Dear Banjo,

>> I knew you would not take kindly to that expression <<

Thus you agree with what I wrote above, namely that “indoctrination” has become a pejorative word.

>>to describe the five phases Greetz identified as constituting the “teaching” process for religion<<

There is no mention of any “teaching process” there (anthropology, as far as I can tell, does not deal with teaching processes) or “phases” in the definition (divided into five parts only to make the long defining sentence more palatable).

I cannot reproduce here the whole context in which Geertz offers his definition; you would have to read the whole Chapter IV titled Religion As a Cultural System.

Nevertheless, here is an excerpt “…rather like “culture”, “symbol” has been used to refer to a great variety of things … it is (also) used for any object, act, event, quality or relation which serves as a vehicle for a conception—the conception is the symbol’s meaning—and that is the approach I shall follow here” (op cit. p. 91).

This thread has become a perfect illustration of why it's pointless trying to discuss ideas online.

Enjoy yourselves.

Dear Craig,

<<This thread has become a perfect illustration of why it's pointless trying to discuss ideas online.>>

Why, the first 10 pages went really well - perhaps we can resume where we were before the interruption?

I tried very hard to indoctrinate my son into the joys of cricket. But alas, I failed. He has no interest whatsoever in attending cricket matches with me. He'll never understand its intricacies of the game. However, when he sometimes challenges me to a game of cricket on PlayStation, at those times, I must cede to his dominance. I can barely compete.

Yuyutsu, If I'm not mistaken, it was on page 10 where you attributed someone's existence (as opposed to their non-existence) as a limitation.

That one had me clean bowled.

George,

The fact that I used so many words to rebut your claim does not necessarily prove that you were right. It could simply mean that I am thorough. It could also be indicative of the extent to which your claim was absurd. There were several possibilities but you chose the one that had already been shown to be false in order to sling mud.

I also didn't argue how secure my belief was. I only provided reasons as to why it cannot be something to be insecure about. Why is it that anybody, theist or atheist, has to misrepresent what others say when defending religion? I think that's telling.

Craig Minns,

I think it's still possible to have discussions online. Given how damning your accusations towards me have been, what I would do if I were in your position would be to back my claims up with examples of what I was talking about and send me on my way. Either that or show why it was reasonable to ignore the factors that I pointed out which render a comparison between religious indoctrination and the inculcation of cultural norms inaccurate to the point of useless.

By the way, if it's any consolation, I don't enjoy contradicting you like I do some others on OLO. You're intelligent, articulate and well-educated and I agree with you on every other topic, but there are some arguments and claims that I find so bad that I just can't leave them to go unchallenged.