[matmat]

blackshoe, on Jan 12 2008, 12:57 AM, said:

Governments (and many - too many - individuals) generally want to teach children what to think. It would be far better both for the children and for society as a whole to teach them how to think.

what bothers me a lot, actually, is that they think it is their right to tell *other* people's children what to think.

[EricK]

blackshoe, on Jan 12 2008, 05:57 AM, said:

Governments (and many - too many - individuals) generally want to teach children what to think. It would be far better both for the children and for society as a whole to teach them how to think.

I think you misunderstand what governments want.

Governments (at least in democracies) want to get re-elected. To do this they have to convince people that they are doing a good job (normally in spite of the facts!). To do this, they make use of many things one of which is statistics. And the trouble with statistics is that they best apply to things which can be measured easily.

Measuring how many of a set of facts a child has learned is easy. Measuring how well a child has mastered independent thinking is hard. So they set the curricula and targets based on these simple measures.

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on Jan 12 2008, 03:27 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Jan 12 2008, 12:57 AM, said:

Governments (and many - too many - individuals) generally want to teach children what to think. It would be far better both for the children and for society as a whole to teach them how to think.

they have been saying this for 10,000 years...nothing new..wow

maybe they do not know how..you think?

Or we can repeat 10,000 year old sayings and call ourselves brilliant.

Mike, that is a very disappointing thing to say. The essence of his statement is real and appropriate. Demeaning and lowering the tone of the discussion serves no purpose other than to stifle it. Best not to comment at all.

btw, how did you raise your kids?

[blackshoe]

EricK, on Jan 12 2008, 07:03 AM, said:

I think you misunderstand what governments want.

Governments (at least in democracies) want to get re-elected. To do this they have to convince people that they are doing a good job (normally in spite of the facts!). To do this, they make use of many things one of which is statistics. And the trouble with statistics is that they best apply to things which can be measured easily.

Measuring how many of a set of facts a child has learned is easy. Measuring how well a child has mastered independent thinking is hard. So they set the curricula and targets based on these simple measures.

I know exactly what governments want - power, and more power.

I would quote Sir John Stamp here, regarding statistics, but Mike would pile more ***** on me if I did, so I won't.

[brisny65]

sceptic, on Dec 28 2007, 02:32 PM, said:

you see what I am trying to get at is, that children will follow in their parents footsteps, how many Muslim kids brought up, suddenly change to Judism or Catholosism aged 18.  is it not fair to say once brought up in a religion then that is what you bec ome and that main point I am making is that THere is no choice for these kids, their parents make them what they are

Whether a person chooses to believe or not believe in the religion in their heart is a matter of choice which no one can force upon them. My parents can teach me 24/7 about Christianity, but it is ultimately my decision and mine alone whether or not I will accept Jesus Christ into my heart as my personal savior. They can force me to learn scripture and listen to sermons, etc., but how can you force someone to really believe something. By the way, I DO believe.

[the hog]

brisny65, on Jan 13 2008, 10:36 AM, said:

sceptic, on Dec 28 2007, 02:32 PM, said:

you see what I am trying to get at is, that children will follow in their parents footsteps, how many Muslim kids brought up, suddenly change to Judism or Catholosism aged 18.  is it not fair to say once brought up in a religion then that is what you bec ome and that main point I am making is that THere is no choice for these kids, their parents make them what they are

Whether a person chooses to believe or not believe in the religion in their heart is a matter of choice which no one can force upon them. My parents can teach me 24/7 about Christianity, but it is ultimately my decision and mine alone whether or not I will accept Jesus Christ into my heart as my personal savior. They can force me to learn scripture and listen to sermons, etc., but how can you force someone to really believe something. By the way, I DO believe.

I guess you have never heard of the Jesuit saying, "Give me the child and I'll give you the man."

[matmat]

brisny65, on Jan 12 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

Whether a person chooses to believe or not believe in the religion in their heart is a matter of choice which no one can force upon them.  My parents can teach me 24/7 about Christianity, but it is ultimately my decision and mine alone whether or not I will accept Jesus Christ into my heart as my personal savior.  They can force me to learn scripture and listen to sermons, etc., but how can you force someone to really believe something.  By the way, I DO believe.

do you really believe that when you are inundated and indoctrinated by the people closest to you, the ones you trust the most, you, as an innocent child, will actually exhibit your own free will and be able to make a personal choice about believing or not believing?

btw, it's not obvious at all from the tone of your post that you DO believe.

