BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Questioning the validity of indoctrinated beliefs

  
 
Mirror
20:08 / 06.04.04
From the Switchboard:

Whether or not indoctrinated belief is genuine belief (and I'd certainly say that it's going a bit far to say that it never is, as the number of "genuine" patriots and "genuine" Christians in America brought up with such beliefs would attest), I think, is fairly irrelevant as an argument that it is harmless. In fact, not irrelevant, but worse: indoctrinated beliefs are much more alarming and sinister than any belief formed independently by an individual.

This is a question I've been struggling with a bit lately, particularly with the thread on atheism giving me another opportunity to assess the worldview that I was indoctrinated with as a child - namely atheism. I've always sort of considered atheism, or at very least agnosticism, to be the default, and that belief in a religion requires some degrees of suspension of disbelief.

The thing is, for those who have been strongly indoctrinated in a religion, the very opposite is true. I was talking with a Buddhist the other day about the subject of reincarnation, and she flatly stated that the idea of consciousness arising from matter "didn't make any sense to her at all." The "origin" or "source" of conscious thought is one area where it both science and religion are sort of poking around without definite answers, so at least at present it seems like this is a subject where early indoctrination probably could have a pretty strong effect on an individual's beliefs.

How strong an effect does indoctrination really have? Is it possible to overcome it? I like to think of myself as a fairly thoughtful and open-minded individual, but when it comes down to religion I find it very difficult to accept possibilities other than the atheism I was taught as a child.

Also, with respect to the comment above, are independently formed beliefs really better? It's quite easy for an individual to form spurious beliefs based upon experience that have little or no validity when compared to the actual facts - stereotypes come to mind as an example.
 
 
grant
21:01 / 06.04.04
Does Santa Claus count as indoctrination? Or are we talking something more primitive and pervasive than that? Because the jolly old elf is always being overcome, belief-wise.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
09:08 / 07.04.04
Oo, lookee, someone's made a thread out of something I said.

...another opportunity to assess the worldview that I was indoctrinated with as a child - namely atheism.

Were you actually indoctrinated with atheism as a child? That is, did your parents/school/peers/whatever tell you, "There is no god," or did they simply not say that a god exists? I think it's fair to say that only the former could possibly count.

In my case, well, my parents were atheist but any indoctrination I received was still in favour of Christianity; my parents said nothing, but my grandparents occasionally took me off church-wards and my primary school was fairly heavy on the hymns and I think, now and again, Bible stories etc. So, I'd still count theism as the default option; when we were asked in RE class at the age of twelve whether or not we believed in god, I put my hand up along with the agnostics, as I'd still yet to completely overturn my indoctrination.

I think it's fairly self-evident, really, that for the most part, people just... well, go along with what they're told, unless it's to their detriment or (and admittedly I omitted this from t'other thread) they have particularly good reason to believe otherwise (such as the above Santa Claus example; finding one's parents with shopping bags containing exactly what is then to be found in one's stocking a week later gives pretty good grounds for disbelief... also, arguably there's "anti-Santa" indoctrination as well, from TV shows and other kids who've found their parents' shopping bags). Most children of Christians are Christian. Most children of Muslims are Muslim. Most children of Buddhists are Buddhist.

People are, in my experience, incredibly malleable. The media seems capable of forming public opinion so effectively that it managed to persuade 45% of Americans of something as ludicrous as, "Saddam Hussein had some direct involvement in 9/11." An ex-friend used to go to a Bible group run by a bigot, and when he asked anyone in the group about their opinions on homosexuality, literally every single one exactly parrotted what the group leader had said the week before. For more examples email the programme at dictatingopinions@bbc.co.uk or, hey, why not make your own?!

Actually, can I change my statement at the top there to, "... have the potential to be much more alarming and sinister than any belief formed independently by an individual"? In the thread in question I was specifically talking about indoctrination of patriotism and religion, but I suppose telling kids that it's wrong to hurt people is still indoctrination, and I can't say I find it particularly sinister.

