Aren't we all just a product of our birthplace?

[The Black Jester]

I'm reading a book right now called Moral Minds by Marc Hauser.

That's on my short-list of books to read in the near future - are you enjoying it?

[NearBr0ken]

It's wonderful.  It explains a lot about human nature.  He starts with a materialistic and evolutionary point of view and moves into how evolution has influenced the foundation of our morals.  It has also opened my eyes about many social situations in modern society.  For example, it's easier to see now why one can see "black power" as an empowerment philosophy and "white power" as a supremacist philosophy.  One of the main points is that a lot of our moral decisions can't be explained or justified- they're just made because we know they're right.

[The Black Jester]

One of the main points is that a lot of our moral decisions can't be explained or justified- they're just made because we know they're right.

Check out: On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not, by Robert A. Burton, M.D. - has a lot to say about decision making and so-called "certainty."

[Martin TK]

I don't think religious indoctrination is inherently "abuse", and I think it dilutes such a charged word to so assert.  It can be abuse, but it need not be so; it depends largely on the manner of indoctrination.

And all education is indoctrination, at one level or another.

Would you consider what the Extremeist Muslims do to be a form of abuse?  I'm sorry, but to me ALL forms of early religious indoctrination are abusive to children in that it takes away their freedom to chose what, if any, religion they wish to follow.  Like most indoctrinations (I like to think of it more as brainwashing) there are long term psychological implications that are extremely hard to shake off, even in adulthood.  As one theologian said to me, "Even if you brought concrete evidence to me that god did not exist, I would continue to believe in a god.  Not because he existed, but because I have been taught to believe."  

The difference between indoctrination by education and that of religion is that education often teaches us to think, question, and to experiment; while religion indoctrination teaches that there is value in unquestioned faith, which I believe to be dangerous.

[Argie]

I´m very sorry to read the treatment you got from your family after they learned you are an atheist Martin TK.  I disnt´t quite understand your personal background:  were you born a muslim?  If so, then it would certainly "make sense", if that´s a way to say it, your family´s reaction...muslims belive that once a muslim, either born into Islam or converted you cannot leave the religion under penalty of death.  They would have reacted the same way if you adopted another religion or even if being a suni muslim you turned into shia muslim or viceversa.

I defenetly agree with you that religious education is brainwashing and a form of child abuse.  Think of what happens to girls in some muslim countries, they are taught to belive not only the sharia´s obedience to men, but also to accept the fact that they will have the clitoreal amputation, because "Allah thinks" its a "dirty" place on the female anatomy.  But to be fair, not only muslims teach this kind of nonsese, the jews are indoctrinated from early age to belive they are "the chosen people", and I think that belief is a kind of supremacism.  I knew some christians that belive other denomination christians are heathen or infidelsbecause they are catholics... and catholics belive all other no catholic christians are heretics.  If children din´t grow upwith all these mambojambo indoctrination the world would be a much better place.

Secular education could be biased, there is no question about it.  The best example would be communist or socialist countries.  But that bias can only be found in certain social and humanistic disciplines, not in all the other branches of science... I see no way you could indoctrinate someone through mathematics or physics.  Some branches of science are just about teaching the truth following the scientific method.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Would you consider what the Extremeist Muslims do to be a form of abuse?  I'm sorry, but to me ALL forms of early religious indoctrination are abusive to children in that it takes away their freedom to chose what, if any, religion they wish to follow.

Indeed, it is a self-reinforcing meme.  That does not render it abuse.

Like most indoctrinations (I like to think of it more as brainwashing) there are long term psychological implications that are extremely hard to shake off, even in adulthood.  As one theologian said to me, "Even if you brought concrete evidence to me that god did not exist, I would continue to believe in a god.  Not because he existed, but because I have been taught to believe."

There are also long-term implications to the indoctrination of fighting for kith and kin.  Do you regard that as abuse?

The difference between indoctrination by education and that of religion is that education often teaches us to think, question, and to experiment; while religion indoctrination teaches that there is value in unquestioned faith, which I believe to be dangerous.

The difference between abuse and indoctrination, which is the issue here, is that indoctrination trains one to think a certain way, while abuse punishes the inability or refusal to do so.

