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

[+Sherapy]

53 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

So with all that additional evidence why would you still not believe I had a job? 

 

 

Exactly, that is my rhetorical question. What would be a reason?

 

I said deficit in critical thinking skills ( easily addressed), you said maybe a person doesn’t want to, I think this is a good point, a person can disregard the evidence, especially when dealing with an ideology because there isn’t a built in checks and balances to evaluate the beliefs. 
 

What else can you think of that might be a reason to not believe you have a job with the evidence?
 

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Sherapy

[Will Due]

10 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

What else can you think if that might be a reason to not believe you a job with evidence. 

 

Stress and confusion.

 

 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

5 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Is it possible to present religion or a belief system in a way that isn’t indoctrination that doesn’t limit the intellect as rigid, observed by an inability to justify one’s beliefs with facts and consider alternatives. 
 

All thoughts welcome. Let’s discuss.

 

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. 
 

What we do in schools here (at least in Catholic ones, state schools allow preaching and have chaplains instead of guidance councillors funded by the government) is a lot of “this is what Catholics believe…..”, “this is what the gospel says … this is the history behind what was going on when that gospel was written…”. 
We don’t preach, or lecture we discuss. We expose to ideas. We discuss ideas. We understand the process of belief but not what to believe

[+Sherapy]

57 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Stress and confusion.

 

 

Definitely, a lot of stress ( cortisol in blood stream)  can cause one not to think clear, or focus well, or understand things. I think lack of sleep too can impair one’s ability to think.  

Edited December 7, 2022 by Sherapy

[tcgram]

I do believe that it's entirely possible to present religion or beliefs in a way that is not indoctrination.   I have a large circle of friends and a lot of us believe differently.   We get have had several discussions on what we believe and why we believe that way.  I find it interesting to listen to what others have to say and find it intriguing.   

[+Hammerclaw]

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

This is the point about indoctrination. Indoctrination only occurs when something false is presented. No one is ever indoctrinated with the truth. No one has to be shown something is true

 

4 hours ago, Piney said:

Indoctrination occurs when the target is told to look no further.

Indoctrination is, simply, the instilling of a set of values into a malleable mind--usually a young one--religious and/or social customs and mores as unquestionable truths. It's how we teach children and strangers taken in of the culture they been adopted into or born into. They're usually not told to look no further as there is, often, no further place or people to look to. When that happens, sets of values can be compared and the unquestioned, questioned. In this great melting pot of peoples and cultures we are all quite familiar with that.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Hammerclaw

[+Sherapy]

51 minutes ago, tcgram said:

I do believe that it's entirely possible to present religion or beliefs in a way that is not indoctrination.   I have a large circle of friends and a lot of us believe differently.   We get have had several discussions on what we believe and why we believe that way.  I find it interesting to listen to what others have to say and find it intriguing.   

Thank you for posting my friend, you are one of the most exceptional Christian’s I have had the honor of knowing. Your example is of love, compassion and kindness. Much love to you and yours.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Sherapy

[Alchopwn]

9 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Is it possible to present religion or a belief system in a way that isn’t indoctrination that doesn’t limit the intellect as rigid, observed by an inability to justify one’s beliefs with facts and consider alternatives. 

The answer is "Yes".  It is called "Comparative Religions", or "History of Religion", or "Philosophy of Religion".  You treat the matter as an academic subject.

I particularly favor comparative religious studies as you can familiarize yourself with the multiple answers to the same questions of human experience as the various different religions answer them, and then compare and contrast them for oneself.  It is very interesting to become familiar with how various doctrines have emerged over time.

[newbloodmoon]

As an atheist I don’t mind discussing religion, some religious beliefs I find to be more fascinating than others. Some of my good friends are deists who don’t believe that a god actually takes an interest in what we do but still created the universe. Others are devout Christians that think people who try to live good lives won’t be sent to suffer in the lakes o’ fire.

Usually the fundamentalists of (pick a religion) who don’t or refuses to listen to their non dogma I tend to either ignore or ridicule depending on if I have the time or patience. But to just bandy out what someone believes and why, I’ll gladly listen and discuss the topic with them.

[+Sherapy]

19 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

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.

‘’An add to:
 

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe anything because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious texts. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.” 

