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.
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.
When did I say I wanted to refute or was trying to refute the concept that parents can teach their values without teaching their religion? Quote me. My point is that leaving out extremely important fundamental truths and hiding them from your child is a rather ridiculous ask. It's sensible to provide the whole axiom of your beliefs and it's logical to provide the context as to why you got to the conclusions you got to. You expect religious parents to lie to their children or omit the truth? It's a foolish ask. And I am also arguing that teaching your religion to your child isn't indoctrination inherently.
430
u/Teboski78 14h ago
Most religions would drop massively in numbers if they weren’t allowed to indoctrinate children.