Cult Evolution
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
You mean, what it is that you have been indoctrinated into?
For starters, to think there is an absolute difference between indoctrination and non-indoctrination - to think that it is possible to grow up in a society, be educated and culturated, and yet not be indoctrinated.
Secondly, to think that it is possible to speak of something in and of itself, without relating it to a frame of reference, as if things would possess objective slefhood that could be objectively known.
But you wouldn't admit that education and culturation are processes of indoctrination, would you ...
Education certainly isn't. What is 'culturation?'
Indoctrination is teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically, in other words, it is the end of discussion.
Education is simply an imparting of knowledge and skills, which fosters discussion and encourages critical thinking.
The differences are centered around the willingness to accept without evaluation, in other words, to accept on faith; ie. religion.
Ah! Enculturation. Thanks.
Essentially, enculturation is the adoption of the behavior patterns of the surrounding culture. I noticed the wiki article uses education as an example of enculturation. Certainly, a good way to learn about something is to adopt the behavior and get hands on experience, so I would tend to agree with that example.
Many things we learn in school we are expected to accept uncritically: Like the numeric and alphabetic system, pretty much the whole of math, a lot of science. To say nothing of learning language, manners and basic skills like personal hygiene and cleaning the house.
Somewhere until the age of 12, children aren't even able to think abstractly, so to speak of them "thinking critically" is misplaced.
But the same is done in religious institutions, except it is done on their terms.
A person won't just pass the church class by using whatever arguments they please. They have to use specific arguments to support their answers, they have to show some understanding of the doctrine.
Similar as in regular school.
It is not so simple, though. What you are saying above would apply only to "beginners" and those who aren't so "smart".
By believers, blindly regurgitating what one has learned in church class is not rarely regarded as inappropriate and disapproved of.
Moreover, there is more to this phenomenon you bring up: We have to take into consideration the development of moral reasoning and the development of faith.
According to the Kohlberg scala, most people fall into the Pre-conventional and the Conventional level of moral reasoning. Bluntly put: they cannot really "think for themselves". To accept things "on faith" and "without (much) evaluation" is the way to proceed for most people, religious or not.
The Fowler scala is somewhat speculative, but I find it nonetheless brings up an important differentiation between possible ways to have (religious) faith.
Most of your arguments against religion are justified only for religious reasoning in the first three stages of faith of the Fowler scala, but not for the latter three.
(Note that these latter three stages, or at least the last two would not even fit into "organized religion" anymore.)
I've seen both words used: "culturation" and "enculturation".
Honestly, why isn't it? I'm familiar with the six stages of faith idea. But all it really does is provide a descriptive for a particular aspect of (some) humans psychology.
To put it bluntly, an advanced delusion based on non-reasoning and non-evidence is just as much a delusion as a simple one.
I'm not even saying that it is necessecarily a bad delusion (although it's obvious that sometimes it's downright heinous). But other than an interesting insight into human psychology, the analysis of faith still has at it's root the objectively unfounded belief in a deity.
1. How do you know it is a delusion? Are you omniscient? Do you know everyone and everything?
It might require you to become deluded in order to believe in God. But does this mean that the same is true of everyone else?
Note that the Calvinist model (ie. only the chosen ones believe in God) is logically valid and irrefutable. According to that model, if a person is not one of the chosen ones, their belief in God is a delusion anyway.
What is it that really bothers you about believing in God? That you are not one of the chosen ones? That there are people who do not agree with you?
2. Apparently, you think that the only relevant system of knowledge or beliefs is one based on interpersonally verifiable evidence.
For me, this is a hopeless position: because it limits me to things that do not really matter in my life. The things that matter most in my life are my intentions, my desires and my fears. "Interpersonally verifiable evidence" -in scientific terms- plays a negligable role in this.
This might be so only for theistic faith.
I have faith that I will get a better job. Belief in a deity doesn't play a role in this faith of mine.
Sorry greenberg, these are not examples of indoctrination. One can easily think critically that 1+1 does in fact equal 2. These are all examples of parted knowledge.
But, they do think and ask questions in which explanations are provided. Again, this is NOT indoctrination.
Bullshit. No answers are ever provided by the church other than one must have faith. That has been made evident even here.
It applies to all.
Obviously.
Red herrings. The first link discusses ethics and morals while the second is a theory from an indoctrinated theist, worthless.
The greatest flaw of your arguments, Q, is that you do not care about the people they are about or directed at.
You just beat down with your way of reasoning, as if what matters most in life would be systems of thought, and not people.
You are the same as proselytizing theists who blindly, by rote, go on with their arguments, never actually listening to the person they speak to or about.
And then both atheists like yourself, as well as so many theists, wonder why people don't see the "superiority of your way of reasoning" - and then both of you simply blame it on them, or on "society" or "upbringing", but never or your own attitude of not caring.
You just beat down with your way of reasoning, as if what matters most in life would be systems of thought, and not people.
You are the same as proselytizing theists who blindly, by rote, go on with their arguments, never actually listening to the person they speak to or about.
And then both atheists like yourself, as well as so many theists, wonder why people don't see the "superiority of your way of reasoning" - and then both of you simply blame it on them, or on "society" or "upbringing", but never or your own attitude of not caring.
This is something he cannot or will not see.
There has NEVER been demonstrated that believing in gods has anything to do with morals and ethics. THAT most certainly is indoctrinated beliefs.
Irrelevant. I'm discussing childhood indoctrination.
What indoctrinated cultists say when discussing their beliefs are is exactly that, their indoctrinated beliefs, regurgitated hypocrisy. No value whatsoever other than evidence to their indoctrinations.
Red herring. If you really want to understand about "caring" then you should be talking to your parents who cared little for you as a person when they indoctrinated you into their cult.
Irrelevant and vacuous questions from cultists who believe their set of golden rules has anything to do with the natural evolution of morals and ethics demonstrates further their inability to leap beyond their indoctrinations.
This is no joke, greenberg. Childhood cult indoctrination is an event being carried out with millions of children every day by their parents and church leaders, who were indoctrinated by their parents, and so on...
It is a vicious cycle that has clearly evolved into a way of thinking, which also guides the decision making process and shapes and defines cultures and societies.
But, I'm not surprised that you would see it as a joke or provocation.
For greenberg,
When a parent tells their child that they must love god, and the child asks why (as children are prone to do), what do you think the parent says? You already know the variety of answers. Is this reasoned behavior or cult indoctrination?
When a parent tells their child that they must love god, and the child asks why (as children are prone to do), what do you think the parent says? You already know the variety of answers. Is this reasoned behavior or cult indoctrination?