Most Christians are "Christian" Because they were Indoctrinated as Children

[Diogenes]

In the post "Christians: aren't you embarrassed and angry?" posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=1073778
I wrote:

When they finally "get it" and realize most of them are Christians mainly because of childhood indoctrination and step out of the bondage of fantasy they were taught at an early age, then they are embarrassed or angry or both. ... and it has little to do with the reasons stated in post #1.

This suggests the current topic, 'Most Christians are "Christian" Because they were Indoctrinated as Children.'

In support of this proposition I quote from the Southern Nazarene University website,
http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/ages.htm where they claim 85% of Christians have their conversion experience ("are saved") at ages 4 to 14 and only 4% after the age of 30.

Parenthetically I note the human brain does not fully develop until about age 25.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621648/

[Diogenes]

The point which you obtusely refuse (are unable?) to get, is that this preposterous nonsense is defended simply because it was taught

So is the belief that all people have equal moral worth under the law. Does that, in itself, make it wrong?s not "offering insults."

Are you being obtuse on purpose, or are you intentionally missing the point by a mile?
I very clearly, in several posts, have affirmed that religions in general and the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth in particular convey excellent instruction on moral values, including (contrary to the 'Old Testament') that all people "have equal moral worth."
Equally clearly I have focused attention on the absurd supernatural claims, belief in which can only be explained by early childhood indoctrination, not facts, logic, or truth.

[historia]

I very clearly, in several posts, have affirmed that religions in general and the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth in particular convey excellent instruction on moral values, including (contrary to the 'Old Testament') that all people "have equal moral worth."

Equally clearly I have focused attention on the absurd supernatural claims, belief in which can only be explained by early childhood indoctrination, not facts, logic, or truth.

Right, so ideas that you like -- e.g., the belief that all people have equal moral worth under the law -- that have come down to us via "childhood indoctrination, not facts, logic" you are cool with.

While ideas that you don't like -- e.g., the existence of angels -- that have come down to us via "childhood indoctrination, not facts, logic" you are not cool with.

If we factor out the common denominator in those two cases, then your actual argument here is simply that there are some ideas you like and some ideas you don't like. That renders 95% of what you wrote in the OP and post #191 irrelevant.

[brunumb]

While ideas that you don't like -- e.g., the existence of angels -- that have come down to us via "childhood indoctrination, not facts, logic" you are not cool with.

What I don't like is that ideas or opinions are inculcated as facts into young, vulnerable minds before they can rationally evaluate them. Angels, demons, gods, salvation etc, are not established facts. When the recipient struggles with that notion the fall back position is to simply say that it must then be accepted on faith. Belief is essentially force-fed and wired in before any scrutiny will show that there is very little substance behind it. After that, peer pressure, fear of shunning and all those other social pressures serve to keep those beliefs locked in place.

[historia]

What I don't like is that ideas or opinions are inculcated as facts into young, vulnerable minds before they can rationally evaluate them.

Okay, but this argument is predicated on a naive view of parenting.

As I mentioned above, parents will invariably share their ideas and opinions with their children, even if they don't intend to. And young children, in particular, will intuitively and uncritically accept those ideas and opinions as factual representations of the world. So all children, no matter where they live or what their parents believe, will absorb their parents' ideas and opinions as facts.

[Goat]

I admire those who were raised in it and somehow broke free.

More and more I think of myself as...well...weird. I must be weird because despite being raised in evangelical Christianity my entire childhood, I never believed it. There were times I found it interesting and curious, but I can't recall any time when I actually believed it.

I must be weird.

When evangelicals find out I used to be one they frequently ask why I no longer believe. Sometimes I just say, "I read too much."

Not that long ago I was camping with some family friends (all Christians) and one night around the fire one of the other dads just blurted out to me "Why aren't you a Christian?" Rather than give a pat answer, I decided to explain. I started off by saying "It simply does not make sense to me at all", and I then walked through the chronology of the Bible...God's creation, the Fall, the flood, the Tower of Babel, the birth/death/resurrection of Jesus, and the end times. When I was done, I asked "How in the world does that make any sense? Especially as a way a so-called 'god' does things!"

The other dad stared ahead for a few seconds and eventually said "Wow, you sure do think like a scientist". I wasn't sure if that was a compliment, an insult, or just a way to wave away my argument, so I replied with something like "Well I guess I'm in the right profession then" and we all laughed.

When I want to give a shorter answer I just say "It makes no sense to me" and leave it at that. I only go into the more detailed response if the person prods me to explain.

Anyways....I'm not sure I have a point other than to share yet another story.

I find that believe, or non-belief can be a very strong component from even early childhood. I was similar, although the religion I decided not to follow is Judaism. I also don't like ritual, which is why I am not observant. THere is a humanistic Jewish synagogue near me , and I just don't feel the need to join.

