Malaclypse the Younger

virgio

Yes. I'm threatening my children with eternal damnation if they believe in a god.

"Indoctrination" means "teaching". Yes, I am teaching them. How to think, how to reason. That's my job.

Are you really completely unable to even grasp a semblance of humor?

Yes. We teach our children. I don't know if you have children but that's our job.

BTW: it is literally impossible to coerce someone into being a freethinker.

Well, to be a freethinker, you have to start by being a thinker. I recommend this activity: It is difficult but rewarding.

By teaching them logic, reason, common sense, and distrust of authority, including my own.

Think a moment (I understand this might be difficult, so take your time). How many people have been banned for failing to be "true" freethinkers?

Will you get a lot of flak for saying stupid shit (like this post)? Yes. Freethought doesn't mean we have to like all opinions equally. But it doesn't mean you'll be forced to the "highway".

What is it about thinking for oneself that you just don't get?

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

Arrowman

In all fairness to virgio, and even if I do think there are things he just doesn't get (yet), I think it's more appropriate that this thread be under "Miscellaneous" than "Rants". It hasn't descended to "Rant" level yet.

Malaclypse the Younger

I disagree, but I admit that the evaluation is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that the OP is both directly rude and contains an complex fallacy of the "have you stopped beating your wife" variety. Its tone and content strongly suggest either maliciousness or a complete cluelessness about the nature of freethought and "indoctrination".

[ February 28, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

Paradisedreams2

Arrowman,

You should write a book (I'd buy it) The head you have on your shoulders is worth a mint. What clear precise thought. I've printed this off because I'm so impressed with the way you think. Inside me screamed "Yes"! I'm not even suppose to be at the boards (warned my hubby, I just can't resist) I think I'll just follow you around a bit Your clarity amazes me and presentation is faultless. Are you married? Just kidding... When I see a post like this I can't help myself but acknowledge the greatness in it.

Thank you for your response to this person, I can for the first time take something home with me from here lol! I'm in total agreement with every word you shared I'm amazed to find it in one person.... <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Kim

Arrowman

Dear Paradise Dreams2
Thank you
I'm single, I like walks on the beach and candlelit dinners for two.

Do you have a single sister or friend, perhaps?

My best regards to your husband

The Tiger and the Elephant

virgio

In my opinion, indocrination is being taught what to think, and education is learning how to think.

Indoctrination of any idea is dangerous because it limits the indoctrinated, to a narrow minded approach to a world that varies in many ways. Indoctrinated people usually don't know how to talk or tolerate people of other beliefs. Raising someone to learn other beliefs and tolerate people of different beliefs but still remain strong in his own, is better in my opinion. Rather than indoctrination which limits that persons range of knowledge and understanding and when he or she is grown is faced with a world that he doesn't understand.

Paradisedreams2

Arrowman,


Yes, I do I have a sister who loves these VERY things. You don't really want me to play match maker now do you?

Gave your regards to my hubby,
point well taken.

Admirer of your Wisdom <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Kim

virgio

(oh, you're gonna wish you never started this

-- I doubt it, despite the Youngster's, and to a degree, yours, apparent perception, that disagreement constitutes lack of understanding.

1. On whether children are born atheist.

No no no, I strongly disagree with you. Atheism is not a "decision"; it is the default position. (OK, it is a "decision" for those who have deconverted from religion, but it is not necessarily a "decision") Atheism is the "absence of belief in gods". It is not a positive assertion. Your chair analogy is rather apt; chairs don't have a belief in gods, neither do newborn children. The difference being that chairs are not capable of acquiring beliefs; people are.

[...]

-- I continue to disagree - I think the use of this definition in this manner makes the term rather pointless - The only reason it's being used, I suspect, is so that atheists may dance about and hold the 'default position' sign over their heads - otherwise, they would object to being compared to a chair in this manner.

2. On critical thinking, and "how to think".

Teaching critical thinking is no more indoctrination, or teaching children "what to think", than teaching them English grammar or mathematics (but unfortunately, nowhere near as prevalent in our education system). CT is a basic life skill. People who do not think critically are open to all manner of scams, con-artists and sometime downright dangerous (quack "medicine") beliefs.

Note - there is an important distinction between teaching children "how to think" (methods) and teaching them "what to think" (opinions and beliefs).

