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]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #16]
Thanks Joey. BTW, the original 'Pledge' did not contain "under God." That wasn't added by Congress until 1954. It's a Constitutional abomination and should be removed. I won't recite it either and would tell the Judge so. He has no business insisting on that. He should be reported to the judicial ethics committee of your state.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #16]
Thanks Joey. BTW, the original 'Pledge' did not contain "under God." That wasn't added by Congress until 1954. It's a Constitutional abomination and should be removed. I won't recite it either and would tell the Judge so. He has no business insisting on that. He should be reported to the judicial ethics committee of your state.

In any other circumstance I might cause a fuss, but I figure it can wait til that particular probation goes away.

[JehovahsWitness]

The plain fact is that children are susceptible to this sort of thing. Essentially (even if you're not willing to call it 'indoctrination') church teaching of children is coercive. The kids essentially have little choice. They hear one side. They love their parents and want to please. They want to belong. They feel the pressure from their peers and church leaders. It's the rare child who has the strength of will to resist the onslaught.

So? What's wrong with that!? It's normal that adults, especially parents, try and influence the thinking and behaviour of children, while their minds and personalities are forming. As I said, that, by any other name is called education. Are you against educating children? Show me a parent that allows a child to choose for themselves whether or not they will be educated and I'll show you a parent that has no children.

... I am not surprised to hear you know atheists who left the faith by age 25. That is my very point.

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

So your point isn't that that before 25 any decisions are dubious because they are made by brains that can't think entirely logically. Okay, got it! ....Actually now that I think about it I know plenty of atheist that decided they no longer believed in God as children under 20 some as young as 9 or ten, many as teens in university 18 or 19. Nearly all well before they reach 25.... What do you make of that?

[brunumb]

So? What's wrong with that!? It's normal that adults, especially parents, try and influence the thinking and behaviour of children, while their minds and personalities are forming. As I said, that, by any other name is called education.

It's not about education. It's all about instilling beliefs that conform with those held by the parents. Those beliefs are essentially unsupported opinions and have little to do with conveying factual knowledge and understanding of the world that we expect to convey through general education. Children do not have the mental capacity to scrutinise and evaluate the information they are being fed and accept all sorts of magical nonsense because it comes from a trusted source. That's why it is more accurately categorised as indoctrination rather than simply education.

[JehovahsWitness]

So? What's wrong with that!? It's normal that adults, especially parents, try and influence the thinking and behaviour of children, while their minds and personalities are forming. As I said, that, by any other name is called education.

It's not about education. It's all about instilling beliefs that conform with those held by the parents.

So? What is wrong with that!? That is the ultimate right of all parents. In the end beliefs are part , arguably the most important part, of education; since what we believe (or don't believe) molds our thinking and behaviour and influences our entire worldview. What more important aspect is there of education then to instill into the hearts of those in our charge the values that will hopefully guide them for the decisions they make?




Education is a matter of heart and the most important work a parent will ever do. Its not just about facts and figures even for a teacher, because while teaching one also usually transmits values. PARENTS in any case, should do all of the above and more. The parents have the task of helping their child live a happy life, however they believe that will come about. If they do it right, then their children will never forget what they learn during their formative years.






JW

[Diogenes]

It's normal that adults, especially parents, try and influence the thinking and behaviour of children, while their minds and personalities are forming. As I said, that, by any other name is called education. Are you against educating children? Show me a parent that allows a child to choose for themselves whether or not they will be educated and I'll show you a parent that has no children.
....
So your point isn't that that before 25 any decisions are dubious because they are made by brains that can't think entirely logically. Okay, got it! ....Actually now that I think about it I know plenty of atheist that decided they no longer believed in God as children under 20 some as young as 9 or ten, many as teens in university 18 or 19. Nearly all well before they reach 25.... What do you make of that?

It may be a subtle point.
I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with parents trying to influence their children. It's a good thing. We should raise our children to be kind, compassionate, sensitive, loving, empathetic, cooperative, industrious, thoughtful, studious. We should raise them to be seekers of truth.

But it is abusive to teach them to hate, to be racially prejudiced, to believe in ghosts, the supernatural or some specific religious nonsense. It is wrong to teach them to be anti science/truth. We should teach them how to learn, how to ask intelligent questions rather than insisting that (for example) evolution is wrong, or that their tribe is the only righteous one.

[benchwarmer]

So? What's wrong with that!? It's normal that adults, especially parents, try and influence the thinking and behaviour of children, while their minds and personalities are forming. As I said, that, by any other name is called education.

It's not about education. It's all about instilling beliefs that conform with those held by the parents.

So? What is wrong with that!? That is the ultimate right of all parents.