But I'd still stand by the statement that independently-formed beliefs are better. Anything dictated to a person by another I would, on some level or other, consider a form of control. And looking at a lot of the control being exerted over people's opinions in the world today - the US/UK/Israeli/etc's media's/governments' effects on their citizens, the worldview being dictated to those involved with certain fundamentalist groups - I find it often really rather scary.

Are stereotypes independently-formed beliefs? Surely they're based on images projected by society; I'd doubt that someone with significant exposure to Native Americans would believe that they all run around whooping and scalping people.

Sorry, the above is a bit rushed (as is the original paragraph), and I'd like to write a bit more, but I really should start thinking about doing some w*rk. I'm probably costing any of you who are UK tax-payers quite a bit of money.
 
 
Mirror
14:57 / 07.04.04
Were you actually indoctrinated with atheism as a child? That is, did your parents/school/peers/whatever tell you, "There is no god," or did they simply not say that a god exists? I think it's fair to say that only the former could possibly count.

In my case, my parents took an active role in explaining to me why they were convinced that not only does God not exist, but that the very idea of God and religious practice is illogical. So, although they were simply explaining their worldview in as complete a fashion as possible, I would definitely consider their approach indoctrination into the atheistic mindset. Religion was described as something illogical and potentially harmful in terms of stifling independent thought.

As a consequence, I'm not sure that I come by my agnosticism honestly. The scientist in me says that I can't really evaluate the validity of a religion without testing it, trying it out - but whenever I've attempted to do so, I've been unable to get past the sense that religious doctrine looks more like recipes for a social power structures and speculative explanations for complex phenomena than genuine statements about the nature of reality.

At the same time, given the number of religious people in the world, I can't help wondering whether I'm missing something because I lack the ability to accept certain types of statements, and because this is at least to some degree a conditioned response.
 
 
cusm
21:00 / 07.04.04
I've been unable to get past the sense that religious doctrine looks more like recipes for a social power structures and speculative explanations for complex phenomena than genuine statements about the nature of reality.

That's because religions are full of exactly that. Much of a religion is a system of social control. You have to keep in mind that once upon a time, religious law WAS secular law.

The statements on the nature of reality are in there, but you've got to go hunting a bit for them if you're looking in any of the big religions like Christianity. The Common Parisioner isn't going to church to receive esoteric wisdom on the nature of reality, they're going to be spoon fed a doctrine of behavior so they can know what to do. Its for the priests to contemplate their navals and actually get somewhere with the enlightening bits of it.

At the same time, given the number of religious people in the world, I can't help wondering whether I'm missing something because I lack the ability to accept certain types of statements, and because this is at least to some degree a conditioned response.

What you are missing is the suspension of disbelief known as faith which allows one to believe in something even if there is no supporting ground for it. But to be fair, there is a fundamental assumption of the existance of divinity that makes a lot of religious perspective possible. Even if the details of that existence are up for debate, the assumtion that there is Something More is all that is necessary to cross that line.
 
 
The Prince of All Lies
02:44 / 08.04.04
I'm an atheist, but I wasn't indoctrinated as one...my parents didn't baptize me or anything, but they never said that there was no god, they let me sort it out myself. If I had decided to turn to a religion, they wouldn't have discouraged me. But as I grew up to be a nihilistic little fuck, I realized that IF there was a god, he obviously didn't give a damn about me, and if he gave a damn about me and didn't do anything to make my life better, he was a moron that wasn't worth wasting time on...
 
 
Z. deScathach
08:45 / 08.04.04
I think that it can be very hard to break indoctrinations, if there has been no counter-indoctrination to question belief structures. In my own case, I was brought up in Catholic school, and had a Cathilic mother. I was very heavily indoctrinated in both of those areas. Even more deeply, and perhaps insideously, I was indoctrinated in obedience to authority. My father however, indoctrinated me to question authority. Eventually, THAT indoctrination caused me to question the religion that I was in, and eventually, it's sub-tenets. All pretty confusing..........