-- There is also a fine line between the two. If you tell children that they must ask for proof whenever a claim is made (as you seemed to agree wtih below) you are telling them *what* to think. I suppose it's in the manner of the presentation. "Think this way" vs "This is a method of thought", and that really responds to the core of this topic. I get the sense that most people will be choosing the latter.

"You have to say "Prove it" each time someone expresses a belief". And why not? What is wrong with that? Well I don't necessarily mean it as literally or simply as that, but what in heck is so wrong about teaching children to not blindly accept other people's beliefs as fact, without dissecting the reasons for that belief? I'm sure you'll agree that a good little critical thinker would not invest money in a scheme "just because they told me it would work". I'm afraid it is unavoidable that a "good little critical thinker" might question religious beliefs as closely.

-- The 'wrongness' that I perceive is the use of the word 'must'. It necessitates an intellectual response to an environmental stimulus. X happens. You respond with Y. That does not seem to contribute to the phrase 'free' - but perhaps I'm thinking of 'freedom' in that atypical, non-American fashion. Damn me ;-)

"That isn't freethought, or thinking for yourself." Oh yes indeedy it is. Accepting other people's beliefs without any valid reason is the antithesis of critical thinking, and it's pretty close to opposite to free thought as well.

-- I should say that I'm challenging the use of the word 'freethought' here based on the more literal meaning of the word. That is, I'm challenging what may be a more accepted definition. "Accepting other people's beliefs without any valid reason is the antithesis of critical thinking, and it's pretty close to opposite to free thought as well." The problem with this sentence is the use of the word 'valid'. You're using 'valid' in a manner defined *by* your perception of what 'critical thinking' is. So you're saying (as I see it) "Accepting other people's beliefs without any valid (as defined by critical thinking) reason is the antithesis of critical thinking." - Well, yeah. that's like saying "Not using critical thinking is the antithesis of critical thinking." Dig?

"What if they use aesthetics instead of empiricism to determine the validity of certain claims?" Well here you might have a point. While I am not at all religious or spiritual myself, I can, as I said in an earlier post, quite happily accept that some people might place importance on that aspect of life. And that is where (as you will no doubt have already determined) there is a small difference between financial scams and religion, and the application of critical thinking thereto. While I am sure you will agree with me that accepting financial advice on belief alone is never a good idea, it is much more a matter of personal opinion whether adopting a belief or faith in unseen supernatural forces (within reason!) is quite the same. Hence my Spong / Robertson dichotomy.

-- Yes, I do believe there is a difference when we're regarding spiritual claims, but that difference may not be so great. We think a financial claim might take more CT because we 'have something to lose' - This may or may not apply to other social and religious issues, depending on your viewpoint. I will note when I say 'aesthetics', I'm not necessarily referring to the *pleasure* gained from the aesthetic value, but the 'beauty' one finds in the belief itself. For example, I may decide that Lao Tsu's philosophy has great validity because its seemingly endless contradictory nature is very beautiful and precise.

But I take issue with the "...validity of certain claims..." part of your sentence. Aesthetics can never be used to "determine the validity of a claim" -

-- Yes, it can. I think you mean "I think it shouldn't be". :-)

3. On "fundamentalist theists" - Sorry, I wasn't clear but you did get my meaning. Yes, I do believe that it is not possible to be a 100% critical thinker and also a fundamentalist theist. Because fundamentalist theism requires you to discard way too much in the way of logic and rationality - compared, say, to the beliefs of a Spong.

-- You've switched the term freethinker with critical thinker. Do you regard the two as exact synonyms? I've focussed on 'freethinker' because of the emotive persuasiveness of the word. I don't think the two are, or should be, synonyms. Perhaps you should define the two. I looked around on the net and I found a lot of different definitions.
However, I still don't agree that a theist can't be a critical thinker. You've just said that this concept applies to many different areas of society - when they apply to all these other areas, they are not being a critical thinker? Be careful. There is a strong tendency, and temptation, to define terms so that you can belong to a special fraternity.

Therefore - yes, I do believe if I successfully teach my children critical thinking, there is no way they could ever become fundamentalist theists. That is not indoctrination; it's just a fortunate side effect of their education.

-- "Fortunate"? Now I'm really starting to cease to doubt (blurf) that you have indoctrinated your children. It *IS* indoctrination, when you remove options from your children's intellectual framework. Eheh. I realize this is hard to understand, as the atheist community works hard to rid the idea that religion, theism or spirituality (or the type of thinking related to any of them) has any kind of beneficial qualities whatsoever - and that any of the people associated with these things aren't quite up to par.

