Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Is it possible to present religion or beliefs in a way that are not indoctrination?


Sherapy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yes, I  agree with you Sherapy.  Religion and/or Beliefs can also be discussed in an academic fashion as well.  A comparative religions type of class comes to mind.  In that sense the beliefs and/or practices of a group could be simply stated as aspects accepted by that particular group, and then these beliefs could be compared or contrasted with  those of another religious group.

In this sense, stating the beliefs of a group would not be the same thing as indoctrinating people and it would also not be preaching.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Piney said:

As long as it's stated it's opinion and you direct the seeker to keep looking further.

Read everything, question everything. 

I always told my kids include your own thoughts, by questioning, and conclude based on the facts, and ask yourself how does this belief help in real time. 
 

For ex: I applied the g?d construct (as an Atheist at the time) to help navigate the high stress and grief from loss that accompanies the job duties of a Hospice caregiver. I interchanged the idea g?d with “the universe” and framed a perspective that told myself if I was on this job it was because the universe knew I was the best person for the job. It was a suggestion from an ICU Nurse who dealt with kids who were dying with terminal cancer, it is how she got thru. It was useful as a bridge to cope while I got more education and experience. I no longer use the idea, but it did help navigate a need at the time.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Yes, I  agree with you Sherapy.  Religion and/or Beliefs can also be discussed in an academic fashion as well.  A comparative religions type of class comes to mind.  In that sense the beliefs and/or practices of a group could be simply stated as aspects accepted by that particular group, and then these beliefs could be compared or contrasted with  those of another religious group.

In this sense, stating the beliefs of a group would not be the same thing as indoctrinating people and it would also not be preaching.

Do you think age matters? I do, I think the approach for a young child is different than an older teen. Simply because of brain development and different cognitive capacities. Your thoughts?

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

Do you think age matters? I do I think the approach for a young child is different than an older teen. Simply because of brain development and differ to cognitive capacities. Your thoughts?

I agree with you again.  I think it is much easier for children to be indoctrinated because of their mental/emotional development.  I think the older we get the more difficult it becomes to be indoctrinated.  A perfect example would be the belief in Santa.  A child in 1st or 2nd grade may belief in Santa, but a teenager would be more difficult to convince.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

All thoughts welcome. Let’s discuss.

I formed my beliefs (Nondualism=Hindu Advaita Vedanta, Theosophical) from presentation material (non-indoctrinating), so I would have to say 'Yes' to the OP question.

I try to focus on having a non-biased mind and addressing the question: All things considered, what is most reasonable for me to believe.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I try to focus on having a non-biased mind and addressing the question: All things considered, what is most reasonable for me to believe.

giphy.gif?cid=790b7611ff5a18a8d2d097fc91

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I formed my beliefs (Nondualism=Hindu Advaita Vedanta, Theosophical) from presentation material (non-indoctrinating), so I would have to say 'Yes' to the OP question.

I try to focus on having a non-biased mind and addressing the question: All things considered, what is most reasonable for me to believe.

A few questions for clarity. 
 

What do you mean by non biased? And, what constitutes reasonable to you? 
 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, XenoFish said:

giphy.gif?cid=790b7611ff5a18a8d2d097fc91

Really, OP was hoping to have a mature discussion.......but with trolls like you around....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sherapy said:

A few questions for clarity. 
 

What do you mean by non biased? And, what institutes reasonable to you? 
 

 

Non-biased means holding no preference for any conclusion. Just think logically.

Buy 'most reasonable' I mean using a non-biased approach, what is most believable/reasonable. Judging reasonableness is a human reasoning skill for us logical types.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Not sure I'm going to answer this right but I'll give it a shot.

"I believe X. If you do not that is okay."

Yeah, that's all I got. I think a person can have a belief in a higher power without religion and without presenting it as some ultimate truth. I suppose it would be more of a speculative belief. You'd have to be rather relaxed with the belief itself. 

 

7 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Not sure I'm going to answer this right but I'll give it a shot.

"I believe X. If you do not that is okay."

Yeah, that's all I got. I think a person can have a belief in a higher power without religion and without presenting it as some ultimate truth. I suppose it would be more of a speculative belief. You'd have to be rather relaxed with the belief itself. 

I like this.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

Non-biased means holding no preference for any conclusion. Just think logically.

Buy 'most reasonable' I mean using a non-biased approach, what is most believable/reasonable. Judging reasonableness is a human reasoning skill for us logical types.

Does critical thinking factor in for you? Can you tell me how you are defining logically? 
 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Really, OP was hoping to have a mature discussion.......but with trolls like you around....