 

“But, after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” 

 

Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche states: "If you are interested in 'meeting the Buddha' and following his example, then you should realize that the path the Buddha taught is primarily a study of your own mind and a system for training your mind. This path is spiritual, not religious. Its goal is self-knowledge, not salvation; freedom, not heaven. And it is deeply personal."

https://compare-religions.jimdofree.com/c-v-b/

 

[jmccr8]

Hi Sherapy

I have been following along reading your thread. Yes I think it is possible to discuss religious doctrine without indoctrination. That said not everyone can discuss religions without it getting personal to them. I don’t have a religion myself and my personal belief can be expressed in a couple of sentences as it is quite simple in nature.

 Because I don’t have a doctrine there is nothing to indoctrinate anyone with although my actions based on my belief can and do have an effect on others without having to say or explain much if anything.

 Because I was raised old school Catholic yes there likely are some overlapping influences that can easily be explained as we are social animals that depend on each other and have been since the origins of or species. To me religious constructs are based on our observations about ourselves as a species that have been codified and attributed to a god figure.

[+Sherapy]

11 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

The answer is "Yes".  It is called "Comparative Religions", or "History of Religion", or "Philosophy of Religion".  You treat the matter as an academic subject.

I particularly favor comparative religious studies as you can familiarize yourself with the multiple answers to the same questions of human experience as the various different religions answer them, and then compare and contrast them for oneself.  It is very interesting to become familiar with how various doctrines have emerged over time.

Excellent post. I took Philosophy and my first assignment was to argue for reincarnation with facts.  The only support I could come up with was the Tulku system, it was not enough of a reason for me to believe in reincarnation. 
 

I enjoyed this course the take away for me was gaining the skills on how to think critically, that a large number of the beliefs I held at the time were based on hearsay or passed down on authority.  
 

And, anything can be argued it is the facts that determine/conclude the truth value/conclusion. Some argue (including myself at one time) assuming what they believe is true as opposed to verifying the belief for themselves. 
 

I began the course as an Atheist and ended holding an Agnostic stance, because we really have no way as a humanity to test for any g?ds, at best g?d is an idea describing something beyond human comprehension. 
 

 

 

[+Sherapy]

29 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Sherapy

I have been following along reading your thread. Yes I think it is possible to discuss religious doctrine without indoctrination. That said not everyone can discuss religions without it getting personal to them. I don’t have a religion myself and my personal belief can be expressed in a couple of sentences as it is quite simple in nature.

 Because I don’t have a doctrine there is nothing to indoctrinate anyone with although my actions based on my belief can and do have an effect on others without having to say or explain much if anything.

 Because I was raised old school Catholic yes there likely are some overlapping influences that can easily be explained as we are social animals that depend on each other and have been since the origins of or species. To me religious constructs are based on our observations about ourselves as a species that have been codified and attributed to a god figure.

Very good points, Jay. 
 

The thing is how we approach beliefs in general are typically laid down in early childhood, changing one’s mindset is an inside job and it is a lot of work, and personal, for me it is best to keep beliefs on as a needed basis, work from there.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Sherapy

[jmccr8]

2 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Very good points, Jay. 
 

The thing is how we approach beliefs in general are typically laid down in early childhood, changing one’s mindset is an inside job and it is a lot of work, for me it is best to keep beliefs on as a needed basis, then move on. 

Hi Sherapy

I was young when I started moving away from Catholicism 9-10 years old because when I asked questions about my observations I would get non-answers like I was too young to understand. I understood my questions so expected to get an answer and lost trust in those teachers.

Later in life when I had children I would answer every question they asked in simple terms whether I thought they would understand or not because I wanted them to understand that they could ask and know I cared enough not to dismiss them.

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Sherapy

I was young when I started moving away from Catholicism 9-10 years old because when I asked questions about my observations I would get non-answers like I was too young to understand. I understood my questions so expected to get an answer and lost trust in those teachers.

Later in life when I had children I would answer every question they asked in simple terms whether I thought they would understand or not because I wanted them to understand that they could ask and know I cared enough not to dismiss them.

For me, the reality of abuse and hypocrisy was the foundation of my Catholic exposure. I knew at 7 it was not going to be my path. I asked a lot of questions too and was sent to Mother Superior a lot to be talked sense into. I knew that her explanations for why the adult was punishing me for asking questions was not forgiveness, compassion or empathy, but righteousness. 
 