What would you have me do? Avoid or water down teaching my children an important life skill, just to avoid the charge of "atheist indoctrination"?

-- Nope, like I said, there is a way to do it. I will definitely teach my children *about* the concept of 'critical thought'. I'm not going to attach moral connotations to it, however, which is what you seem to be doing. "This way of thinking is *good*." vs. "This is a way of thinking." Yes, I realize that YOU think it's a good (the best) way to think but that doesn't mean you should necessarily pass on that judgement to your children.


4. On "free thought". Yes, I suppose you could say that many religious people (eg the Spongs of this world) are as "free thinking" as atheists, at least in a religious sense. But consider the words of another recent poster on this board (I will work from memory and paraphrase here):

You're talking about a group of people [theists] who from an early age have spent at least one hour every week in a room with hundreds of people, singing, chanting, bowing, kneeling and gesturing in unison, and reciting passages from an ancient manuscript ... and we're the ones who are brainwashed???

-- 1. I didn't say atheists are brainwashed. I don't like the use of that word, when it's used for the religious or for atheists. 2. I don't think such actions necessitate being 'brainwashed'. I can describe a lot of similar activities. "There are lots of people who go to a room every day and listen to someone talk, and write down the gist of what that person is saying, and then go home and fervently remember and understand exactly what was said." This is a choice, for the most part, and something that the person wants to do. I don't think that's a great example

Just check out the Baptist Board some time. Have a look at the Women's and Youth forums in particular. Look at the posts from people asking "how long should I wear my hair?" "what does God want me to wear to church?" "Should I go to bars with my friends, even if I don't drink?" "Should I go to the movies?" ???!! and from others scrambling to the Bible to find the passages relevant to that part of their daily lives. Then come back and tell me what free thinkers they are. Oh, and while you're at it, count the Democrat voters on that board. Won't take long.

-- LOL, you have to be Democrat to be a freethinker? *grins* I like how atheist *ONLY* means "Lack of belief in God(s)" when it suits atheists, but when a sense of community is needed, it can mean so many other things ;-)
I have gone to the Baptist boards. I think I can reasonably wager I spend more time (Probably something I *shouldn't* be boasting about, heh) talking to people of different faiths and viewpoints, with the intent to understand their viewpoint rather than disprove it, than most. *shrugs* You can decide the significance of that. I realize that such people do not represent all, or even the majority, of people. It would be like saying all or most atheists are hateful proselytizers who can't stand the thought of someone thinking differently, based simply on the message on this board. I've met countless religious and spiritual people who are intelligent, thinking individuals. The people you are talking about, I think, are a breed of person pervasive in every viewpoint available, including atheists. It has more to do with personality and socialization than with particular belief. I can say more on this if you would like.

I'm sorry, even if I agreed with their religious beliefs, I'd never be able to use the words "free thought" to describe the process going on there.

-- I'd have to get to know them better than just seeing a few postings

6. On negative experiences and reactions - you said "I can expect and perhaps understrand them being anti-religious. I can't agree with their reaction though. I've had negative experiences with a lot of things... I try very hard not to whitewash those things."

If you grew up in a small town where everyone hated blacks and the KKK ruled the political / philosophical roost, and then moved away - would you allow that sort of thinking into your children's lives, just so you can avoid the accusation of "whitewashing" or being "open minded" or whatever?

-- You're comparing theism to the promotion of violence based on skin colour?

Look - some of the people on this board probably think I'm an idiot for letting my children go to a Catholic school. I disagree, for reasons given in my earlier post. But I'm not going to accuse them of "whitewashing" or "being closed-minded" because they have chosen to keep their children away from something which has been an entirely negative influence in their own lives.

-- Eheh. I'm going to get heat for this, but I think there's a very active victim mindset in the atheist community. I will NOT say that many atheists are abused, in one form or another, for their viewpoints. There is often, however, a 'church' feeling to atheist discussion where each person tries to out-victimize the other. This only sets up a bigger-than-life negative influence in their mind. (Such a 'church session was going on in an IRC channel, and after someone said "Christians keyed my car", he piped up "Christians ate my baby." *grins* Effective)...Not to mention the fact that scapegoats are useful. "High school sucked because all those delusional Christoids are evil."