[Diogenes]

Right, so ideas that you like -- e.g., the belief that all people have equal moral worth under the law -- that have come down to us via "childhood indoctrination, not facts, logic" you are cool with.

While ideas that you don't like -- e.g., the existence of angels -- that have come down to us via "childhood indoctrination, not facts, logic" you are not cool with.

If we factor out the common denominator in those two cases, then your actual argument here is simply that there are some ideas you like and some ideas you don't like.

How on Earth you connect "the belief that all people have equal moral worth" with fantastic beliefs like the notion that fairies, ghosts, gods, goblins, pixies and poltergeists exist is quite beyond me. Rather than your simplistic criterion that it's just what I "like," perhaps you should consider some basic epistemology, like the difference between what we can actually observe versus inventions of the imagination for which there is no evidence.

[brunumb]

What I don't like is that ideas or opinions are inculcated as facts into young, vulnerable minds before they can rationally evaluate them.

Okay, but this argument is predicated on a naive view of parenting.

As I mentioned above, parents will invariably share their ideas and opinions with their children, even if they don't intend to. And young children, in particular, will intuitively and uncritically accept those ideas and opinions as factual representations of the world. So all children, no matter where they live or what their parents believe, will absorb their parents' ideas and opinions as facts.

All those rituals that the young are exposed to from birth and religious camps and study sessions are done with the deliberate intent of firmly implanting those ideas without question. Hence we get the observed geographical distribution of religious beliefs, not truths around the world.

[TRANSPONDER]

Right, so ideas that you like -- e.g., the belief that all people have equal moral worth under the law -- that have come down to us via "childhood indoctrination, not facts, logic" you are cool with.

While ideas that you don't like -- e.g., the existence of angels -- that have come down to us via "childhood indoctrination, not facts, logic" you are not cool with.

If we factor out the common denominator in those two cases, then your actual argument here is simply that there are some ideas you like and some ideas you don't like.

How on Earth you connect "the belief that all people have equal moral worth" with fantastic beliefs like the notion that fairies, ghosts, gods, goblins, pixies and poltergeists exist is quite beyond me. Rather than your simplistic criterion that it's just what I "like," perhaps you should consider some basic epistemology, like the difference between what we can actually observe versus inventions of the imagination for which there is no evidence.

That saves me a post I was going to observe that understanding the way society and social dissemination of information (including morals) is done is something we can understand, and yet supernatural claims such as angels is just not validated. It sounds like the usual Theist fallacy that the claims of science are no more valid than the claims of religion

[historia]

Right, so ideas that you like -- e.g., the belief that all people have equal moral worth under the law -- that have come down to us via "childhood indoctrination, not facts, logic" you are cool with.

While ideas that you don't like -- e.g., the existence of angels -- that have come down to us via "childhood indoctrination, not facts, logic" you are not cool with.

If we factor out the common denominator in those two cases, then your actual argument here is simply that there are some ideas you like and some ideas you don't like.

How on Earth you connect "the belief that all people have equal moral worth" with fantastic beliefs like the notion that fairies, ghosts, gods, goblins, pixies and poltergeists exist is quite beyond me. Rather than your simplistic criterion that it's just what I "like," perhaps you should consider some basic epistemology, like the difference between what we can actually observe versus inventions of the imagination for which there is no evidence.

The belief that all people have equal moral worth under the law is not derived from observation. It cannot be "validated" by science.

You can invent post-hoc rationalizations for it, to be sure. But the real reason you and I think that idea is true is because we grew up in societies influenced by Christianity, were "indoctrinated" into that idea as children by our parents, and have had it reinforced by numerous social institutions.

If you have no objection to parents teaching their children the fundamental equality of all people, then your concerns here are not really about evidence or epistemology or when and how children learn ideas. The real criterion for when you choose to object to parents teaching their children an idea or not -- the one that can be applied across all cases, not just those that touch on science -- is whether you like or dislike the idea.

There's nothing wrong with that. But then your objection is really about the ideas themselves and has nothing to do with parenting.

[historia]

I was going to observe that understanding the way society and social dissemination of information (including morals) is done is something we can understand

Good, then you should understand that all of us hold moral, ethical, and political beliefs that have been handed down to us from our parents.

And yet some people in this thread seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that parents should only pass onto their children scientifically-validated facts about the world. In their rush to criticize religious beliefs, they've seemingly forgotten about the deeply-held cultural beliefs that they themselves hold, some of which, ironically, are ultimately derived from religion.

It sounds like the usual Theist fallacy that the claims of science are no more valid than the claims of religion

Nope, that's a straw man argument.