Righteousness was one tool of indoctrination, as a kid the goal was to lay a foundation built on ideological principles geared towards childhood deprivation, neglect and abuse at my young age this was assimilated unconsciously, I literally was trapped in a choice less situation so I had to live with the pain of the reality that nothing could fix this, except getting the heck out. It was no surprise that I started running away very young, of course, I was always found and returned home to try again. 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Sherapy

[jmccr8]

2 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

For me, the reality of abuse and hypocrisy was the foundation of my Catholic exposure. I knew at 7 it was not going to be my path. I asked a lot of questions too and was sent to Mother Superior a lot to be talked sense into. I knew that her explanations for why the adult was punishing me for asking questions was not forgiveness, compassion or empathy, but righteousness.

Hi Sherapy

When I didn’t get non-answers I got strapped and was strapped religiously for several years.

[XenoFish]

Think it, feel it, do it. No matter what it is is a sin. Life isn't meant to be enjoyed, it is to be suffered through. Because to enjoy life is sin and sin is a road to hell. That's the message I was given as a kid. God is always anger it seemed. Anything good or right that happened in life was just 'the devils trick'. Because god would take it away from you. The message I heard way too much growning up.

Then going to church in hopes of getting a better understanding of the subject matter. Still having that some idea brought up. A man supposedly died because I'm (all of us) are screw ups. Failures. Even the offer of power (ask and you shall receive) was empty. 

Put it all to the test, nothing. I had great results from the old gods. The 'vile and evil' spirits, etc. Of course sheer confirmation bias, but it was better than the brainwashing Christianity gave me. 

[Jon the frog]

On 12/6/2022 at 2:36 PM, Sherapy said:

Is it possible to present religion or a belief system in a way that isn’t indoctrination that doesn’t limit the intellect as rigid, observed by an inability to justify one’s beliefs with facts and consider alternatives. 
 

All thoughts welcome. Let’s discuss.

 

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. 
 

 

 

 

 

[+Sherapy]

8 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Think it, feel it, do it. No matter what it is is a sin. Life isn't meant to be enjoyed, it is to be suffered through. Because to enjoy life is sin and sin is a road to hell. That's the message I was given as a kid. God is always anger it seemed. Anything good or right that happened in life was just 'the devils trick'. Because god would take it away from you. The message I heard way too much growning up.

Then going to church in hopes of getting a better understanding of the subject matter. Still having that some idea brought up. A man supposedly died because I'm (all of us) are screw ups. Failures. Even the offer of power (ask and you shall receive) was empty. 

Put it all to the test, nothing. I had great results from the old gods. The 'vile and evil' spirits, etc. Of course sheer confirmation bias, but it was better than the brainwashing Christianity gave me. 

What denomination did you grow up in? I might have missed it on a past post. My apologies. 

[XenoFish]

53 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

What denomination did you grow up in? I might have missed it on a past post. My apologies. 

The typical fire and brimstone southern baptist. 

[+Desertrat56]

2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

The typical fire and brimstone southern baptist. 

Same one relatives tried to indoctrinate me into.  I even remember thinking some of the same things you said, Anything good is the work of the devil because we don't deserve it.  So the devil was more powerful than god.   And the "sins" were so ridulous.   I remember in highshcool the minister's daughter was pregnant (we were 17) and another couple came to the minister for counseling because they found out their daughter was pregnant.  He was the only one in town who didn't know about his daughter and that next sunday his sermon was villifying all parents whose teenage daughters are pregnant out of wedlock.   Half the congregation walked out and never went back.   I was just a visitor since I didn't live in that town, just had to go to church with relatives when I came to see them.  His self righteousness destroyed two families, his and the couple's that had asked him for help.   And of course they never expected to be the topic of his sermon.  At least in the catholic church confession is private.

Edited December 8, 2022 by Desertrat56

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Same one relatives tried to indoctrinate me into.

I got an earful from my now dead grandmother as a kid (around age 5). My mom took me to church when I was either 11-12 and we got the same thing. Except as soon as it started like that we left. Then I do the Christian thing for 3 years (as an adult) and see too much hypocrisy to stay. Gave up on that God.

Edited December 8, 2022 by XenoFish

[+Sherapy]

8 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

The typical fire and brimstone southern baptist. 

Ahhhh, I gotcha. The tent revival type beliefs? 

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Ahhhh, I gotcha. The tent revival type beliefs? 

Just crazy self righteous holier than thou types. 

[+Sherapy]

13 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Just crazy self righteous holier than thou types. 

Good you got out of that.