The Marks of Indoctrination

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Firstly, let's deal with this canard.

Those who challenge evolution do not only attempt to bruise egos, they challenge a secular humisitic notion that there is no God.

You've made the incorrect assumption that accepting evolution means a rejection of God. This utter tosh. There are Christian denominations who accept evolution, namely the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church.

As for the rest, i'll get back to you later.

Perhaps abiogenesis would be a better example. After all, evolution has nothing to do with our origins. In fact, how can we study abiogenesis? When has it been observed or duplicated yet it is supposidly science.

I still stand by my post regarding evolution, however. Even though some creationists believe it is a process, it is not a requirement. Conversely, those who believe there is no God have no alternative theories. In that sense they stand to loose far more than those of faith, hence, defending to the death is a requirement regardless of the challenges to its foundations.

Originally posted by whodey
Perhaps abiogenesis would be a better example. After all, evolution has nothing to do with our origins. In fact, how can we study abiogenesis? When has it been observed or duplicated yet it is supposidly science.

I still stand by my post regarding evolution, however. Even though some creationists believe it is a process, it is not a requirement. Conve ...[text shortened]... hence, defending to the death is a requirement regardless of the challenges to its foundations.

Firstly, your bacterial gut story. In short, that's how science works. Someone does some research and comes up with some conclusions as a result, we'll call that A1. Somebody else does some research and comes up with some results which contradict what is already understood by the first person, we'll call that A2. Because science uses the peer-reivew process, other scientists can then go back check the work (A2), repeat the experiment for themselves if they want to, and analyse the results for themselves. If the results are found to be correct and it makes redundant the original research (A1), then the paradigm shifts.

I still fail to see how any of this related to indoctrination.

Here's a wiki explanation of the word, i've highlighted the text i feel is important.

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology.It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Firstly, your bacterial gut story. In short, that's how science works. Someone does some research and comes up with some conclusions as a result, we'll call that A1. Somebody else does some research and comes up with some results which contradict what is already understood by the first person, we'll call that A2. Because science uses the peer-reivew proc ...[text shortened]... mine the doctrine they have learned.[/i]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination[/b]

Gee, it sounds like you have come to the realization that what passes as science these days is, indeed, indoctrination. Science is merely an activity with goals--- nothing sacred, nothing pure.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Gee, it sounds like you have come to the realization that what passes as science these days is, indeed, indoctrination. Science is merely an activity with goals--- nothing sacred, nothing pure.

Gee, another theist who doesn't seem to understand the meaning of indoctrination. They're racking up fast.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Firstly, your bacterial gut story. In short, that's how science works. Someone does some research and comes up with some conclusions as a result, we'll call that A1. Somebody else does some research and comes up with some results which contradict what is already understood by the first person, we'll call that A2. Because science uses the peer-reivew proc ...[text shortened]... mine the doctrine they have learned.[/i]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination[/b]

So how has abiogenesis undergone the scientific method? How have you questioned it using your critical thinking skills? In fact, sense you don't believe in God, you are required to believe this theory. In short, you have no choice.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Gee, another theist who doesn't seem to understand the meaning of indoctrination. They're racking up fast.

Not all science has an agenda, however, all science is pursued by flawed human beings who have flawed interpretations of the data they have collected. My example about bacteria is just one example. Another example I often think of is that in school I was taught that no life could exist without the existence of the sun. However, years later life was discovered on the ocean floor devoid of all sun light. Looking back, I should have been taught that no known life has been found to exist independent of the sun and not that it was impossible. As a result of this discovery, scientists are somewhat exited about one of the moons in our solar system that has a liquid ocean. However, before the discovery on earth regarding life that could exist in harsh light deprived condidtions, would they even investigate such life? This leads us to another truth and that is what we believe dictates what we desire to explore and how we explore. As Christ once said, seek in order to find something. Otherwise, even though it may hit you upside your head it may not register simply because your focus is elsewhere or perhaps you have already rejected an existing premise for whatever reason.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Gee, another theist who doesn't seem to understand the meaning of indoctrination. They're racking up fast.

Golly, teach me some o' dat learnin' you got, there, mister.

Here's the definition of indoctrination which you provided a scant few minutes ago...

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology.It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.

You certainly have been paying enough attention over these last two or three decades to realize that there are a few misguided folks with their nervous fingers clutching the throat of open inquiry, who are controlling the 'company line' as it applies to the world of science. These are the tongue-cluckers, the head-shakers who are adamant in their insistence for a goose-stepping following: step out of the lines we have carefully drawn and your reputation, career, funding, life as a scientist will be reduced to a dung hill. You are free to pursue any field in any direction you please... as long as it is on our map.

Again, it is an activity with stated goals, not the natural process you gloss it over to be.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Golly, teach me some o' dat learnin' you got, there, mister.

Here's the definition of indoctrination which you provided a scant few minutes ago...

[i]Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology.It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is ex gain, it is an activity with stated goals, not the natural process you gloss it over to be.

I agree with you. Yet there is one stark difference between indoctrination via science vs. via certain religions.

The scientists aren't telling us that unless we agree with them we will suffer eternal damnation and torment.

Originally posted by Ullr
I agree with you. Yet there is one stark difference between indoctrination via science vs. via certain religions.

The scientists aren't telling us that unless we agree with them we will suffer eternal damnation and torment.