[luke warm]

matmat, on Jan 13 2008, 05:32 AM, said:

brisny65, on Jan 12 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

Whether a person chooses to believe or not believe in the religion in their heart is a matter of choice which no one can force upon them.  My parents can teach me 24/7 about Christianity, but it is ultimately my decision and mine alone whether or not I will accept Jesus Christ into my heart as my personal savior.  They can force me to learn scripture and listen to sermons, etc., but how can you force someone to really believe something.  By the way, I DO believe.

do you really believe that when you are inundated and indoctrinated by the people closest to you, the ones you trust the most, you, as an innocent child, will actually exhibit your own free will and be able to make a personal choice about believing or not believing?

btw, it's not obvious at all from the tone of your post that you DO believe.

at some point people usually begin to think for themselves... true, it's not easy to break away from parental (or governmental) indoctrination but i think a majority of us reading this have views diametrically opposed to those held (and maybe even taught) by our parents and/or governments... and remember, many people practice a thing or profess a thing without actually believing that thing... there are many motives for such deception

why do you say what you do about his proclamation of belief?

[matmat]

luke warm, on Jan 13 2008, 10:00 AM, said:

at some point people usually begin to think for themselves... true, it's not easy to break away from parental (or governmental) indoctrination but i think a majority of us reading this have views diametrically opposed to those held (and maybe even taught) by our parents and/or governments... and remember, many people practice a thing or profess a thing without actually believing that thing... there are many motives for such deception

why do you say what you do about his proclamation of belief?

by motives, do you mean fear of rejection from those that are closest to you, for example? Take a look at some of the more closed societies in the world, and then tell me that being immersed in a single religion leaves that much room for thought.

I felt like at one point that poster stopped about an inch short of saying "and you should too," then again, I grew up in a place where people like to impose their religious views on others, so I'm a little sensitive to that sort of tone of voice/post.

[Winstonm]

Quote

....then again, I grew up in a place where people like to impose their religious views on others, so I'm a little sensitive to that sort of tone of voice/post.

Me, too. For those who have no experience with this type rearing, it is hard to grasp the significance of the indoctrination.

[Al_U_Card]

Harmony is not just pleasing to the ear.

One note, is monotonous and mind-numbing (you fail to hear it after a while).

Tolerance is your ability to endure that which wears on you.

There can be no future of any merit if we cannot learn to accept and respect the disparities and the diversity of the human condition.

Anyone who chooses to accept an idealized concept personified as their own way of supporting and dealing with all elements of their life is more than welcome to it.

Anyone choosing to question all and accept nothing is involved in an on-going process.

Evolution is all about change and development. Unquestioning faith or belief has the advantage of freeing the analytical aspects of ourselves for other pursuits. Many people need this spiritual respite to re-energize their essence. It is, after all, still part of the program.

[Winstonm]

Al, one of your best posts ever.

Everyone must find his or her own way through life - because it is his or her method, it cannot be demeaned by outsiders. Understanding that each seperate life is a private journey is the essence of tolerance.

[jocdelevat]

Quote

....then again, I grew up in a place where people like to impose their religious views on others, so I'm a little sensitive to that sort of tone of voice/post.

I grew up indoctrinated by 2 oposite views:1. our communist govermment(which idea was to demolish all churches) at that time not to believe and 2. by my parents and majority of romanian people to believe. The religion was a refugee at that time.

[luke warm]

matmat, on Jan 13 2008, 02:44 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 13 2008, 10:00 AM, said:

at some point people usually begin to think for themselves... true, it's not easy to break away from parental (or governmental) indoctrination but i think a majority of us reading this have views diametrically opposed to those held (and maybe even taught) by our parents and/or governments... and remember, many people practice a thing or profess a thing without actually believing that thing... there are many motives for such deception

why do you say what you do about his proclamation of belief?

by motives, do you mean fear of rejection from those that are closest to you, for example? Take a look at some of the more closed societies in the world, and then tell me that being immersed in a single religion leaves that much room for thought.

sure, fear of rejection or peer pressure could be a motive... but most such motives, imo, are selfish ones... proclaim you believe this or that for some goal, etc

i never said a community, city, state, country should by force have a single religion.. whatever truth one arrives at is just that - one's truth... there will come a time when we will all know the truth or error of our beliefs

[mycroft]

I freely admit that I am lucky to have been raised in a religion that does not indoctrinate - it teaches. And one of the things it teaches is how to think, how to read critically, how to read in context (historical and modern), and that belief is active, and that the human opinions of the past may, in fact, be wrong, or not completely right.