I think that some people come to the choice to overcome those belief systems, and others may make the "non-choice" of staying with them due to the level of comfort. I would bet, however, that questioning beliefs seldom happens without some sort of precipitating crisis, or a teaching in one's past to question belief.
 
 
Newfred
10:19 / 08.04.04
It seems to me that what one person callss 'upbringing', another calls 'indoctrination' with equal justification. It doesn't seem that you're using the word 'indoctrination' particularly negatively, though I think most who for whatever reason had come to reject the religion, for example, that they have been brought up in, would tend to react more negatively.

To look at studies and scholars in the sociology of religion demonstrates the roles in structuring society that religion fulfils. Like it or not, no country in the world has yet replaced religion with any 'secular' substitute, and if one did, the chances are that the rituals and structures that replaced them might well look very similar to the ones they replace.

That is something of a side point, but as you suggest, we are all 'indocrinated' with certain values and assumptions to enable us, primarily, to function as an individual but in society with others. The Western post-Christian mind, if there is such a thing, tends to be obsessed with individual intellect, individual thought and reason, and individual wealth. Therefore, any notion of our individual minds being deeply imbued with values and assumption of which we are not in control is perceived as a threat by many.

Whether it is possible to 'overcome' these assumptions is, it seems to me, not particularly important and will eventually depend on the individual. But I admit that personally I do not understand the postmodern Western allergy to any suggestion that the individual does not have to be greatest. Take academic study as an example. Of course it has always been individuals - Freud, Sartre, Jung - who have changed and moulded our understandings of things. But each of the above are today most widely respected for their role in the succession of intellectual thought from generation to generation, since individually their work is highly disputible and fallible. Therefore I view the individual mind as contributing to thousands of years of thinking that we are on the end of.

To get to my point, the often automatic idea that 'indoctrination' is a bad thing is both impractical and unfounded. Impractical because without indoctrination as children we would not be able to behave properly in social situations, and unfounded because our independent and intellectual thought is dependent wholly upon the entire inheritance of intellectual thought that has come before us.
 
 
cusm
13:36 / 08.04.04
Point on indoctrination being useful. It is very much a necessary part of society, for it is throuh it that we are given our basic set of rules by which we are able to function. As adults, some of us manage to question it enough to come to our own conclusions. Some simply accept the rules given and are happy enough with it. Either way, it is through indoctrination that society is perpetuated. It is through questioning it that society is changed.
 
 
grant
14:00 / 08.04.04
I don't think it's just necessary; I think it's inescapable. Even if, as one of the earlier posters put it, you're "left to figure it out" yourself, then that implies a whole way of dealing with the world and the Way Things Are.

I might be talking about a level before belief, though -- some kind of ontological awareness or sense of function or something.
 
 
ibis the being
14:26 / 08.04.04
As a child I was steeped in the doctrine of Calvinist Protestant Christianity. Determinism, people born into sin (yes even babies), man inherently sinful and redeemed only by grace.... I was not merely brought up in the midst of that ideal, but actively indoctrinated. If I made a mistake, or even expressed a childish emotion just as jealousy or envy ("I want that toy!") it was because I was sinful by nature. When my friends were mean to me, my parents explained that essentially no one can be a true unselfish friend (only Jesus), bc people are sinful.

I was a thoughtful & studious child and adolescent, I was curious and a fast learner and read a lot of books, and yet this doctrine sank into and lodged in my mind almost subliminally. Part it had to do with a child's perception of her parents as infallible, to be sure; but that doesn't fully explain why my Calvinist view of all humans as inherently sinful and evil and destined to fail persisted into adulthood.

It wasn't until I was 21 yo and took a univ course on religion that I was able to understand where my outlook and indoctrination actually came from. Placing it in a historical-theological context went some distance toward allowing me to objectively question my belief in it. But that's a deep, old, thorn in my side, and I can't say I've totally "overcome" it to this day.
 