The world is full of charlatans, from as many persuasions as exist. If you consider the current ruling class of 'scientists' as open-source-minded folks, you just aren't paying attention.

Christianity does not maintain that agreement with its tenets lands someone in hell. It does, however, maintain that hell will be populated with many, many like-minded folks: folks who openly and consciously rejected the work done on the cross by the Lord Jesus Christ on their behalf.

Eschewing His work, they opted to stand in front of God on the basis of their own. At that moment, they will agree with Him: they have no right to stay in His presence.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The world is full of charlatans, from as many persuasions as exist. If you consider the current ruling class of 'scientists' as open-source-minded folks, you just aren't paying attention.

Christianity does not maintain that agreement with its tenets lands someone in hell. It does, however, maintain that hell will be populated with many, many like-mind ...[text shortened]... r own. At that moment, they will agree with Him: they have no right to stay in His presence.

This doesn't make sense. You say:

"Christianity does not maintain that agreement with its tenets lands someone in hell."

I assume you meant to say disagreement in this first line and not agreement.

Then you say: "It does, however, maintain that hell will be populated with many, many like-minded folks: folks who openly and consciously rejected the work done on the cross by the Lord Jesus Christ on their behalf."

Isn't the second bit the same as saying if you disagree with the tenets of Christianity (i.e. you conciously reject the work done by Jesus) that you will land in hell?

I might be misreading your post but it seems like a kind of slippery attempt at avoiding the statement I made regarding the difference between indoctrination via science vs. indoctrination via Christianity.

Originally posted by Ullr
This doesn't make sense. You say:

"Christianity does not maintain that agreement with its tenets lands someone in hell."

I assume you meant to say disagreement in this first line and not agreement.

Then you say: "It does, however, maintain that hell will be populated with many, many like-minded folks: folks who openly and consciously rejected the wor ...[text shortened]... ing the difference between indoctrination via science vs. indoctrination via Christianity.

As I said, the world is full of charlatans!

What I'm saying is that Christianity is not a bunch of ditto-heads, wherein God's just looking for folks to chime in "Me, too!" Such a state would be an affront to autonomy, which is the basis of this whole lesson. Christianity does not make the salvific issue acceptance of some iconic event/person. It does make an issue of the work: upon which basis do you face the truth? Do you face the truth, gamble it all on you and your abilities, or do exchange your work for His?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As I said, the world is full of charlatans!

What I'm saying is that Christianity is not a bunch of ditto-heads, wherein God's just looking for folks to chime in "Me, too!" Such a state would be an affront to autonomy, which is the basis of this whole lesson. Christianity does not make the salvific issue acceptance of some iconic event/person. It do ...[text shortened]... u face the truth, gamble it all on you and your abilities, or do exchange your work for His?

Ditto!! 😀

Ullr and Proper Knob are more open-minded and realistic than Freaky and whodey.
Freaky and whodey sound like they're indoctrinated and trying to explain , using whatever straws they can clutch at, to prove they aren't.

Lets face it, you dont hear many christians using "Jesus" and "open-minded" in the same sentence. Even though, if you think about it, to love your own enemies you would certainly have to be genuinley open-minded, no?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Ullr and Proper Knob are more open-minded and realistic than Freaky and whodey.
Freaky and whodey sound like they're indoctrinated and trying to explain , using whatever straws they can clutch at, to prove they aren't.

Lets face it, you dont hear many christians using "Jesus" and "open-minded" in the same sentence. Even though, if you think about it, to love your own enemies you would certainly have to be genuinley open-minded, no?

No need to "love your enemy" per se. The point is to really see your own self in your enemy's eyes and, in a given case, to act according to your own evaluation. Your final action regarding your enemy should be irrelevant to your feeling of love alone, to your feeling of hate alone etc. It should be merely relevant to the evaluation of your own mind -and this evaluation will ease you to just act from deep within. Therefore methinks it 's enough to respect your enemy as much as you respect your own self and as much as you respect life😵

Originally posted by whodey
Not all science has an agenda, however, all science is pursued by flawed human beings who have flawed interpretations of the data they have collected. My example about bacteria is just one example. Another example I often think of is that in school I was taught that no life could exist without the existence of the sun. However, years later life was discove ...[text shortened]... focus is elsewhere or perhaps you have already rejected an existing premise for whatever reason.

Science may indeed be pursued by flawed human beings. But i'll insert a quick caveat before we proceed, the Bible was written by flawed human beings, it was compiled by flawed human beings, it was copied by flawed human beings, it is interpreted by flawed human beings. No different from science.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with these stories. We have an understanding of how something works and new evidence comes to light which modifies that knowledge, and the paradigm shifts. That's how science works is it not? Unless you know something different?!

Looking back, I should have been taught that no known life has been found to exist independent of the sun and not that it was impossible.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, blame your teacher.

However, before the discovery on earth regarding life that could exist in harsh light deprived condidtions, would they even investigate such life?

It's a little hard to get to the bottom of ocean trenches when the technology to do so hasn't been invented yet is it?

perhaps you have already rejected an existing premise for whatever reason

I reject nothing, and i keep an open mind with regard to everything.

Here's the difference between me and you (and all theists). I accept that the theory of evolution could be wrong (extremely unlikely), i accept that there maybe 'mind' involved in the starting of life.

Do you accept your Christian beliefs could be wrong?