Indoctrination education

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I love how \'free-thinking\' is only that which comes to the accepted conclusions of other so-called \'free-thinkers\'.

Maybe only in your "free-thinking" way of see things.

Originally posted by serigado
I'm not in a politeness contest. I'm for the arguments. I'm rude, simple and direct. I don't like to elaborate. When someone presents me an argument I know it's worthless I insult him.
Forgetting about that, the question again is
Why should religious points of view be taught at the same level of free thinking point of view?

I am also a "free thinker." I have freely chosen Christianity based on personal experience and my extensive study of philosophy. (I have a B.A. in philosophy, and taught philosophy briefly at Golden West Community College in Huntington Beach, CA.)

Yes, it is possible to use the methods of philosophy to reach the conclusion that Christianity is the most plausible world view.

Originally posted by serigado
There are no two view points. That would be the same of saying "there's the independent and biased point of view, what makes right to choose between one or the other?"
Independent point of view should ALWAYS be the chosen one, obviously. Only then you should show examples of the biased ones. You want to prevent the teaching of the independent point of view ...[text shortened]... to say I am a fundamentalist to free thinking, I accept. I join the fray of free thinking.

Independent point of view should ALWAYS be the chosen one, obviously.
Operating within a closed system, you'll be hard-pressed to find any position which could accurately be construed as 'independent.'

Science is not indoctrination.
History disagrees with you, unfortunately.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I love how \'free-thinking\' is only that which comes to the accepted conclusions of other so-called \'free-thinkers\'.

Rather ironic, isn't it.

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
I am also a "free thinker." I have freely chosen Christianity based on personal experience and my extensive study of philosophy. (I have a B.A. in philosophy, and taught philosophy briefly at Golden West Community College in Huntington Beach, CA.)

Yes, it is possible to use the methods of philosophy to reach the conclusion that Christianity is the most plausible world view.

I won't go against your Christianity.
You had your studies, saw different points of view, and freely chose the philosophy that best suited yourself. You are a lucky one. That's free thinking and I encourage your position, because at least you had a choice. (although i don't agree with it)
What I am against is parents preventing their children from the education you had, forcing them to take exclusively the religious point of view. I'm talking about people saying evolution is wrong and earth is 6k yrs old because it goes against the interpretation of the bible forced on them. Blindly, without critic. That is happening, and that is sick, in my opinion.
I'm not saying "teach only science". I'm saying "show what science is, what people think, different points of view, and then choose for yourselves".

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Independent point of view should ALWAYS be the chosen one, obviously.
Operating within a closed system, you'll be hard-pressed to find any position which could accurately be construed as 'independent.'

Science is not indoctrination.
History disagrees with you, unfortunately.[/b]

You got me wrong. My independent point of view is showing children about science, religion, philosophy without saying either one is the correct one.
The thing i'm criticizing is teaching religion concepts denying and diminishing everything else.
I say "Show children the world, let them think for themselves".
I was not saying children are to be thought science, exclusively .

Are you still against the independent point of view? Do you think there should be a debate between one and the other point of view?

Originally posted by serigado
You got me wrong. My independent point of view is showing children about science, religion, philosophy without saying either one is the correct one.
The thing i'm criticizing is teaching religion concepts denying and diminishing everything else.
I say "Show children the world, let them think for themselves".
I was not saying children are to be thought sc ...[text shortened]... point of view? Do you think there should be a debate between one and the other point of view?

I find it laughably impossible to imagine you (in your current state of seething enemity) offering anything remotely close to an 'independent view' of anything, let alone anything with religious underpinnings.

For instance, my children have been exposed from the earliest ages to the Christian world-view, in addition to other world-views. The older boys and I have robust discussions regarding (among other things) Socratic thinking, philosophy and its development from ancient times and and through current modalities; science and its struggles with reality; art and its expressions; etc., etc. Sometimes, we even play chess! But at the end of the day, I, like the God that I serve, leave the decision about their own thinking to them.

They are underage kings, I their regent. Some day they will look back on their regent and either call him a fool or thank him. While I have a duty to God to tell them the truth about Him, I have an equal duty to God to never knowingly lead another person astray accordingly. That is my ruling mandate. What is yours, and by what authority?

