Indoctrination

[blazeofglory]

Indoctrination is looming large on majorities of us. Children from their births, or from the time they start resounding to their environments get indoctrinated in point of fact.

Is indoctrination good? I can not say at all. Any idea, moral, ethical, theological, sacred, mythological, political, economical are indoctrinations. I can not say it is good or bad at all. All I can say about this is at times religious beliefs are exacted from indoctrinations. Sometimes it has been very hoorendous things ant at other times it has been a constructive practice.

In today's world indoctrination has to do with more with violence when it comes to ideological clashes.

I want to know what the rest of thread - users will have to say.

[Dark Muse]

Growing up I was never raised to follow a certain relgious beleif and no doctroine was handed down to me. As a kid I had no idea what the relgious beleifs of my parents were. In this way, I was able to experince things completely on my own without anything being hand fed to me, and struggled with what bits of relgion I did know about mostly through friends and such, and try and figure out how they fit into my natural preceptions of the world. In this way I was able to completely esablaish my own relgious and spiritual views and in the process educated myself on many different traditions.

I am now quite glad that I was not taught just to be a puppet of my parents religion. I think vaules can be taught to children without spoon feeding them a religious dogma

[JBI]

Schools indoctrinate, even science class is a form of indoctrination. The justifications used by indoctrinators is that it is "truth" meaning that they are providing truths. IF one accepts the religion as truth, then it is no different than teaching someone literally anything. All knowledge is indoctrination in one way or another. The question comes down to whether or not you believe people should believe in things that are wrong. In order to answer that though, you must examine what is wrong.

Much of scientific fact, as Calvino playfully observed in Cosmicos, and T Zero, has in fact, been proven wrong. Where do we draw the lines? What is truth and what is lie, what is science and what is religion, what is wisdom and what is sophism?

[EricP]

Schools indoctrinate, even science class is a form of indoctrination. The justifications used by indoctrinators is that it is "truth" meaning that they are providing truths. IF one excepts the religion as truth, then it is no different than teaching someone literally anything. All knowledge is indoctrination in one way or another. The question comes down to whether or not you believe people should believe in things that are wrong. In order to answer that though, you must examine what is wrong.

Much of scientific fact, as Calvino playfully observed in Cosmicos, and T Zero, has in fact, been proven wrong. Where do we draw the lines? What is truth and what is lie, what is science and what is religion, what is wisdom and what is sophism?

The scientific method, so long as it is utilized honestly, does not claim unalterable "truths". Theories are always subject to be revised or discarded if further empirical evidence requires it. If a scientific fact is proven to be inaccurate, it will no longer be treated as a "fact." Of course this does not always happen in practice, but that is no more the fault of the scientific method than acts of religious extremism are the fault of religious texts.

Liberal, reformist religious movements likewise reevaluate and revise doctrine and practices when necessary (e.g., the Second Vatican Council). Fundamentalists and biblical literalists, on the other hand, do claim unalterable, transcendent "truths" that are not subject to change or revision.

Using Nietschean/postmodernist arguments to blur the line between science and religion leads us down the slippery slope of relativism that is being exploited recently by "intelligent design" proponents in the U.S. I see this as a dangerous development.

[JBI]

Dangerous to who? The fact remains that the scientific method flops over itself. What if, for instance, Darwin is proven wrong? What then for all the people who were taught it in school, and told that this is fact, and you are entitled to your beliefs outside the classroom, but here this is law. What if Darwin is wrong? Aristotle was wrong, and look what happened to the church because of it. What if it works backwards?

But the truth is, most people look to religion for guidance. If the indoctrination given outside of religion, such as patriotism, politicism, and ethnocentrism is a fine way to run, then there is no real need for this argument. But as it is, people just want to know how to live their lives, and become indoctrinated, sometimes willingly, as a way of creating that sort of meaning in their lives. If one looks to secular things, one can perhaps find the same guidance as religion, but not all people, and not all people are able to.

The fact remains that science is hardly a basis of morality, since science doesn't allow morality to be factored in. Science cannot therefore replace religion, or personal beliefs, since it isn't that sort of system. It is based on seeking facts, not truths, and therefore cannot help. Indoctrination is necessary, and that is why we have this Nietzschean post-modern blur as you called it, taking place. Because lets face it, survival of the fittest isn't going to fly as a morality code for the masses.

I would hate to prejudge you, but it seems you are siding with science over religion, which is fine, except for the fact that they a) aren't opposing entities, and b) both require indoctrination. The so called blurring is necessary, as science offers no real useful answers besides questions. Knowing the universe is huge, and we are but a spec on it doesn't help people much.

[CognitiveArtist]

Indoctrination I believe is the thorough inculcation of a particular discourse, whether it's a religion (Islam, Anglicanism, etc), a political ideology (socialism, liberalism) or science. That science is just another discourse (way of talking about & practicing/living in the world) is nothing against it.

