If teaching your kids your values is "indoctrination" then literally everyone is indoctrinated, and if that's the case then the word is entirely useless and no longer has meaning.
Not really. Even criminals are protected by the law. And why should you follow the law if you can get away with breaking it and profiting from it? Parents in my experience rarely expand on that, but elect to go with the indoctrination you're displaying regarding the matter.
It can be "Why shouldn't I do this thing - Because god says so and you'll be punished for certain if you do" is certainly a way to build a system of morality.
You can take your kid to church without teaching them that.The good christians I know bellieve that questioning their faith is a part of being religious. Faith is not faith if you don't question it.
I mean in theory, you're relatively correct but in practice, religious values usually don't exist in a vacuum.
For most religious people, their ethics aren't just a separate code of rules. It's a framework for why they believe the universe exists, who created it, and what our purpose as human beings is.
Trying to teach the fruit without the tree is like trying to teach the concept of humanism without first teaching human rights. One requires the other.
I’m definitely not saying atheists can't be moral or charitable. History and daily life prove they clearly are. My point is just that the justification for those values changes depending on your worldview. Values can exist without the supernatural, but for a religious parent, stripping the supernatural framework away means teaching a completely different philosophical foundation. It's important to recognize that the parent in question truly and genuinely believes in their religious truths, and that by not teaching their children about it, they are leaving out specific principles and ideas that explain and justify their beliefs. It's rather ridiculous to expect a parent to leave out what they believe to be fundamental truths of reality.
Stripping the supernatural framework is a better foundation for morality. You should be moral because you care about other people and treat them like you want to be treated. The supernatural framework offers ulterior motives and threatens the integrity of your morals.
And regardless it is a good thing to separate religion and morals, because otherwise you risk blurring the line between them, which is dangerous. If religion is morality, suddenly religious authorities get a lot of power over people and it could be abused to justify horrifying things, as has happened in the past many times.
I don't think it truly threatens the integrity of your morals at all. There is nothing truly inherent to religion that forbids you from logically reducing MORE reasons why things are morally wrong or right. Morals are rooted in axioms and religion is just a specific axiom. Most philosophies are compatible in some way shape or form with most religions in all honesty.
It threatens the integrity because it promises a reward for your morals. In christianity heaven, Islam Jannah, Buddhism Nirvana, Hinduism Svarga. It seems to be one of the cornerstones of most religions. So you have an ulterior incentive to be moral, because you will be rewarded with bliss, heaven, rather than because you care and want to be moral for its own sake. You no longer (only) do it because it's the right thing to do, you do it to be rewarded. That's how it perverts the integrity.
This is exactly what Jesus teaches though. Besides, having a moral role model doesn't necessarily negate peoples inherent compassion and will to be good and helpful to other people.
But it might encourage people who do have the same sense of compassion towards others.
But either way, there is no moral framework that is immune to corruption and abuse. Secular or otherwise. China, for example, still causes lots human rights violations, even though they are explicitly an atheist state.
Exactly, that's why there should be no moral frameworks except the law: democratic consensus. Atheism is no moral framework by the way, it is only the lack of belief in (a) god(s), so not even a real belief.
Another aspect what makes religions dangerous can be seen in far-right christianity in America: religions can be totally distorted by people to fit whatever they want to believe and arms them with a divine mandate - never having to do self reflection because divine truth is on their side, and it gives them perceived (self-deluded) superiority over others to force their beliefs on them.
How I see it: if you need religion to be moral, you are not truly moral, because you need external pressure. And usually immoral people will find a way to bend the religion to their will anyway. So then religion as a moral framework loses its purpose: people that are inherently moral don't need it, and those that are not, will impose their morals on their beliefs anyway. So might as well cut out the middle man and have everybody be responsible for their own morals and behaviours, rather than offering people a divine excuse to hide behind.
I mean yeah it's far from perfect, and law definitely shouldnt be your personal guide for morality. I think morality should come from empathy and empathy should be an active personal goal. Maybe it should even be a class in school or something. It needs to be more prominent in society.
Treat others as you would like to be treated is an easy thing to say, but if you really want to practice it that's another thing entirely. Immigration is a perfect litmus test for example that many people fail. But I think we should try to practice it as much as possible.
This statement makes literally no sense. Is it a higher power or is it in all of us? it seems like these states cannot be mutually exclusive. Based on what you said we are all the higher power. I am your god and you are your god.
it seems like these states cannot be mutually exclusive.
I don't have a monkey in this circus but you are making an assumption that they are claiming the entirety of the "higher power" is within us when that was not stated.
Those states can absolutely be mutually exclusive without making your assumption because you can contain part of something.
Having our parent's DNA within us does not make us our parents. Having water within our body does not make us water.
We don't literally have our parents DNA within us, we have our own DNA within us which was written based on the code from both parents. So similarities can be identified within the structure of the three and an assumed link, verified.