Basically, I think education should focus on teaching kids not WHAT to think, but HOW to think. Teach them history, math, literature, the scientific method and critical thinking skills and then allow them to draw their own conclusions.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I find it laughably impossible to imagine you (in your current state of seething enemity) offering anything remotely close to an 'independent view' of anything, let alone anything with religious underpinnings.

For instance, my children have been exposed from the earliest ages to the Christian world-view, in addition to other world-views. The older boys ...[text shortened]... person astray accordingly. That is my ruling mandate. What is yours, and by what authority?

I don't offer anything to anyone. I'm only discussing how I think things should be.
If you though your children your personal beliefs in parallel with all other view points, I find it comforting. Do your children believe world is 6k yrs old and dinosaurs lived with men?

I just want people not to manipulate children to believe something. Children are very susceptible and ready to take anything for granted (just look at santa claus). Indoctrinating them from the beginning is directly influencing their independent opinions. They should reach Christ by themselves, not by influence. That would be machiavelic.

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
Basically, I think education should focus on teaching kids not WHAT to think, but HOW to think. Teach them history, math, literature, the scientific method and critical thinking skills and then allow them to draw their own conclusions.

Thank you. Now try to spread that point of view to everyone, before it's too late.

Originally posted by serigado
I don't offer anything to anyone. I'm only discussing how I think things should be.
If you though your children your personal beliefs in parallel with all other view points, I find it comforting. Do your children believe world is 6k yrs old and dinosaurs lived with men?

I just want people not to manipulate children to believe something. Children are ver ...[text shortened]... opinions. They should reach Christ by themselves, not by influence. That would be machiavelic.

Do your children believe world is 6k yrs old and dinosaurs lived with men?
If this world is 6,000 years old, it sure got the hell beat out of it in the process. As far as I know, dinosaurs wanted the relationship, but found that men were forever leaving the toilet seat up and it just didn't work out. "It's not you, it's me," apparently was first uttered by a Ornithischian opting to take the easy way out of such a relationship.

Children are very susceptible and ready to take anything for granted (just look at santa claus).
Don't tell me he's being taken for granted, too? I always had my doubts about that guy.

Indoctrinating them from the beginning is directly influencing their independent opinions.
Something tells me they usually figure it out at some point.

They should reach Christ by themselves, not by influence.
Yeah: maybe we just leave a bunch of tracts lying around, or well-place (but not obvious) Bibles scattered about. I don't think your plan is very well thought out just yet. Go back and see if you can polish it up a tad.

Yeah: maybe we just leave a bunch of tracts lying around, or well-place (but not obvious) Bibles scattered about. I don't think your plan is very well thought out just yet. Go back and see if you can polish it up a tad.

I would want my children to reach whatever position they wanted to independent of me. I won't say religion is good or bad, right or wrong. The same for everything else.
But you think you have a duty to teach your children from the very beginning your beliefs. You might be biasing their free-thinking from the beginning, depending on how that teaching is made.
Teaching a specific religion to a young child is very reducing, you must admit.

Originally posted by serigado
Maybe only in your \"free-thinking\" way of see things.

Or perhaps your words speak for themselves.

Originally posted by serigado
I would want my children to reach whatever position they wanted to independent of me. I won't say religion is good or bad, right or wrong. The same for everything else.
But you think you have a duty to teach your children from the very beginning your beliefs. You might be biasing their free-thinking from the beginning, depending on how that teaching is made.
Teaching a specific religion to a young child is very reducing, you must admit.

it might not be, if it helped them to survive, would it not be a good thing? If they were taught that this particular way of living (no drugs, not much drink, no excesses, one wife, faithful, etc etc) and it worked out for them, eg allowed them to propagate, then wouldn't that be a positive thing for them?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
it might not be, if it helped them to survive, would it not be a good thing? If they were taught that this particular way of living (no drugs, not much drink, no excesses, one wife, faithful, etc etc) and it worked out for them, eg allowed them to propagate, then wouldn't that be a positive thing for them?

Again, the machiavelic argument: The ends justify the means.
I can teach them the good things religion defends without making them religious. I do not defend the contrary of religion.

And I don't want them to have "only" a positive life. I want to them have the best possible life, thinking for themselves and without kneeing before anyone.