Science is an interesting discourse as it is often mindful and speaks of other discourses (especially religion), as science judges other discourses with it's own standards (may I reiterate, I appreciate science). Nietzsche and those 'crazy' postmodernists (what is postmodernism btw? I read a lot of thinkers given the label, yet I can't think of a useful way to categorise them as "postmodern") just do science one better, they analyse science or religion or whatever and recognise the impossibility of talking about the world with one particular discourse (or what Lyotard calls a metanarrative).
The polarising of science and religion is as equally ridiculous as opposing absolutism (there are certain objective truths) with relativism. This idea of dethroning science resulting in anarchistic relativism is stupid and unsupportable. Which is sadly frequently done by people who've never read, yet alone fathomed, a page of Derrida, Foucault or even Nietzsche.

survival of the fittest isn't going to fly as a morality code for the masses.

JBI I completely agree with everything you said except this. Science doesn't imply a kind of Darwinian ethics. This is because science only explains, it establishes facts, not values which are needed to guide moral behaviour. This underlies a larger problem for the legitimacy of science, how is the application of scientific knowledge justified? Sure we may be able to factually establish how a capitalist economy would work, but is there any reason why governments should implement a capitalist economy? Science has a hard time firmly making itself legitimate. This was argued by critical theorists decades before postmodernists. The best arguments I know for the application of scientific knowledge are pragmatist arguments, like science thinks of the best ways to live & capitalist economies are the best ways to distribute goods and services.

[Hypercrit Htd]

It might be that increasing population has make it difficult for people to feel safe. This result in indoctrination fanaticism over morals ideologies thus need to push derivations of belief systems provoking violence. Survival of the fittest become survival of the most concensus appealing to masses their opiated substances in form of moral favor of the weak.

[EricP]

Dangerous to who? The fact remains that the scientific method flops over itself. What if, for instance, Darwin is proven wrong? What then for all the people who were taught it in school, and told that this is fact, and you are entitled to your beliefs outside the classroom, but here this is law. What if Darwin is wrong? Aristotle was wrong, and look what happened to the church because of it. What if it works backwards?

As I mentioned in my previous post, science is set up to be proven wrong if new discoveries require it. If scientists find a theory that better explains the natural world than Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, this could only improve our knowledge. If this happened it would be a victory for the scientific method, not an example of it "flopping over itself." Darwin's theory has enabled breakthroughs in various branches of science and has developed and changed as new discoveries have been made, but it has never become a secular dogma in the world of science (as many non-scientists would have us believe). The danger isn't that Darwin's theory will be held up to scrutiny, but rather that it will be dismissed out of hand or put on an even level with a hypothesis that has not been able to withstand the rigors of the scientific method. Einstein's theory of relativity could be incorrect, but that doesn't mean I can make up my own hypothesis (e.g., "it's magic!") without testing it and proving it through investigation and experimentation. If so-called "intelligent design" wants to be taken seriously, it needs to provide the research and evidence that it should be taken seriously, which it has not.

The fact remains that science is hardly a basis of morality, since science doesn't allow morality to be factored in. Science cannot therefore replace religion, or personal beliefs, since it isn't that sort of system. It is based on seeking facts, not truths, and therefore cannot help. Indoctrination is necessary, and that is why we have this Nietzschean post-modern blur as you called it, taking place. Because lets face it, survival of the fittest isn't going to fly as a morality code for the masses.

I never argued that science is a basis for morality; that's not its role. Darwin never held that "survival of the fittest" was a code of morality. Herbert Spencer applied the term to morality, which he did quite unscientifically. "Survival of the fittest", as the term was used by Darwin, didn't mean "might makes right"; he meant that those species that are most able to adapt are able to continue as a species while the species that do not adapt will eventually die out. This is why the strong, ferocious tyranasaurus rex is extinct, while the common earth worm has persisted. Also keep in mind that it is survival of a species as a whole, not an individual.

Also, religion does not provide morality to people. Through their own experiences and common sense people pick and choose which moral advice to accept from religious texts and which advice is no longer feasible. Even the most devout biblical literalist doesn't follow all of the rules and regulations in the Bible.

I would hate to prejudge you, but it seems you are siding with science over religion, which is fine, except for the fact that they a) aren't opposing entities, and b) both require indoctrination. The so called blurring is necessary, as science offers no real useful answers besides questions. Knowing the universe is huge, and we are but a spec on it doesn't help people much.

I'm not siding with science over religion (although I am personally not religious) because the two are not mutually exclusive. The two are separate, however, and should be kept that way.

[jgweed]

The purpose of indoctrination is to prevent independent thought; the purpose of education is to provide the tools to allow critical thought.
I do not understand how, therefore, one can claim that science "requires" indoctrination when what science requires is independent and critical thought and observation.

[JBI]

Quite simple. Not everyone is testing every theory. We must take the axioms of past thinkers, and apply them to our research. Our methodology is dependent on the works of others, and therefore we need to assume truths in order to discover. No one has time to go over 3000 years of scientific thought, and test everything, gravity included, to make sure it works.

In order for the scientific critical thought to exist, one must assume that the previous scientific discoveries (at least the ones involved) are somewhat true. One cannot get anywhere without that.

