Craig Minns,

I think that any sort of indoctrination is immoral because to indoctrinate means to teach others/another to accept a set of beliefs uncritically, and no-one should be taught to accept anything uncritically.That being said, I don’t think indoctrination is an essential part of having cultural norms, and nor does having a culture rely on indoctrination.

Religion, on the other hand, does rely on indoctrination and unlike cultural norms, is often accompanied by unfounded threats of damnation. Questioning the existence of God is a sin according to the Abrahamic religions. Such thought crimes don’t exist in most cultures and any that might are at least not policeable.

You are drawing yet another flawed parallel between religion and [insert social construct here]. Religion takes indoctrination to a level that cultures and societies never could and does it with the specific goal in mind of ensuring that its believers don’t question it. So it is a mistake to excuse what is an essential self-defence and self-propagating mechanism by simply shrugging one’s shoulders and saying, “Oh well, we’re all doing it.”

We’re not all doing it.

If you want non-religious examples of indoctrination to draw parallels with religious indoctrination, then look to communism and (to a lesser extent) Naziism.

<<Having a bad explanation for something does not mean the reason for the explanation does not exist.>>

I don’t think anyone has ever argued that it does. The lack of evidence for certain religious claims is what discredits them. Whether or not they are useful or satisfying is a separate issue.

Yuyutsu,

<<To that extent, "organised-religions" are no longer worthy of the name "religion".>>

They are if they still hold to a particular system of faith and worship. Words don’t have meaning, they have uses. We inject meaning into words ourselves.

Dear AJP,

Craig related to organisations which "have often been more about secular power than anything transcendental":

If that is the case and their particular system of faith is in the world and its pleasures, or if instead of God, in their mind they worship power, money and sex, then they only pretend to be religious. Otherwise it's like calling an able-bodied person who sits in a wheelchair a 'cripple'.

AJP,
from Webster's Dictionary:

Indoctrinate

Full Definition of INDOCTRINATE
transitive verb
1: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach
2: to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle

Nowhere in that definition is there any mention of a lack of criticality being a defining aspect of indoctrination.

Furthermore, a culture is and must necessarily be founded on indoctrination or if you prefer, "teaching" of the cultural norms that apply ("memes" in Dawkins's usage), whether that is done overtly and conscientiously or is implicit in the behaviours that are rewarded and punished by the group. This is a fundamental basis of social/organisational psychology.

I don't want to have an argument with you, AJ, because there is no point. You won't accept anything I tell you, regardless of how well supported, as being reasonable for an atheist to hold as a point of view, simply because it doesn't agree with your own.

Such is life. I wish you well in your mission as a "counter-apologeticist" and hope it brings you whatever you hope it might.

Craig Minns,

The oxford dictionary says something very different:

teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

synonyms:
brainwash, propagandize, proselytize, inculcate, re-educate, persuade, convince, condition, discipline, mould.

archaic:
teach or instruct (someone).

So, who do we believe? I don’t know of anyone who uses the Webster’s definition, and the denial from so many Christians, that what they do constitutes indoctrination, would suggest that they accept with the Oxford dictionary’s definition too. Furthermore, when we talk of, say, Marxist indoctrination, we’re not just talking about people being taught Marxist ideas and values. There is the implication there that it is being taught uncritically and that it is being taught to be accepted uncritically. Why else don’t we “indoctrinate” our children with values instead of simply “teaching” them those values?

Regardless of what word one uses, though, in light of what I pointed out, all this means is that you had presented a misleading/incomplete picture of the teaching styles of many religions by equating the two when there are very important differences.

<<You won't accept anything I tell you, regardless of how well supported,…>>

Firstly, nothing that you have said (that I have challenged) has withstood any scrutiny, so you can’t know this.

<<...as being reasonable for an atheist to hold as a point of view,...>>

Secondly, I have never said anything about whether or not your claims (that I have challenged) are reasonable for an atheist to hold. I don’t think they are reasonable for anyone to hold. Whether or not one is an atheist is irrelevant.

<<...simply because it doesn't agree with your own.>>

Thirdly, I have never suggested that a view is wrong or unreasonable "simply because it doesn't agree with [my] own". I go to great pains to support every one of my arguments in the very realisation that my opinion alone is no benchmark for anything.

If you could point me to examples supporting any of your claims here, then I will humbly apologise and slink away with my tail between my legs.

AJ, I've already said I won't be bothering to argue with you. If you won't accept the Webster's as an authoritative source; a dictionary nearly as old as the Oxford and as well respected, simply because you "don't know anyone who uses" it, then I think my decision is well founded.

My own copy of that great work, the Third New International Edition, has it as follows:

1a: To give instruction esp. in fundamentals or rudiments: TEACH <the function of indoctrinating youth was given to and accepted by...the family and priesthood - LG Garber & WB Castetter> <the recruits were indoctrinated for a month and then sent to specialist schools> b: to imbue or make markedly familiar with a skill <indoctrinated themselves with the teamwork of attack - Ira Wolfert>

2:to cause to be impressed and usually ultimately imbued (as with a usu. partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle <had to be indoctrinated with the will to win - JP Baxter><indoctrinating young people with alien ideologies>:cause to be drilled or otherwise trained <as in a sectarian doctrine> and usu. persuaded<indoctrinated the immigrants in a new way of life>

Enjoy talking yourself in circles with selective quotations designed to try to indoctrinate others into your own point of view.

Craig Minns,

I accept Webster’s as an authoritative source. Nothing I said should have suggested otherwise. I also never cited the fact that no-one else uses the word to simply mean ‘teach’ as the only reason I “doubted” it. I simply asked who we should believe (“who we should go with” would have been better a better question). Again though, which word we use is of little consequence, for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

<<Enjoy talking yourself in circles with selective quotations designed to try to indoctrinate others into your own point of view.>>

So now you’re accusing me of quote-mining? I would challenge you to point to a single example of that.

And if giving credence to an idea that requires myself to commit the same logical fallacies and/or ad hominems and/or misrepresentations of what others are saying just to defend it is the only way to break out of that circle, then I'm happy to walk around in it until something better comes along.

If I give credence to something as ridiculous as religion for no other reason than to break out of a circle, than that the same heuristic leaves me at risk of giving credence to all sorts of ridiculous ways of thinking. Our heuristics don't all operate in isolation from each other.