 
TeN
17:01 / 08.04.04
As a child I was indoctrinated with Catholicism by my parents, as an adolescent I was indoctrinated with Atheism by my freinds, as an early teen I was indoctinated by agnosticism by my very confused mind, and now, at 16 going 17, I have been indoctrinated with Nihilism by Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

It's all in the use of the word.

P.S. I've also been indoctrinated with Communism by a high-school writing teacher, and Buddhism by psychedlic/hippy music.
 
 
Nescio
16:23 / 09.04.04

The whole of your up bringing from birth until you left home has been indoctrination and most of it from you immediate family and then slowly expanding out to close family, school and friends. As a child your primary care giver is life and therefore you listen and learn from them the basic rules of society and develop your personal values and beliefs, part of that may include a religious up bring, this is done to survive within society, all of this will shape your personal belief system. For example up until I was 13 I truly thought that abortion was wrong, All I had been taught by the most important individuals in my life confirmed and enforced this belief, this may be thought as a little disturbing however as I became an adult I began to question these beliefs and found that some of them did not fit with my own beliefs which led onto thinking about what other values and beliefs I had taken for granted and are not what you actually believe but have just accepted as until now and had no need to question them.
I do However I disagree with
“indoctrinated beliefs are much more alarming and sinister than any belief formed independently by an individual.”
It’s the ANY that I have a problem with, being indoctrinated can be dangerous however a belief formed independently can be as dangerous and as you would have reached idea on your own I feel it would be even more difficult to change the belief and the values that go with it.
How you are brought up gives you a basic value and belief system which can be changed although it is difficult to do, however as you develop into an adult you naturally question and rebel against those beliefs that you have been brought up to believe, A belief you have formulated independently as an individual will I feel still be dangerous, alarming and sinister especially as you would have indoctrinated yourself with the belief.
Therefore in short yes you can change your beliefs that you have been indoctrinated with as a child, it is difficult and it will probably be replaced with something that you as an adult individual can accept more fully into your own personal value and belief system, whether its better or not I could not say and you will if you have a child of your own probably indoctrinate them with your beliefs, which they will rebel against and question.
 
 
cusm
17:37 / 09.04.04
On independent beliefs being just as dangerous, I don't think that's the point here. Its not the belief itself that is the focus, so much as how it was obtained. There is a particular ethic this thread is hinting towards that personally aquired beliefs are "better" than indoctrinated ones, for having chosen them yourself of your own Free Will. Its a statement on self determinism more than anything else.
 
 
Why?
18:57 / 09.04.04
I hope this isn't too off topic or anyting, but:

Can we really be sure that we can create individual beliefs out of the ether? Is overcoming the beliefs handed to us in childhood any more than replacing them with a new indoctrination that we tell ourselves we picked out on our own?

I was raised in a bible-beating, go-to-church-six-days-a-week household and mostly went along with it as a child. I chose to be baptized. I said all the prayers. I was indoctrinated in what would seem to be the sense perpatuated in this thread. Yet after studying philosophy at university, I'm an athiest today - though I lean a little towards a dietiless Buddhism.

I'm neither a rational, science-will-answer-all-our-questions atheist, nor a liberal, i'm-too-smart-to-believe-in-folktales atheist (okay maybe a littel fo the latter), I tend to have been led to atheism simply from seeing the multiplicity of viewpoints that are out there.

I have to wonder, much like the person who started this thread, whether I'm just missing something that's obvious to everyone around me. Have I just replaced my Christian upbringing with academia's indoctrination of doubt?

Individualism is a pretty new idea relatively speaking and one which most of us today take for granted. I wonder if we need to examine self determination before we can know whether this overcomign is possible.
 