Therefore, one is given the previous answers, without them being tested each time mind you, and told to create their own answers. That is indoctrination, since it creates a concept of one truth, the truth that is in the text book, and therefore requires a belief in the answers (this doesn't imply they are wrong) in order to move forward. It is the same thing as religion, only the scientific discoveries are more grounded in the so called "scientific method" and have, I would argue, a higher likelihood of actually being true.

It is not possible to have independent and critical thought. In order for that to be possible, we would need to assume people are born thinking certain things, which to me, seems rather iffy.

But my point wasn't about really the truth of falseness of science or religion. Personally I am an atheist, and doubt the existence of everything around me. But the truth is, that indoctrination is necessary for the survival of society. Man must be indoctrinated into society in order to function within the society. Religions may be false, but if they keep the world running smoothly, and create happiness for people, than I can see no problem, even if they believe in false truths.

Of course, the problems arise when two doctrines collide. But that really has nothing to do with whether they are right or wrong. As swift points out, one can go to war over something as trivial as the way to eat a boiled egg (Guliver's Travels).

To believe also that science is the only doctrine that allows critical thought is also ridiculous. Many religions encourage thinking, and even doubting of facts. Buddhism seems very open and encouraging to many aspects of critical thought, as do many eastern religions. The study of theology has been going on for thousands of years in the west, is that not critical thought?

[Pendragon]

I'm fairly certain that "assuming that gravity works" is a safe bet!

The problem is that presenting things for others consideration is considered "Indoctrination". If you disagree with anything I believe, feel free to follow your own path. I am not trying to "indoctrinate" anyone by telling them about God, The Bible, Christianity, Jesus, or creationism. Decide for yourself. I just state what I believe, and please allow that, as I allow your own beliefs.

God Bless

Pen

[Dark Muse]

I think it could be considered indoctrine if one tries to impose/share their beleifs upon a person whom has not shown any interest or given any invitation to the other to do so.

If someone just started talking about God to me, when I had not done anything to suggest I was interested in the topic, if I had not opened the door for it in anyway, I would find that annoying and as if they were trying to inforce something upon me.

Now if I had breeched the topic of religion and thus one began to share thier own beleifs, that would be completely fine with me.

[Pendragon]

I think it could be considered indoctrine if one tries to impose/share their beleifs upon a person whom has not shown any interest or given any invitation to the other to do so.

If someone just started talking about God to me, when I had not done anything to suggest I was interested in the topic, if I had not opened the door for it in anyway, I would find that annoying and as if they were trying to inforce something upon me.

Now if I had breeched the topic of religion and thus one began to share thier own beleifs, that would be completely fine with me.

A point here, if I may. While this may be a valid point, I would also say this. People are not slow to tell me all about how we have outgrown God and that science has basically proven the Bible wrong. Indeed they are not slow to state that all religion is worthless. If I haven't brought up the subject either, I find this annoying. All they have to do is find out I am a Christian, even from someone else, and they start in on how stupid I am for my belief. Can I not believe what I want without having to listen to others I don't want to hear? Is this not also "indoctrination"?

[Dark Muse]

A point here, if I may. While this may be a valid point, I would also say this. People are not slow to tell me all about how we have outgrown God and that science has basically proven the Bible wrong. Indeed they are not slow to state that all religion is worthless. If I haven't brought up the subject either, I find this annoying. All they have to do is find out I am a Christian, even from someone else, and they start in on how stupid I am for my belief. Can I not believe what I want without having to listen to others I don't want to hear? Is this not also "indoctrination"?

Acutally I completely agree with you

I often become annoyed with the type of Athiest who want to act is if they know better than anyone else, and are just as villigent in thier non-beleif, as zelots are in thier beleif.

[blazeofglory]

A point here, if I may. While this may be a valid point, I would also say this. People are not slow to tell me all about how we have outgrown God and that science has basically proven the Bible wrong. Indeed they are not slow to state that all religion is worthless. If I haven't brought up the subject either, I find this annoying. All they have to do is find out I am a Christian, even from someone else, and they start in on how stupid I am for my belief. Can I not believe what I want without having to listen to others I don't want to hear? Is this not also "indoctrination"?

Logically your ideas are right, but let us not go radically. Do not rationalize ideas. All I have to say by indoctrination is today it is rampant more often than in the past.

Indoctrination, I do not try to rationalize this term through any philosophical or syllogistic notions, is to try to influence minds. More often than not indoctrination has to do with irrational ideas.

Today we see so many followers of cult and to the extent that the followers prepare themselves to even lift their arms and do the otherwise unthinkable in their ordinary courses of life.

When you take to a particular set of ideas or notions rationally, scientifically rather than dogmatically it is not indoctrination.

When your parents say, love animals and you do it it is not indoctrination. But when parents say, as they more often than not in Hinduism, you have to sacrifice a goat at feet of the Goddess, Kali. You get indoctrinated into patterns of ideas which have no rational or logical ground.

Indoctrination has little to do with conditioning. We are conditioned by environmental factors. But indoctrination is something different, and it often leads to violence. We are not unaware of the fact more and more killings and massacres, even suicidal bombings take place just because those who get swayed by particular ideas and beliefs get ready to commit suicides.

We ordinary people think life is greater than all ideas and those indoctrinated one are averse to this idea.