Xeno is not a troll.

 

Why not ask him what he finds humorous, instead? Open a dialog. 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Really, OP was hoping to have a mature discussion.......but with trolls like you around....

All things considered it is the most reasonable thing for me to believe. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sherapy said:

Does critical thinking factor in for you? Can you tell me how you are defining logically? 
 

 

Critical thinking is certainly part of my reasoning process.

By 'logically' I just mean the standard definition:

  1. of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument:
    "a logical impossibility"
    SIMILAR:
    straight-thinking
    • characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning:
      "her logical mind" · "the information is displayed in a simple and logical fashion"
      SIMILAR:
      well reasoned
    • (of an action, development, decision, etc.) natural or sensible given the circumstances:
      "it is a logical progression from the job before"
      SIMILAR:
      only to be expected
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sherapy said:

Why not ask him what he finds humorous, instead.?

The proclamation of 'unbiased' while being one of the most biased individuals on the forum. The level of doubt on any given claim be it paranormal or whatever is almost nil. Never even gets 50/50. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

Xeno is not a troll.

 

Why not ask him what he finds humorous, instead? Open a dialog. 

That post was a troll post. Just a laughing mocking picture is not trolling???  Why didn't he explain what he thought was funny? The guy's got a sad history of such immature behavior. There's no constructive dialoging with a troll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

The proclamation of 'unbiased' while being one of the most biased individuals on the forum. The level of doubt on any given claim be it paranormal or whatever is almost nil. Never even gets 50/50. 

Who is the official biasness judge I may ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

I think it is possible to approach religion/ beliefs by building into the approach Socratic questioning which weighs heavily on the reasons ( facts) one ascribes to holding the belief in the first place and the usefulness of the beliefs. 

Great thought-provoking topic!  I'm mainly trying to work out where the thresholds of 'indoctrination' are and the key definitional point seems to be that ideas are accepted 'uncritically', and at least colloquially there also almost always seem to be 'indoctrinators' involved in someone's indoctrination.  To that extent it seems like a lot of Buddhist 'religious' beliefs could be held without indoctrination. There are supernatural-esque variants but that doesn't seem crucial to Buddhism, which seems much more relaxed and 'take it or leave it'.  It does make seem to make some vague truth claims, things along the lines of 'you must let go of all your desires in order to achieve perfect happiness/enlightenment', but a lot of that doesn't conflict with real facts; one seemingly could be an atheist who doesn't entertain anything contrary to science and still possess these particular Buddhist beliefs.

From there for me the question turns into a hydra though.  Using your definitions, is it possible to have a non-indoctrinated Christian belief?  If someone is aware of all the arguments against Christianity yet still believes, it would suggest to me that they are not indoctrinated.  It's tough as it depends on what is meant by 'critically', as well as 'the usefulness of beliefs' you mentioned; false beliefs can be very useful which provides a 'reason' for believing them.

Actually I wonder the extent to what you have brought up here intersects with the new-ish appeal of the position of 'spiritual, not religious'.  If one treats 'uncritically' as necessarily resulting in 'indoctrination' and as requiring a good positive case for a belief then I'm not sure if that can be done with most religious ones.  If one however draws the line for 'uncritically' at just requiring that there is no direct conflict between the religious beliefs and facts then I'm not sure it's necessarily indoctrination; one can believe in a God who loves us and created everything and with whom we'll all be with after death and none of that directly conflicts with any facts that we know.

Edited by Liquid Gardens
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Critical thinking is certainly part of my reasoning process.

By 'logically' I just mean the standard definition:

  1. of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument:
    "a logical impossibility"
    SIMILAR:
    straight-thinking
    • characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning:
      "her logical mind" · "the information is displayed in a simple and logical fashion"
      SIMILAR:
      well reasoned
    • (of an action, development, decision, etc.) natural or sensible given the circumstances:
      "it is a logical progression from the job before"
      SIMILAR:
      only to be expected
 
 

For me; critical application, specifically, the facts are what I base my core beliefs on, in other words, the facts lead to the conclusion. Are you saying the same thing?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, papageorge1 said:

There's no constructive dialoging with a troll.

That's because you don't pay attention to what anyone says. Unless they post a meme in regards to what you state. No amount of facts or counter evidence even puts a dent into your indoctrination. You believe that the paranormal is real, with zero wiggle room. Even when things can be shown to be fake. Be it a ghost, fairies, bigfoot. Whatever. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sherapy said:

For me; critical application, specifically, the facts are what I base my core beliefs on, in other words, the facts lead to the conclusion. Are you saying the same thing?

Pretty much, yes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.