I was having a discussion with a friend of mine the other day, and it started me on a certain train of thought about two topics in particular. I think they’re often points of misunderstanding between those who are religious and those who aren’t. I have my own thoughts about these two issues, but I’d really like to hear from the other nonbelievers who read this blog. As always, Christian commentary is welcome too.
- If the Bible’s claims about God, Jesus, miracles, etc are untrue, what were the motives of the people who wrote it?
- Many nonbelievers view Christians’ efforts at teaching their children and others as indoctrination. Is that a fair term? Why do we view it as indoctrination? And if that’s what it is, what is the point of it? Furthermore, are we indoctrinating our own children against religion? If we’re striving for open-mindedness, should we try to teach our children about religious perspectives as well?
Again, I have my own thoughts regarding these questions. I think they’re often asked (or unasked) in a way that carries some assumptions, and I’ve tried to leave those intact. So if you feel that the questions aren’t phrased correctly, feel free to address that in your response as well.
I almost never directly ask for comments, yet my posts usually get quite a few. It will be just my luck that no one comments now that I’m asking. 🙂
Finding Truth 
G’night! 🙂
LikeLike
The science I see used in medicine has lots of bad consequences and many good. To attempt to say, it is obvious the bad outweighs the good without narrowing down groups, types of believers and aspects of religions, just shows a desperation to have a flag –> the anti-religion flag. It is sloppy thinking, unbefitting of people that supposedly pride themselves in superior logic and clearer thinking. But it is prevalent. We all want to fly our banners, to hell with reason.
LikeLike
@ Nate,
The goal to make religion “ultimately” bad is less about science and more about rhetoric and agendas. Ironically, something I see more commonly with religionists and patriots.
With something as complex as religion (itself a recent term) and to dry to distill it down to one number (minus or plus) for ALL people, for ALL types of religions, is totally bizarre and very unscientific. Any sociologist or anthropologist would laugh at such generalizations.
LikeLike
1. Motives?
I’m with the crowd that suggests the writers likely believed in what they were writing. I can’t imagine magic shows were a common thing those days, so Jesus’ performance left a lasting impression!
2. Indoctrination?
Parents should be careful about teaching non-finite realms. Instead, they should focus more on encouraging learning. Unfortunately, many see their beliefs as finite – and that is where we have our indoctrination problem.
LikeLike
“Why do you ask?” works almost as well as, “None of your business,” and is much more user-friendly.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Interesting choice, Ark – enclosing your entire comment in a quotation. Looks like I’m not the only one who makes mistakes.
LikeLike
You really HAVE been hitting the embalming fluid again, haven’t you, Ark?
LikeLike
Yup, I was right.
LikeLike
1.If the Bible’s claims about God, Jesus, miracles, etc are untrue, what were the motives of the people who wrote it?
>> I’d say that their motives were largely genuine. That is, they – like nearly every member of cult groups – do not think they are mistaken. It propose that it is genuine but misguided belief – delusion, not deception – that I suspect is found at the bottom of most of our texts (though there are exceptions).
2.Many nonbelievers view Christians’ efforts at teaching their children and others as indoctrination. Is that a fair term? Why do we view it as indoctrination? And if that’s what it is, what is the point of it? Furthermore, are we indoctrinating our own children against religion? If we’re striving for open-mindedness, should we try to teach our children about religious perspectives as well?
>> I think it is probably naïve to think we can give our children a neutral outlook. We could call any parenting “indoctrination” to a point, since we necessarily infuse biases. And I think we should. But I do think, having been in cult and fundamentalist movements, that these groups tend to be different in a few distinct ways.
There is the guru-worship dimension, which is always heightened in religion because religion actually is, at bottom, an authority-based epistemology. Evidential epistemologies are necessarily self-limiting in how far hero-worship and appeal to authority can lead. That stymies true cult leader/follower dynamics. This same root gives rise to three further quite important phenomena: dogma, loyalty, and subservience. Most groups that we call cults or tyrannies feature these earmarks. They are unlikely to arise from evidential epistemologies, but are always likely to arise wherever authority-based epistemologies are approached with greater and greater seriousness; i.e., fervor. Indoctrination, in normal use, tends to imply traits like dogma, subservience, and extremis.
My hope is that training my own kids in a worldview that shuns dogma and authority-based epistemology will inoculate them as well as possible from vulnerability to cult figures and the corresponding blind adherence to various propositions.
But then, I may be wrong. 🙂
LikeLike
🙂 I’ll give it a try. I can only imagine the conversation that will ensue. I feel certain they won’t take that as a rhetorical question. They’ll likely view it as an invitation to actually answer.
LikeLike
Ah, but you create yet another question out of their answer to your first, and another from the answer to that. Before you’re finished, if you play it right, they’ve totally forgotten what they asked you in the first place!
LikeLike
I like it. Nothing like messing with people’s heads.
LikeLike
It’s what I do —
LikeLike
Yes. the #@$%^ comment formats. I blame the blog host.
He taught me how to do these things and now he’s just too damn lazy to fix them.
These perishing ex-Crispyans. Can’t live with ’em, can’t shoot ’em!
LikeLike
@Sabio
The underlying motives and premises for medicine are good. Maybe you have heard of the Hippocratic Oath?
The underlying motives and premise for religion are all false.
Thus to equate the two is disingenuous.
But you got one thing right: this is an example sloppy thinking, unbefitting of one who considers he uses superior logic and clearer thinking.
LikeLike
I believe this example from Pinkagenist illustrates the point, perfectly.
http://pinkagendist.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/calling-all-atheists-what-are-the-principle-religious-tactics-in-psychological-manipulation/
I am sure he wont mind if I ‘nick’ this.
To try and wangle an argument for the benefits of religion out of this shows ”sloppy thinking,”, indeed.
LikeLike
I decided that religion was ultimately bad. I liked the aspects of community, service and support that Sabio mentioned. I’d still go to church if they wouldn’t insist on talking about their bloody God and how great he is.
LikeLike
Ark, you commit so many fallacies in this thread, I don’t know where to begin.
Loved the Hitler Card, and then the Hippocratic Oath move — as if some “origin” issue speaks for everyone doing medicine or religion — both very complex phenomena.
You want a simple loud banner to run around with — I get it.
Scream away
LikeLike
What, to admire the architecture?
It’s like saying, “I’d still visit the zoo if there were no animals”.
or
”I’d go to Old Trafford as long as Manchester United aren’t there.”
Religion is what church is for
or, Church is specifically for religion.
LikeLike
@ Sabio.
Smile.
You still wont address the underlying issue merely offer up a derogatory rejoinder without qualification.
You are sounding more like an apologist with every comment.
But that’s okay. I understand. You want a loud intellectual banner – I get it. Pontificate away.
LikeLike
@ Ark
Oh yes, your Tu quoque fallacies are hilarious.
Look Ark, you and I talking is a waste of time — we’ve established that again and again.
I will let you have your last attack, I am off this thread.
LikeLike
Oh yeah, I can see how it could be all his fault – after all, if he had added an “e” to my own comment earlier, you wouldn’t have had anything to quvetch about.
LikeLike
Thank you. I shall oblige. You are gracious as always.
And I wonder how many threads you have left with this passing shot? Can you recall, Sabio?
lol.
What a truly silly person you are.
LikeLike
Sheesh, if you are going to moan at me in Yiddish at least spell the damn word correctly!
kvetch
k(ə)veCH,kfeCH/Submit
informal
noun
1.
a person who complains a great deal.
verb
1.
complain.
LikeLike