But I was "immersed" in that as well - and gave up at 11, and started listening to the "adult" services, which made a lot more sense to me. I've never responded well to proof by authority, or assumption of authority without evidence, though.

[Al_U_Card]

The "touchiness" of the issue can only create difficulties and misunderstandings when personal attitudes and feelings are involved. All logic and reason can be subject to any number of constraints or propositions that allow the existence or persistence of any number of belief/awareness structures.

First and foremost, the recognition of self and the relationship between oneself and our experience and its purpose relies on openness and freedom to exist without prejudice.

Second, the conception of individuality and the importance of personal perspective is necessary.

Third, the ability to operate under the assumption of the possibility that what may be good for one might not be (so) good for another has to be considered.

Finally, the realisation that whatever the situation, the consequences of actions are real and cumulative.

As such, care must always be taken to smell the flowers before they are stepped on.

[barmar]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 11 2008, 10:55 PM, said:

It means presenting them with the methods and logic of analysis and critique. Whenever a situation or philosophy is encountered, it was presented as neutrally as possible. Questions were answered and sources of information revealed. Questions and investigations were welcomed. As it stands, none of the three have chosen a religion (as yet, altho they are all still in their 20's) but they all have very healthy and open appreciations of their lives.

But religion is not subject to logical analysis. So if you think religion is right, realize that it depends on faith rather than proof, but you don't brainwash them, you're just giving them the tools that will likely guarantee their damnation! What responsible, religious parent would intentionally help damn their own children?

It's a vicious cycle. The only way to stop it is for the true believers to stop raising children. But since the Bible also said "be fruitful and multiply", that's not very likely. Given the reputation of Catholics, it's probably the opposite: religious people may be more prolific, which exacerbates the problem.

[barmar]

luke warm, on Jan 13 2008, 11:00 AM, said:

at some point people usually begin to think for themselves... true, it's not easy to break away from parental (or governmental) indoctrination but i think a majority of us reading this have views diametrically opposed to those held (and maybe even taught) by our parents and/or governments...

I suspect that many people go either of two ways. Either they adopt many of the beliefs that they were indoctrinated with, or they rebel and go the diamatrically opposite way. Either way, they're not really examining the beliefs and making an informed choice, they're making a choice based on whether they want to go with or against the indoctrination.

So if your parents are Republicans and you've decided that they're idiots, you might choose to be a Democrat just to piss them off, even if you don't really espouse the Democratic platform.

[Al_U_Card]

barmar, on Jan 14 2008, 12:49 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Jan 11 2008, 10:55 PM, said:

It means presenting them with the methods and logic of analysis and critique.  Whenever a situation or philosophy is encountered, it was presented as neutrally as possible.  Questions were answered and sources of information revealed.  Questions and investigations were welcomed.  As it stands, none of the three have chosen a religion (as yet, altho they are all still in their 20's) but they all have very healthy and open appreciations of their lives.

But religion is not subject to logical analysis. So if you think religion is right, realize that it depends on faith rather than proof, but you don't brainwash them, you're just giving them the tools that will likely guarantee their damnation! What responsible, religious parent would intentionally help damn their own children?

It's a vicious cycle. The only way to stop it is for the true believers to stop raising children. But since the Bible also said "be fruitful and multiply", that's not very likely. Given the reputation of Catholics, it's probably the opposite: religious people may be more prolific, which exacerbates the problem.

Hi Bar

Religion maybe but theistic philosophy (like the rest of the various philosophical disciplines) is subject to logic and reason. Aristotle got us off on the right foot with the prime mover but we have made a few mis-steps along the way perhaps?

If entropy is real (it certainly manifests itself in testable and tangible ways) then order (that we perceive) from chaos (that we infer) requires something more than our presence as observers. It is this perfecting (organisation) that implies the input of unseen forces that can create forms that defy the general universal (experiential) tendencies.

I like them odds.

btw none of this was ever foisted on my kids but I have had quite a few interesting discussions of a similar nature with them over the last few years as adults.