 
Corrigan
21:51 / 17.04.04
When something is part of your life, part of the thinking of the way around you, and is lived by those other people around you, it seeps into your own mind, and makes you believe it the same as the others. Even if you leave those beliefs behind as you grow older, they're still in your memories, so still have an impact upon your life whether you know it conciously or unconciously. I was brought up a Church of England Christian, and I loved going to church. When I moved on from Christianity however, I couldn't get rid of some of the whole ways of thinking; I couldn't get away from the belief that there is a god, whether it be the Christian god or not. When we get used to something it becomes part of us and who we are, and usually it's hard to get rid of that part of us, because it's so deeply rooted.
 
 
runawayworld
22:17 / 17.04.04
current discussion of my worldview has surfaced the odd affects my upbringing has had on my ability to understand society. i come from a strange place and my worldview seems to be infinitely affected by the indoctrination during my formative years. the specific beliefs in god and the origin of life and other metaphysical beliefs have changed, but certain peripheral ideas have stayed... they are ideas i can't really put a finger on... ideas i cannot on which i cannot focus due to vast affect they have on me. i feel that i cannot tell what is different, or wrong, or whatever between what i believe and what is commonly believed because those ideas are so intertwined that separation would be a life long struggle... and so it is, it seems, that i will have to live with these perceptions of myself surfacing when i least want them to.
 
 
40%
19:58 / 18.04.04
I think it is possible to overcome indoctrination, but there is a question as to what extent. It may take a long time for your conditioned responses to surrender to the conclusions your adult mind has since reached. Who knows, maybe the conditioned responses never entirely go away. It’s a little early for me to be sure.

if you have a child of your own probably indoctrinate them with your beliefs, which they will rebel against and question.

From my own experience I would want to draw a clear line between the two. Rebelling against what you’ve been taught is fairly easy and common. Many Christian children go through a phase of doing everything they’ve been told not to. But if they haven’t questioned the world view they were raised with, they will still believe deep down that what they’re doing is wrong, and something eventually to be repented of. Questioning the beliefs you were raised with, on the other hand, may result in lasting change, rather than just a temporary and vain assertion of one’s own free choice.

Religious indoctrination must be the hardest to overcome. For one thing, people brought up in religious environments are often sheltered, kept away from the outside world and from individuals with differing beliefs. This can develop an ‘us and them’ complex, which means that those who don’t believe seem scary and threatening, and the community of people who do, safe and friendly. This makes it socially harder to break away from indoctrination, because it means deserting your own community and walking among strangers.

Also, religion often threatens negative consequences towards those who do not follow its ways. My church upbringing conveyed to me the subtle message that if you go away from the church, you will be unhappy. It was regularly said how empty and unfulfilling a life without God must be. Then there’s the threat of suffering in life through making bad choices without the wisdom of the Bible. And of course judgement after that. Some religious subcultures probably brand non-religious people as hell-bound. Mine branded them as sad, lonely and unfortunate individuals. And who wants to be that, eh?

But the most obvious aspect of indoctrination is teaching children to feel that anything but what they’ve been raised with must be obviously wrong. Circular thinking is an obvious way of doing this. For example, I was always taught that the Bible was infallible. Over the years, various theological positions were enforced by virtue of this infallibility, to the point where the level of authority attributed to these positions made them seem like a law in their own right. Then, when you consider the question of whether the Bible really is infallible, you think to yourself ‘well it has to be, because if it wasn’t, there would be nothing to stop x, y and z, and they’re obviously wrong’.

Also, even if questioning is not specifically prohibited, often time and space are not allowed for it. In churches where there is always a grand vision to be pursued, you almost feel like a spoilsport coming along with your question about the problem of evil. You feel like you’re going to a football coach in the middle of an important match and asking him his thoughts on the merits of the 4-4-2 system. So it’s never a good time really, because they’re always busy with something.

There's probably a lot more could be said about religious indoctrination, but suffice to say, I think these kinds of factors make it of a slightly different calibre to your average garden-variety indoctrination.
 
 
Jester
17:37 / 21.04.04
cusm:

Either way, it is through indoctrination that society is perpetuated. It is through questioning it that society is changed.