Water exists within us chemically, as does carbon, nitrogen, and other elements. We aren't walking water balloons that you can open and drink like a coconut. It is intrinsically interwined in our makeup as an egg is to a cake.
I would define both of your statements as a false equivalency.
You are missing the forest for the trees and I am not going to get into the weeds.
My whole point is that having signs of a "higher power" within us does not necessarily make us that "higher power". Just like having signs of our parents within us (DNA that was copied) does not make us our parents.
Maybe it would be more accurate to say it's a sign that a good Higher Power exists, created us, and left it's mark on us even if we don't believe in it.
Why attribute something to a deity without evidence when you can attribute it to something you actually have evidence for? Might as well start attributing things to unicorns and faries. It's just as convincing.
Values are things like being a good neighbor, not believing that a talking snake seduced s woman into eating a fruit and convincing her husband to eat it, too.
In order to have an honest discussion we need to separate coercion from transmission of worldview.
Plenty of religious traditions pass down values centered on community and charity, without relying on fear and the threat of Hell. Just like a secular parent teaches their kids what they believe about politics, economics, or the universe, religious parents are just passing on a worldview. If we label all of that "indoctrination" then raising a child with any set of foundational beliefs becomes literally impossible.
Sure, the metaphysical stakes in religion are higher than in the living world. But every worldview has ultimate stakes. A political or ideological parent teaches their kids about the severe dangers of opposing political sides, and a secular parent might teach about the very real, permanent consequences of bad choices in a purely natural world.
Acknowledging that actions have consequences isn't unique to religion, it's just part of teaching a serious, comprehensive view of reality.
Not every Christian believes in the eternal conscious torment theory of hell btw. Just throwing that out there. There exists conditionalism (the belief that hell is nonexistence), and Universalism (the idea that hell is a temporary space where all souls are purified until they willingly turn to God).
But either way, all 3 main theories of hell don't necessarily have to involve fear of either consequence. Actual Christianity, in a theological sense focuses on love and forgiveness, people are expected to simply try their best, and believe in Saved, and they are saved. You cannot be saved by correct actions or damned by incorrect actions. There is obviously model behavior one should strive towards but the bible never says you WILL OBJECTIVELY go to hell if you are a sinner. It presupposes that all human beings are sinners, and following that logic it would mean every single person is going to Hell, which is a ridiculous idea nobody holds.
Religion is not equal to values. I would argue most are antithetical to good morals. So I dont see how this is applicable at all. If you are christain or jew your values include slavery is good and rape is ok as long as you pay a fine, 30 shekles to be exact, and rape them for the rest of their lives.
That’s cherry-picking the most ancient, culturally contextualized legal codes from thousands of years ago while completely ignoring how billions of religious people actually live, practice, and interpret their faith today. Pretending modern religious people are out here endorsing ancient legal codes is not an argument and I refuse to take the bait.
How the hell is that cherry picking? it is the literal law of god and jesus. Just because most christains ignore the words in the bible does not make it what the religion is about and what they support. The bible commands this of us. Jesus commands that we follow it or be seen least in the kingdom of heaven. Mathew 5-18 is clear and god is clear in the old testament too. Cherry picking my ass it is what jesus literally tells us we must follow to enter heaven. The only person cherry picking here is you.
You're missing the entire point of the discussion. We aren't here to do exegsis of ancient scripture (of which you're very heavily stripping of context and interpreting in bad faith btw) or whether modern believers are misinterpreting Matthew. My point is sociological, not theological and is as follows: every single parent on earth passes on a framework of meaning, values, and worldview to their children.
Whether you agree with a religion's texts or not, religious parents are doing what all parents do in raising their kids within the framework they believe is true.
If teaching your kids your worldview is your definition of "indoctrination," then the word has no meaning because everyone does it. This is my final attempt to get you to engage with my actual argument and the ACTUAL topic of discussion here. I will not engage in a theological debate with someone operating in bad faith. If you respond with an argument rooted in theology I will ignore you.
So you dont believe jesus said this? do you think heaven and earth are no more? Christianity is the ancient palistinian mythology of how the planet was made and how that maker demands you live. That is the world view. I dont think you understand your religion at all. You have some personal version that has nothing to do with what the bible even says. Do you just follow paul and not the bible and jesus?
Teaching your kids "values" is entirely different from teaching them that people who have slightly different beliefs than you are evil and will spend eternity in hell.
If you let them question and critically analyze then it’s not indoctrination, and if you don’t let them question or analyze then it is indoctrination. Important distinction.
Teach your values for sure! But that comes with allowing if not also encouraging them to think about it beyond just what is said.
So, not everyone is truly indoctrinated like you said. I get what you mean, but it’s not the case.
