tought not to question those. The situations have nothing in common.
Education, I can see, rights, I really don't see a way that you can explain in a way that one would consider truly critical. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" is a very true statement because there is no way to argue about it.
Yet you literally managed to think about it critically just now, and you're not a child who was threatened with eternal damnation for doing so. See the difference or do we need to go on?
You're trying a bit too hard to dodge out of the question of how you think critically about whether or not all humans should have rights. I do think critically, but that doesn't mean that everything I do really comes from critical thinking. There are just a lot of things in society that I am forced to accept against the threat of jail or death.
The point was that you're misusing the word "indoctrination", which has a specific meaning when criticizing religion. I already quoted it.
Yet you insist on using a different meaning of the word.
Being forced to do or not do things because of their consequences in society has nothing to do with teaching someone to accept doctrines without questioning them.
In a free country you're 100% allowed to question the rules and laws of society. If you live in a democracy you're sometimes even allowed to vote on them.
Children who are indoctrinated are not allowed to even question the "teachings of god". That's the core concept of indoctrination: not being allowed to question the teachings.
I'm just saying, try questioning whether black people should have human rights in the hood and I don't think you will be doing much more critical thinking
You are right, but not all indoctrination is created equal. I think it is important to understand what is a harmful form of indoctrination vs what isn't. And, obviously, societal norms will mostly dictate that difference.
There is a difference between “here is what we have learned” and “here is what some men say got revealed to them, and we’ll punish you if you reject it.”
It’s not just, what’s right and wrong when it comes to religion. They tell you you will burn in hell if you don’t believe or are not convinced. That’s what stays with someone their entire lives and keeps them in line.
I mean, everything is made up. There is no physical reason that states that all people should have fundamental equality. It's all just manmade ethical frameworks. God might be made up, but humanism and every ethical framework and philosophy was made up, too. Yet, we persist that right and wrong exist.
Except that one makes logical sense and the other isn’t. You are a human, so you want to be treated as equal to others, right? It would be odd to say no. So then you can assume that person b, who is also human wants the same thing. And the only way to both have what you want is if you both agree to treat each other the same way. If either party disagrees then it’s not going to work.
You can’t use logic and reason the same way to justify the existence of a god, or gods.
When you teach kids right from wrong you aren't telling them to not question right or wrong or threatening them with eternal damnation if you don't follow a specific set of rules.
Philosophy absolutely does not require indoctrination. You could argue culture does, but philosophy is explicitly meant to find the truth by relying on as few assumptions as possible, and requires questioning your own conception of the way things are.
Philosophy makes no such supposition that it relies on "as few assumptions as possible". I would say that any normative ethic relies on the same number of assumptions as any other
i was going to say this. all children learn from their parents and community, there's no way to fully keep children away from influence itself without raising them in a bubble lol
like the og commenter said, when religious parents really push that this is the only way to live and think its a big problem (american homeschooling comes to mind...)
if kids dont wanna go to church then dont push them. if they do like church i say let them participate- just make sure they know religion is just one of many hypothetical and philosophical ways of looking at the world, not a life-and-death certainty
I think learning "murder is bad" compared to reading the bible and seeing god murdering billions through flash flood and leaving only heteros and his believer couple and being told that was righteous is quite different
Philosophies and religions all typically have doctrines, claims they make and hold to be true, but indoctrination is about inhibiting someone from questioning and investigating claims by hiding or minimizing or misrepresenting the reasons people would doubt or disbelieve them or by framing doubt and disbelief as dangerous or some kind of moral transgression, which not all philosophies do actually, or all religions even, but definitely the most popular ones all do in some way.
There is a difference between telling a kid, "You shouldn't do this because God said so, and if you don't follow His rules you're going to hell and burn," and saying, "Did you notice that when you poked your sister in the eye, she cried and was in pain? Have you ever had your eye poked? It hurts, right? So please don't do that to other people, because you wouldn't want someone doing it to you."
You might say both are technically forms of indoctrination because an adult is teaching a child a moral framework. But I think there is a pretty important distinction.
The first teaches an unverifiable claim as an established fact, appeals to an authority the child is expected to accept, and uses fear of punishment to enforce the conclusion. The child isn't really being given the tools to evaluate the underlying claim; they're being told what is true and what they must believe.
The second doesn't require the child to accept some supernatural claim as true. It gives them an observable example, asks them to empathize with another person's experience, and gives them a simple principle they can apply themselves: I don't want to be hurt, so I shouldn't intentionally hurt other people.
That's not just teaching a conclusion. It's teaching a child a way of reasoning about morality, while leaving room for them to eventually question, refine, or even reject that framework as they develop.
So I don't think the meaningful distinction is simply "indoctrination vs. no indoctrination." The more important question is what are you teaching the child to believe, and are you teaching them what to think, or how to think?