It may be a parents right to instill beliefs, but clearly some beliefs are based on sound observation and others are based on nothing more than fantasy.

When children are taught to believe gay people are 'bad'/'sinners'/'going to hell', then surely some people are right to call out the bad parenting. Parents may have 'the right', but clearly they are not always right.

There's no need to scare children with a magical being that will torture them in hell in order to get them to love others. You simply model loving others and explain why it's good to treat others with respect and love. No need to involve magic, religion, or fantasy.

In the end beliefs are part , arguably the most important part, of education;

I whole heartedly disagree. I feel critical thinking, learning how to learn, and questioning are far more important. We will form our own beliefs based on what we learn and shouldn't simply accept beliefs because the come from parents or anyone else.

Do you want children that just blindly accept whatever beliefs come from those in authority positions (teachers, preachers, etc) or do you want children that can figure out what might actually be true and what is simply some persons belief?

since what we believe (or don't believe) molds our thinking and behaviour and influences our entire worldview.

Agreed. Therefore it would behoove us to have children that are instilled with the tools to form useful/correct beliefs versus useless/incorrect beliefs. I would rather have a child show me why I'm wrong rather than just blindly believe I'm right.

In fact, IMHO instilling the willingness to be wrong is probably one of the most important things we can do. It takes humility and a willingness to grow and learn in order to accept that we may in fact be wrong about something.

[JehovahsWitness]

But it is abusive to teach them to ...believe in ghosts, the supernatural ....

Abusive? Why? Why is it abusive?

It may be a parents right to instill beliefs, but clearly some beliefs are based on sound observation and others are based on nothing more than fantasy.

And it is not for anyone but the parent to decide which is which.




JW

[benchwarmer]

It may be a parents right to instill beliefs, but clearly some beliefs are based on sound observation and others are based on nothing more than fantasy.

And it is not for anyone but the parent to decide which is which.

Wrong. If a belief is incorrect, that's just a fact. Equipping children to sort out fact from fantasy themselves is far more useful (to them) than just letting parents decide.

Look, I have no issue with religious parents explaining their religion to their children and teaching them about their customs. As long as they also teach them critical thinking and allow their children to question/disagree, I see no issue. If the parent has done a good job and really believes their own beliefs are based on solid ground, they should have no problem with a child that is free to reason their way to the same conclusions or different ones.

Parents who abuse their position of power to create unquestioning believers have, IMHO, fully embraced indoctrination. We all know this happens.

Parent: Ok, let's pray to <insert favorite god> before we eat.
Child: Why?
Parent: Because we should give thanks to <insert favorite god> for providing us this food.
Child: But I was with Mommy when she got this food and watched her make it.
Parent: Yes, but <insert favorite god> allowed this food to be available for us to buy and prepare.
Child: Where is this <insert favorite god>?
Parent: In <insert favorite realm>
Child: Can we go there so I can meet <insert favorite god>?
Parent: After we die, yes.
Child: I want to go now so I can thank <insert favorite god> in person!
Parent: No, we can't do that.
Child: Why?
Parent: We are still alive.
Child: Then I will just thank Mommy cause she's right there. Thanks Mommy for the food!!
Parent: No, we have to pray!
Child: I don't want to!!
Parent: You pray or you don't eat!!
Child: .....fine... Thanks <insert favorite god> and thanks Mommy!!
Parent: Good, now let's eat.

<rinse and repeat until child gets with the program>

[TRANSPONDER]

This is a tricky debate, about Parental responsibility. In a way, parents are (or ought to) caretakers of the state. The State leaves parents to bring up their children, indoctrinating them or training them up to a lifetime of ser...to function in society. The parents have a lot of leeway and especially in matters of religion. But we know that the state and law will step in when parents are considered to cross the line, and the law supersedes parental rights, at need.

Schools have a similar role and duty. Bottom line is that parents and schools have to duty to train the kids right. That means what the State thinks is right. And that means again what is considered valid knowledge and understanding and not bosh, flapdoodle and fairy stores.

To repeat the Kitsmiller v Dover case, we do not and should not teach Astrology, Alchemy or flat earthism in class and should not teach creationism either. Parents opt to homeschool their kids and apparently to teach them their religion, which is not taught in school. It ought to be enough that the parents teach the religion at home, but Nooo....indoctrination in tosh and superstition has to be total.

I wrote a lot more and cancelled it because it is tricky. Essentially, we want children taught Right and not Wrong. The problem is what is right teaching (I mean facts rather than Ethics) and what is the wrong, and who gets to decide. This gets into the debate about 'how do we know what we know' and the conflict between evidence and Faith.