(There was a poster on the Baptist Board with whom I recently disagreed on the subject of alcohol consumption. He was a recovering alcoholic - said "I spent a good part of my life picking fights with thunderstorms and shouting at trees" well put! So he is vehemently opposed to alcohol consumption in any form. I think he's wrong, but hey - I can't really blame him.)

-- Yes, but does he deride and villify anyone who drinks alcohol? :-) Notice the difference.

8. The final bit:
Me: A creationist once asked me in debate how I would feel if my children "grew up to be creationists" -would I feel I had failed them in some way? My answer - Not because they were religious per se, but certainly because I clearly had failed to teach them to think."
You: To think in the manner that you do. It's funny. Christians are often attacked because they claim an objective and ultimate morality. Atheists, on the other hand, claim an objective and ultimate intellectual attitude. :-)
So you do have a plan on how your children should think, and would actually failure if they do not think in this prescribed fashion. Does that not sound like indoctrination to you?

I do not necessarily claim an "objective and ultimate intellectual attitude" based on my atheism. Of course, I think I'm right to be an atheist but that's not quite the subject here.

-- I think most atheists do.

By the way, you have (inadvertently, I'm sure) misquoted me here in a small but relevant way. In my original post I went on to say "Asked the same question about religion, I would answer similarly although perhaps less definitively. [my emphasis]
- Note: It is objectively demonstrable that a Young Earth Creationist is not capable of logical or critical thinking. And I would be quite entitled to claim that I "had not taught them to think". It is not necessarily as demonstrable that a religious person "cannot think". That is why I made the distinction.

-- *nods* Okay

Anyway - what I claim is that I have, and can teach my children, certain thinking skills which are objectively measurable as valuable and, yes, superior (to those who do not possess those skills). It's no more than saying "I can count and you can't". Of course I am "superior" to you in the area of mathematics.

-- I don't think that 'the superior nature', in reference to the subject of this discussion, can be shown as you say. I see it as moving from one box to another.

No, I do not have a "plan on how my children should think" - I have a plan to ensure that they will gain certain thinking skills which are objectively measurable as being "superior". But we're talking about how to think - not what to think. I also happen to believe that having acquired those skills, they will almost certainly not become religious (or at least, fundamentalist). Like I said, that's just a beneficial side-effect!

-- I've already responded to this point above.

virgio

virgio

Youngster: Thank you for taking the time out of your busy day to write a post whose point seemed to be to insult me. I realize the complete lack of self-gratification you must get out of insulting people you don't know and responding to serious questions with pelvic-thrust mental masturbation must be very difficult on you, and yet you take the time to contribute anyways.

"Indoctrination" means "teaching". Yes, I am teaching them. How to think, how to reason. That's my job.

-- I think I'm asking how you're going to "teach" them and questioning whether that's really "teaching".

"BTW: it is literally impossible to coerce someone into being a freethinker."

-- Ideally, yes, I'd agree, it would be. Realistically, this isn't true. As long as you have a definition of what 'freethinker' is, it is possible to coerce someone into thinking exactly like that.


virgio

[ February 28, 2002: Message edited by: virgio ]</p>

virgio

"In my opinion, indocrination is being taught what to think, and education is learning how to think."

-- *nods* As I said to Arrowman, though, I think there is a fine line between being taught what to think and how to think. For instance, if you say "You must ask for proof whenever someone states a claim", when the child hears an 'unproved' claim, the child will instantly lack belief or disbelieve the claim. This sets up a conditioned thought response to a stimulus. (Or, as some might say, it is the Right and True Way to respond to such a ludicrous claim ;-))..

"Indoctrination of any idea is dangerous because it limits the indoctrinated, to a narrow minded approach to a world that varies in many ways."

-- Do you think that the indoctrination of a strict empirical approach in a child can result in a similar view as you described above?

"Indoctrinated people usually don't know how to talk or tolerate people of other beliefs."

-- Eheh. *looks around*

"Raising someone to learn other beliefs and tolerate people of different beliefs but still remain strong in his own, is better in my opinion. Rather than indoctrination which limits that persons range of knowledge and understanding and when he or she is grown is faced with a world that he doesn't understand."

-- I completely agree...except for perhaps the 'remain strong in his own' part. So I guess I don't completely agree ;-) I don't think it would be necessary, or 'good', to have the idea that one must stand resolutely with one's own beliefs in the face of diversity implanted.

virgio