I think that you have a point, but the reality is far more complex than that. Rather than 'indoctrination', which if nothing else is just an extremely loaded word which implies there is a possibility of being free of indoctrination, I would think of it as influenced. The truth is that everyone is brought up with their parents values - religious or otherwise, tolerant, intolerant - and also society's values working upon them. This works in an incredibly complex and reflexive way (rebelling, accepting, unconsciously, consciously...) forming 'norms', standards, morals, beliefs. The influences on us are as complex and varied as our family, society, everything we come in contact with. Then add in the fact that different people - conditioned differently by their upbringing, inner qualities, etc, will come up with their own unique responses to this...

If it wasn't possible to transend or alter your 'indoctrinated' belief systems then there wouldn't be so much change. Even between generations, people's/society's morality and belief structures are fluid enough to detect significant changes.

There is a particular ethic this thread is hinting towards that personally aquired beliefs are "better" than indoctrinated ones, for having chosen them yourself of your own Free Will. Its a statement on self determinism more than anything else.

Of course, we all like to think of ourselves as self detirmined people, with rational and independant thought processes.

Personally, I would say that having actively re-thought and considered what you believe, rather than passively accepting is absolutely a positive thing. And especially when someone's beliefs are antithetical to our own, and we detect that kind of lack of rigour, we can't help but find it frustrating/lazy...
 
 
Why?
19:56 / 21.04.04
That's a great point, Jester, that I hadn't considered. there is a difference between being passively indoctrinated and being able to think critically about the beliefs you've been taught. It is frustrating to try and argue with someone whose only response is "Well, that just what I believe."

It is a very complex issue and I wonder if we can ever get outside our own context to really think critically. We're locked in by so many things - vocabulary, subconscious things we may have accepted when we were five, who knows what else - that I'm not sure how free we really are or how capable we are of overcoming indoctrination.

There's an argument somewhere (or should be) about how even if you may think you're making your own choice you can't choose the choices that are available. So on the most basic level, if you're brought up as an atheist, you can only choose to remain an atheist or believe in God. And if God is simply the antithesis of no God are you still defining your beliefs based on or in the context of your original atheism?
 
 
Jester
21:51 / 21.04.04
So on the most basic level, if you're brought up as an atheist, you can only choose to remain an atheist or believe in God. And if God is simply the antithesis of no God are you still defining your beliefs based on or in the context of your original atheism?

Why?, that's a difficult one alright! What's the line between choosing between the only available options, and not thinking outside the limits of our conditioning?

Language kind of provides an interesting example: the way that there are concepts that can be expressed in one language that it is impossible to express in another. Again: language/our culture limits our means of expression, they possibilities for thought. On the other hand, can learning another language help us transcend that?

Only a relatively short time ago in Western history, aethism itself would be completely unthinkable, and people wouldn't see it as a viable option at all.

So did aethism come to be a viable option because of one person thinking outside the box, to use horrible corperate-speak, or a gradual progression of thoughts?

I guess we'll never know, as we can never actually step outside our own human condition to examine it that way.

Personally, I can't help but think that I am so certain that god doesn't exist because I was brought up in an environment where s/he was never mentioned. It was only in school or on visits to more religious members of the family that I was ever exposed to it. And at that point, the idea that god exists was already alien to me.
 
 
Why?
12:47 / 22.04.04
It is so hard to step outside your experience. For instance, I am sitting here having a hard time imagining being an atheist because of not being exposed to the idea of a "God" as a child.

I was brought up in a very Christian home and I arrived at atheism through seeing the hypocrisy in my own church combined with the sheer multitude of religious interpretations out there - even just within Christianity itself, let alone other religions. I figured that if there could be so many possible answers they must all be wrong, and therefore God does not exist (I won't lie, studying both Nietzsche and Mediaeval philosophy in college helped too).

But so while I understand your belief, I have trouble imagining its origins. I'm cloudy on whether things change gradually or in a series of single bounds, but to get back to the beginning of this thread, it seems like it's a lot easier to overcome an indoctrination of Christian, Jewish, Islamic, etc. beliefs where you can rationally poke holes in the premise than it would be to overcome an indoctrination of atheism where the only tool you have to overcome it is faith.