I am not saying religious indoctrination is harmless.  I am saying that labeling it "abuse" risks either the dilution of the terminology, or the unfair castigation of people who teach their children the way that they were taught.  While I think religion is mistaken, I don't wish to purvey hyperbole, which is what I consider this charge.

[Martin TK]

I´m very sorry to read the treatment you got from your family after they learned you are an atheist Martin TK.  I disnt´t quite understand your personal background:  were you born a muslim?  If so, then it would certainly "make sense", if that´s a way to say it, your family´s reaction...muslims belive that once a muslim, either born into Islam or converted you cannot leave the religion under penalty of death.  They would have reacted the same way if you adopted another religion or even if being a suni muslim you turned into shia muslim or viceversa.

I defenetly agree with you that religious education is brainwashing and a form of child abuse.  Think of what happens to girls in some muslim countries, they are taught to belive not only the sharia´s obedience to men, but also to accept the fact that they will have the clitoreal amputation, because "Allah thinks" its a "dirty" place on the female anatomy.  But to be fair, not only muslims teach this kind of nonsese, the jews are indoctrinated from early age to belive they are "the chosen people", and I think that belief is a kind of supremacism.  I knew some christians that belive other denomination christians are heathen or infidelsbecause they are catholics... and catholics belive all other no catholic christians are heretics.  If children din´t grow upwith all these mambojambo indoctrination the world would be a much better place.

Secular education could be biased, there is no question about it.  The best example would be communist or socialist countries.  But that bias can only be found in certain social and humanistic disciplines, not in all the other branches of science... I see no way you could indoctrinate someone through mathematics or physics.  Some branches of science are just about teaching the truth following the scientific method.

No, I was born into a Christian home, I was using the Muslim example as well an example, is all.  But I agree with your statement all the way.

[Martin TK]

Would you consider what the Extremeist Muslims do to be a form of abuse?  I'm sorry, but to me ALL forms of early religious indoctrination are abusive to children in that it takes away their freedom to chose what, if any, religion they wish to follow.

Indeed, it is a self-reinforcing meme.  That does not render it abuse.

Like most indoctrinations (I like to think of it more as brainwashing) there are long term psychological implications that are extremely hard to shake off, even in adulthood.  As one theologian said to me, "Even if you brought concrete evidence to me that god did not exist, I would continue to believe in a god.  Not because he existed, but because I have been taught to believe."

There are also long-term implications to the indoctrination of fighting for kith and kin.  Do you regard that as abuse?

The difference between indoctrination by education and that of religion is that education often teaches us to think, question, and to experiment; while religion indoctrination teaches that there is value in unquestioned faith, which I believe to be dangerous.

The difference between abuse and indoctrination, which is the issue here, is that indoctrination trains one to think a certain way, while abuse punishes the inability or refusal to do so.

I am not saying religious indoctrination is harmless.  I am saying that labeling it "abuse" risks either the dilution of the terminology, or the unfair castigation of people who teach their children the way that they were taught.  While I think religion is mistaken, I don't wish to purvey hyperbole, which is what I consider this charge.

We shall have to agree to disagree, as is often the case with atheists, which makes us all the more stronger in the end, agreed?  Thanks

[Anthemyst]

At a somewhat early age, I realized that if I'd been born overseas I'd have been Muslin, not Catholic. I couldn't think of any compelling reason to prefer one general set of belief over another, and was forced to conclude that either all of them were valid, or none were. For quite a while I went with the former, but in the past few years I've swung over towards the latter.

[Martin TK]

At a somewhat early age, I realized that if I'd been born overseas I'd have been Muslin, not Catholic. I couldn't think of any compelling reason to prefer one general set of belief over another, and was forced to conclude that either all of them were valid, or none were. For quite a while I went with the former, but in the past few years I've swung over towards the latter.

This kind of goes with a statement I made to a theist recently, what makes Christianity MORE valid than any of the previous religions of the world that have all been proven to be debunked.  If Christianity is valid, then so are the religions of the Greeks, the Romans, the Aztecs, and the Egyptians.  As Dawkins says, we are all atheists, he just takes it one more god further than Christians do.

SMILE