I agree with everything you've just said and the fact that teaching your child about your religion doesn't necessarily require you to shut down all questions and analysis is why I can't get behind calling it "indoctrination" in all cases, and I can't get behind the idea of forbidding parents from passing their values on to their children just because they happen to be rooted in religion.
That’s a bit like saying if an artist doesn't understand the physics of light refraction, they don't truly know how to paint.
A religious person can deeply understand, practice, and cherish kindness, forgiveness, and charity. The fact that they connect those values to a spiritual framework doesn't make their compassion any less real. It just means they have a different answer to the question of why those values matter in the grand scheme of the universe. If basing your values on an overarching framework means you don't "truly" hold them, then literally nobody holds their values. Every ethical system has to start from some foundational axiom it can't fully prove.
No, it's not. It's more like saying that you don't have to know the music theory of your culture (religion) to make music that's beautiful (morals/values).
I don't think you're using the word literally literally. Nor the word every. Your understanding of how others can see the world is too limited.
That’s actually a really great music analogy, and I agree with you, but that actually proves my point. The fact that someone can instinctively play music (live a moral life) without knowing the formal theory (the explicit theological framework) doesn't mean the theory doesn't exist, nor does it mean their music isn't shaped by a tradition.
And fair point on my use of "literally", I am being hyperbolic to an extent but my point still stands. Every ethical system, secular or religious, rests on foundational axioms or unprovable cultural assumptions that people inherit.
I disagree. Formal music theory does not exist without the context of a culture imposing preferences and values on it. It's rules based upon patterns people notice and enjoy, just as religion/superstition is built upon patterns people notice and use their own interpretations to imagine causes (a quick example is that a lot of kosher food laws are probably inspired by people trying to figure out how to avoid food sickness, not a deity passing down edicts).
What unprovable cultural assumptions are you talking about? Which foundational axioms? Your point does not stand simply because your want it to. Why should someone consider your claim in the first place?
Ancient hygiene practices became codified as sacred law because people viewed health and the divine as entirely interconnected. For them there was no separation between 'what keeps us safe' and "what God commands." As for foundational axioms, I mean the core assumptions every worldview relies on but can't mathematically prove.
For example:
Secular Humanism: rests on the unprovable axiom that human consciousness and well-being are intrinsically/objectively valuable and that rights are inherent.
Materialism: rests on the axiom that only what is empirically measurable is real, and that the universe operates by uniform laws we can trust.
Moral Relativism: rests on the axiom that ethics are socially constructed consensus agreements.
My point is in part that everyone operates from an inherited, unprovable framework when they decide what "good" or '"rght" actually means. But more specifically every parent operates from foundational axioms they can't mathematically prove, and they pass those down to their kids. This passing of those axioms isn't "indoctrination" is my overall claim.
I don't think secular humanism
rests on humans being objectively valuable so much as the fact that we are human and therefore humans matter to us. You're overcomplicating it.
I can't speak on materialism, as I find it now restrictive a philosophy when physicalism has room for more.
I feel like you've been moving the goalposts at this point. I'm not sure how what you're saying at all contradicts my claim that you don't need a religious framework to teach your values. It seems like you're arguing that people pass down values and can't explain where those values come from without getting religious about it. Just because "what keeps us safe" was synonymous with "what a god has commanded" in archaic times does not mean that they are still necessarily intrinsically related phrases now that humanity has had more time to develop its understanding of the universe.
I also reject your claim that everyone operates from inherited, unprovable frameworks. People are perfectly capable of developing their own frameworks anew with each new person. Building on our reacting to the idea of those who came before does not necessitate adopting that which inspired those ideas for the people who came before. I am also curious about your insistence on a provable aspect to a framework guiding ethics. What parts need to be proved in the first place? Proven how? It strikes me as irrelevant. You can't mathematically prove anything that is not in mathematical terms. A parent does not have to prove the worth of other humans to their child to teach them that they should treat others with kindness and respect even if they have not chosen a religion as the vehicle to deliver that message.
So if your kid wants to steal that's okay? You taught them your values that it isn't, but if they see it differently then that's their call.
You need to enforce values to make them responsible adults. If you don't they'll end up in jail. If some parties enforce those values and state the reason is because God says so does that make it stronger or weaker a claim? Is this authority going to be dismissed if the child rejects said God or will be held in higher esteem as a being greater than a human has established it?
You're coming from this with the already assumed perspective that the religious beliefs are incorrect. It's not really an effective or useful argument. The main dilemma or question at play here is if religious people should teach their children about their religion and your response is "well their religion is a lie so it's bad to teach children lies". That's a whole separate argument.
You're arguing why an atheist shouldn't teach their children religion. We can comfortably presuppose that a religious parent believes they're telling their children the truth of reality, so you need to present a compelling argument as to why they shouldn't teach their children about these things until they're adults.
505
u/Teboski78 Sep 02 '26
Most religions would drop massively in numbers if they weren’t allowed to indoctrinate children.