But maybe that's just how my mind works (or doesn't work)...
 
 
Jester
17:48 / 22.04.04
Well, obviously not a complete lack of exposure: I went to a school that was at least nominally Christian, although they only rarely introducted that into class. And my grandparents and various other relatives are extremely religious Jews. But both my parents had come to their own conclusions regarding religion by the time they had me, so they just never introduced the idea of religion in anything other than an educational context: this is what some people believe, rather than this is what is right. But they never said god doesn't exist either. Also, my dad is a scientist and (was until recently, when a kind of conservatism has decended upon him in his middle years ) an anarchist. And both of them were hippies. So, that's the background I guess...

I experimented with various religions amd other ways of seeing the worldd when I was a teenager, but nothing really convinced me - perhaps because, as you say, it was a leap into faith, rather than a change of faith/loss of faith...

I'm sure there's an element of indoctrination there, but, like you say, it's actually pretty hard to extricate yourself from your beliefs/indoctrination...
 
 
All Acting Regiment
19:46 / 22.04.04
In realising that you have been indoctrinated, you partly extricate yourself. I think if we are talking about religion, then if the person can work themselves into a state where they realise that all viewpoints, including atheism, are valid, then that is at least partial extrication as well.
 
 
Why?
13:03 / 23.04.04
This discussion has focused mostly on religious beliefs and indoctrination, and it got me thinking about the effect of traumatic events. I know of people who espoused one world view and then overnight because of the death of a close family member, or near fatal accident or something end up turning comlpetely upside down. Maybe it's just that the dramatic stories are the only ones you hear about, and everyday conversions don't get the "press," but perhaps religious conversion is not a thinking man's game so to speak.

Recognizing the form of one's indoctrination would seem to be the first step to overcoming it, just like in AA where one has to admit to having a problem before doing anything to solve it. But if religion is a not a rational choice, then one hasn't been indoctrinated by having it driven into your head, you've had it driven into your heart. The very essence of your life force would be permeated by this indoctrination and that would seem to make it much harder to extricate oneself from it. Sure you could think your way out of it, but would you then be left with an empty place that needed to be filled by some other doctrine? In that case, would one have overcome anything?

I wonder if in experimenting with other religions, Jester, you were unsuccessful in finding a fit (you know, like trying on the wrong size of pants - what a horrible way to say this ) because there was no empty space that needed filling. It may be that one needs some sort fo life changing event to create a space for religious conversion.
 
 
Mirror
18:10 / 26.04.04
I wonder if in experimenting with other religions, Jester, you were unsuccessful in finding a fit (you know, like trying on the wrong size of pants - what a horrible way to say this ) because there was no empty space that needed filling. It may be that one needs some sort fo life changing event to create a space for religious conversion.

That's a pretty astute assessment, at least in my case, and it sounds like my background and Jester's are pretty close, down to the scientist/hippie parents. The thing about this sort of atheism, this lacking-the-void as you put it, is that with so many other people being religious, there's always sort of a nagging what-am-I-missing feeling. And part of the dissatisfaction with trying out religion is that the answers to the question of why you need religious belief in the first place are always sort of self-referential.

I see the opposite sort of effect in my wife, as well - she was raised a devout Christian, became disillusioned with it, tried atheism and found it didn't really work for her and ended up becoming a Buddhist. I've come to realize that there will always be something occupying that philosophical/spiritual space in her life that makes an appeal to the unknown.

A strange analogy just came to mind for this - it's like being a small child looking at another child of the opposite sex and saying, "Why don't I have one of those?"
 
 
statisticalpurposes
20:53 / 28.04.04
So did aethism come to be a viable option because of one person thinking outside the box, to use horrible corperate-speak, or a gradual progression of thoughts?

