AJ,
Dictionaries often help to clarify. But words also convey shades of meaning depending on context, and certain words are often chosen for emotive effect.

So I might 'teach' the youth, or 'train' the youth. But if I 'indoctrinate' the youth of today, I might be meaning exactly the same thing, but intending the phrase to portray a different flavour. Indoctrination, I think, carries a more sinister or stern feel. I think it's often used when teaching a widely held belief or value that is assumed but wouldn't otherwise be readily obvious if critiqued (that's my opinion, rather than an attempt at a dictionary definition.)

I've noticed that in this thread, a few people have used the word 'evolution', perhaps in the context of people evolving over time from something that is other than a person. The idea that people evolved from non-people is a common belief today. I don't think it's entirely obvious, but it's often assumed by those who haven't looked into the matter critically. In other words, it's a cultural value (whether good or bad) that's been imbued into the society.

I've noticed that philosophies encouraging belief in the theories of evolution over millions of years are part of our cultural milieu. You can't go to a national park without seeing plaques describing the long-age geological history of the scenery. No self respecting nature documentary on television will avoid inserting references to our evolutionary history. Any pre-school lesson or kids' book on dinosaurs will carry with it descriptions on how many millions of years ago these dinosaurs lived, all designed to 'indoctrinate' our youth with the appropriate current belief.

That evolution is a major tenet undergirding atheism means that usually the atheist will not refer to this societal inculcation as 'indoctrination'. But I would suggest that most people who use the word evolution, both here on this thread and elsewhere in modern society, do so in likelihood of this type of teaching/indoctrination rather than having looked at it critically.

So which is the most appropriate word to use? It depends on your belief system.

Hi Craig,

Thanks for the interesting exposition preceding

“I find the idea of a God as an explanation unsatisfying for reasons gone into earlier, but I am sympathetic to those who don’t.”.

I like the way you formulate this, since I can counter it with my

“I find the idea that God is just a believer’s delusion unsatisfying for reasons gone into earlier, but I am sympathetic to those who don’t.”

Unfortunately, there are people on both sides of the divide, who see it differently, who are insecure in their beliefs or unbeliefs.

As for “indoctrination”, I agree with you. As I said many times, I am glad I have been “indoctrinated” into speaking three languages (as well as into the basic tenets of Christianity) in my “tender years” without learning anything about their grammar, not to mention “critical (linguistic) thinking” about them, because it was much easier for me than the foreign languages that I had to (tried to) learn and "critically assess" tediously in my later years.

Nevertheless, I think that “indoctrination”, because of the way it is being used in worldview wars, has become a pejorative word.

Dan and George,

As I said earlier, we can ditch the word "indoctrinate" and it doesn't really change my point about the problem with equating the inculcating of cultural norms and the teaching religion from a nonpartisan perspective.

George,

This is just silly, and I think you know it by now...

<<Unfortunately, there are people on both sides of the divide, who see it differently, who are insecure in their beliefs or unbeliefs.>>

I'd doubt very much that there are any at all on the atheist divide who are insecure about their unbelief. As we have been through many times before, an atheist has no reason to feel insecure about their lack of belief. They are not the ones with the burden of proof; they're still at the default position with a complete lack of evidence and Occam's Razor to justify why it's alright to for them to still be there; as per the "Atheist's Wager", they have nothing to lose and everything to gain if they're wrong; their unbelief provides no crutch that they may fear cannot be replaced if they change their mind; and they are free to change their minds if the evidence permits without wondering if an evil spook is trying to trick them.

The idea that an atheist could be insecure about the fact that they find the evidence for a god to be insufficient is beyond absurd, and demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the difference between belief and disbelief in general. It is the equivalent of trying to claim that baldness is a hair colour, or that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Someone like runner could get away with making such a claim, but from you it just looks dishonest.

AJ Philips,

I think you just proved my point, although originally I did not have you in mind in that remark to Craig. There are many things I do not believe in but I would not spend so many words arguing how secure my unbelief is.

.

Dear Pericles,

.

You ask :

« Is there a difference, Banjo Paterson? » [between the definition of religion and the process of religious indoctrination or a formula for manipulating the human mind].

Yes. It is the difference between the subject matter (religion) and the “teaching” of the subject matter.

Geertz’s so-called “definition” of religion only vaguely alludes to the subject matter without actually naming it, but clearly identifies what he considers to be the five phases of the “teaching” process employed for “imparting” this particular subject matter, providing a brief description of each phase.

.

Dear Craig,

.

I don’t think the words “teaching” and “indoctrination” are interchangeable.

Perhaps some fervent Catholics send their children to school to be indoctrinated but I should be surprised if this were the case of the majority of families who send their children to Catholic schools. As for the families who send their children to state schools, I doubt that any of them send their children there to be indoctrinated.

I employed the term “indoctrination” with reference to Geertz’s so-called definition of religion. If “indoctrination” simply means “teaching”, then it seems that the five phase process he describes should apply to any scholastic pursuit, e.g., mathematics, science, languages, history, geography, etc.

I don’t think it does, but if you do, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why ?

Here, once again, is his “definition” for easy reference :

« (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic (op. cit. p. 90). »

If, like me, you think it doesn't apply to any other scholastic pursuit, I should be interested to know if you have any suggestions to make as to why it only applies to religion.

.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« I think we all are free to perceive a text the way we want … »

If we “perceive (something) the way we want”, I doubt that it is because we are free. I suspect that it is because we are incapable of perceiving “it” any other way – for all the obvious reasons.

Whatever our perception, we can, of course, keep it to ourselves and pretend that it is something different. We can lie.

So far as you and I are concerned, George, I rule that out. In fact, I rule it out for everyone on this forum.

You also wrote :

« Of course, “religious indoctrination, a formula for manipulating the human mind” is a well known invective … »

I knew you would not take kindly to that expression, George, but I couldn’t think of a more appropriate one to describe the five phases Greetz identified as constituting the “teaching” process for religion.

As you know from previous experience, I can be a bit rough at times. Hopefully, you will put that down to my ill-spent youth as an Aussie bushwhacker and forgive me. Australians of my generation who grew-up in the bush are known to be a bit rough around the edges but legend has it that we are rough diamonds.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that the definition of religion as “a set of beliefs” is not of my coinage. I simply found it on “dictionary.com” and adopted it as the best definition I had come across so far.

.