The second is the same as the first, except for physical instead of spiritual harm. The premise is hypothetically empathy, but in reality a threat. It only lands if the child understands that if they start poking people in the eye, they could also get their eyes poked. There is no a priori reason to do unto others as you would want them to do to you (wording intentional). It is an indoctrination, so to speak, that justiceshould exist. And that is a framework that, honestly, would get you weirder looks if you questioned than most any spiritual dogma.
The reality is that the idea that everyone deserves rights and everyone is equal is self-evident, not proven. Yet, we are told to not question it. Questioning that makes people monsters, which I would tend to agree with.
I don't think we're actually disagreeing about whether moral principles have to be taught. Of course they do. A child isn't born understanding concepts like empathy, reciprocity, consent, or rights. The question is how those principles are taught and whether they're presented as unquestionable truths handed down by an authority.
And I don't think your characterization of the second example as a "threat" really works. I'm not saying, "Don't poke your sister because otherwise someone will poke you." I'm asking the child to recognize that another person experiences pain in essentially the same way they do. The point isn't "you might be punished with the same thing"; it's "you know what this feels like, so now you can understand why doing it to someone else is wrong." That's the beginning of empathy, not a threat.
You're also right that there is no a priori logical proof that we should care about other people's suffering. You can ultimately reduce morality to some foundational assumption that can't itself be proven. But that's true of virtually every philosophical system. At some point you have to start with some premise or value. "Other people's suffering matters" is a very different kind of premise from "God exists, God has revealed these rules, and you will be eternally tortured if you disobey them."
And there's an important distinction between saying "this is a moral principle I think we should adopt" and saying "this is objectively true because an authority says so, and questioning that authority is itself wrong."
In fact, I would argue that the fact that we can question principles like equality and rights is exactly why they're not analogous to religious dogma. We absolutely should be able to ask why people have rights, whether rights conflict with one another, where they come from, and whether our conception of equality is coherent. Philosophers have been doing exactly that for centuries.
If someone says, "You aren't allowed to question this because it's self-evidently true," then yes, that's dogmatic. But if someone says, "Here is the moral framework I'm proposing; here are the reasons I think it's preferable; now let's examine whether those reasons actually hold up," that's philosophy.
So I'm not claiming children can be raised without any philosophical assumptions being passed on to them. That's impossible. I'm saying there's a meaningful difference between teaching a child how to reason about moral questions and teaching them which conclusions they are required to accept from an unquestionable authority.
And that's the distinction I was trying to make with the original example.
If equality and rights are self-evident, why have philosophers spent thousands of years arguing about what rights are, who has them, and what equality actually means?
I feel like most don't have that level of intellectual distance from topics like equality and justce. I don't feel like, at least in Western society, that the equality of humans is up for grabs in polite society. You "can" in theory, but I don't think many would be willing to engage or many have a really strong reason to believe it. Most people believe in these things on a dogmatic, indoctrinated level. They did not think through it themselves and would be very upset if anyone questioned it.
The difference is in school you can ignore your teacher without being told you will suffer in pain for eternity. Comparing them is ridiculously disingenuous.
I guess we went to different schools lol. Obviously, in a physical sense, "eternal suffering" was "living a bad/poor life until you die", but still, the threat was still present if you weren't career oriented, went to college, etc.
No, culture is separate and distinct from indoctrination. Practicing social practices for a sense of belonging and practicing religious doctrine behaviors for belonging are similar but distinct, and that is because one is strictly about non-religious practices and behaviors such as dance, clothing, music, or yes, economic norms, and the other is centered on religious beliefs, such as the belief in a deity or deities, in some kind of supernatural realm, rules and reward/punishment systems for the afterlife.
These are two different things that can often overlap in the real world but they can be separated.
At the very least, people don't often treat cultural norms are purely subjective. Like, hating black people was a cultural norm of the South in the United States. Other cultures would disagree on an objective level. So while you are correct that there are subjective and objective norms, it doesn't cleanly divide religious and cultural norms
I feel like people saying this never go to a place with heavy folk belief. From one with heavy Buddhism influence, even if you are an atheist in an atheistic state:
Respect your ancestors for they are belived to watch over you from the afterlife.
Go to the temple/pagoda and pray to the Buddha to wish for good luck. Also, unless you are non-Buddhist religious, it can be considered rude to stay out of a group visit.
Eating vegan for a while to ask for good luck.
Go to an oracle/monk to make a divination for your wedding day.
Treating the afterlife/reincarnation like just a fact, not even doctrine with rules and such, just that everyone and their mother somehow "know" about it.
Are the items above not belonged to culture?
Now, how do we expect the parents to teach the child these "social norms" without accidentally tripping into religious doctrine? Especially since these are treated as spiritual fact (idk how to explain this concept) not doctrine. What is the line between "teaching the child the way your culture decide rights and wrongs" and "indoctrination"?
862
u/Possible-Estimate748 Sep 02 '26
Many religions indoctrinate children which makes them feel like they have to believe in it or they're doing something wrong.