I had an anthropology prof who liked to talk about his fieldwork in Borneo in the 70's. One anecdote he told us was that once he had learned the language enough to converse with the people, someone asked him about his religious beliefs, to which he replied that he had none. Word of this spread, and he found himself the confidante of many fellow atheists who were nonetheless part of a so-called "primitive" society. Though I don't mean to conflate the unfortunate notion of "fossil societies" with those that are technologically different and exist on a smaller scale, the point is that religious doubt may be more common, historically, than we think.

It seemed that these men who admitted their atheism would go along with all the trappings of religiosity while not quite believing in it, and seemingly seeing no need to upset the current order or start a support group for themselves. I guess they find religion useful rather than an annoyance that limits individual freedom. Their religion then, is arguably more successful if it can retain active members who don't even believe. (Religion as DNA, anyone?) Thus, indoctrination can mean a number of things. Has an atheist who practices religion in Borneo overcome the beliefs he was indoctrinated with? Or is he just going along with social norms like everyone else?

The very question of indoctrination, as other people have mentioned, is problematic. It seems to set up an opposition of what "the institution" (of family, religion, whatever) wants vs. what the individual wants. In fact, I'd argue that anything the individual "wants" or "thinks" is ultimately tied up in the structures of the institution. Free will and individual thought being a construct and all...

The debatable part is how and why people change from one belief to another. "Logical thought" seems inadequate since it's just another part of the structure of society like anything else. How about social pressures? Any ideas?
 
 
Dragon
02:47 / 04.07.06
I once had an anthropology professor who said he once believed everything he learned as a Christian. But as his studies progressed and he learned more, he was forced to throw out the bath water, but not the baby (my paraphrase). In other words, he just decided that God got the ball rolling and left things to happen as they would.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:25 / 04.07.06
What point are you intending to illustrate with that anecdote, Dragon?
 
 
unbecoming
10:02 / 04.07.06
I'd argue that anything the individual "wants" or "thinks" is ultimately tied up in the structures of the institution.

I agree with this in that its possibly unhelpful to concieve things in terms of a tension between a determining self and indoctrination. I think that any person's beliefs, opinions, morals and ethics will always be a result of that person's interactions with different cultural structures and institutions. Hence a critical awareness of the structures at play in your own identity will not necessarily elvate you further beyond the hold of indoctrination, rather it will merely differentiate your identity relative to that belief system.

Rather than 'indoctrination', which if nothing else is just an extremely loaded word which implies there is a possibility of being free of indoctrination, I would think of it as influenced.

In this context it may be useful to concieve of indoctrination as a specific form of influence where a very rigid system of beliefs and behavioural codes are imposed on a person. In this case i'm not sure that a total change or re-positioning can take place. In my experience every individual mutates the particular ideological framework with reference to their particular experience of life; A friend of mine is still a practicing catholic despite not caring about homosexuality and being quite fond of contraception.
 
 
Peek
17:22 / 04.07.06
I think there's a specific difficulty in discussing influence/indoctrination with regard to religion (as opposed to other things like societal rules and habits, etc) as it requires faith. You can make choices based on evidence for things like politics, interactions with other people, whether you think it's best to live in a white house or a pink one; the atheist/believer choice doesn't seem susceptible of the same examination. Other posts have pointed out the requirement for faith, and it's always seemed to me that you either have the "faith particle" (not going anywhere near where that might come from!), in which case you have a sort of deep-seated acceptance of, and need for, a godlike other -- or you don't, in which case no exploration of religion is ever going to "take". My own background is mildly C of E, of the "hatch, match and dispatch" variety, and I have an affection and respect for the traditions I was brought up with. (Carol services and the like.) I'm interested in how religion works, and try to be respectful of the beliefs of others. However, I myself am an atheist and cannot get divinity past my logical craw.

I guess my idea (sorry for rambling) is that no matter your indoctrination or influence, if you need a god, and start out without one, you'll find one. If you don't, and have one you don't need, you'll find some way to reject (or ignore) the one you have.
 
  
Add Your Reply