How many adults would believe in some god or gods if they were not taught religion as children? Such teaching prior to a person being 16 or older is brain washing a child whose mind has not yet matured. Religion would not be as wide spread if teaching of it were deferred until a person was 16-18 years old. My father was a mathematician & engineer who taught me to ask questions & accept nothing without at least cogent arguments. I am not sure of his views on religion. He sent me to Quaker Sunday school which suggests some level of belief. He once said The above suggests agnosticism or atheism. The Abraham-Isaac story started me on the road to atheism when I was circa 7. My father was almost 50 & semi-retired when I was born. He had more time for me than usual for typical fathers & I became more bonded to him than my peers. The request for a father to kill his son seemed demonic to me rather than a request from a benevolent god. I argued with the Sunday school teacher about this request. The more she argued, the more convinced I became that there was something wrong with religion. I started calling myself an agnostic when I was circa 10. When I was circa 17, I saw a quip in the Reader's digest. It seemed to apply to me. In a very religiously oriented culture, being an admitted atheist was potentially dangerous both psychologically & physically.
Couldn't we say the same about education? People wouldn't personify the gods as particular individuals and wouldn't give them particular names if they hadn't been taught about those individuals or been provided those names. That stuff is cultural. But I think that many people would share some intuition of there being a "higher power" of some sort, some sort of transcendence in other words, and would have a tendency to attribute personal traits like purpose and intention to it. Many people would imagine the events occurring around them (one damn thing after another) as meaningful, as fitting into some larger plot-like narrative that provides history a direction and a rationale. Even scientistic atheists will try to embed the things they care most deeply about in a larger narrative, such as the belief in 'progress'. It's difficult to point to any human culture, anywhere in the world or at any time in history, that didn't exhibit some form of religiosity. I'm inclined to think that a tendency to think that way is very likely an innate human characteristic. Children are taught ethics, which doesn't seem to be a whole lot different. My impression is that mathematics is based on intuition, on the mathematician's intuition of logical implication and logical necessity. But what kind of cogent argument can be advanced for logical implication that isn't circular? If human beings are in no position to know transcendent things, then agnostics might arguably be the only honest people in the room.
It would be nice to imagine that 100 years from now or more children would open their history books to learn about religion. I don't know how likely that is but if religious groups need coercion to hold onto their adherents perhaps it is a matter of time Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Etymologically, "agnostism" signifies a broader spectrum of intellectual attitude than atheism. The former doesn't even contain "-theism" as a word unit; religious doubt is just one of the knowledge-related items that sprouts from it. Whereas the latter's very identity revolves specifically around theism. Using the analogy of an unobserved room: The theist personifies the room's state as "there is somebody in there". The atheist personifies the room's state as "there is nobody in there". The positive believer who is unconcerned with personhood simply declares "the room is not empty". The negative believer who is unconcerned with personhood simply declares the "the room is empty". The agnostic announces that "I have no access to the room. I don't know about its state or if there even is a room." Via the tactic of shame for whatever reason, an accusation of cowardice from atheism or theism substantiates they are serving as socio-political movements in those instances. Whereas agnosticism is an epistemological genre or method (as Huxley advocated below). Accordingly, the tactic is grounded in a classification error of equating the general conceptual territory that agnosticism is operating from to the narrow territory which the atheistic political passion revolves around (and rival theism's when so constricted in its identity). - - - - - - - - Thomas Huxley: Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, "Try all things, hold fast by that which is good" it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him. The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproven today may be proven by the help of new discoveries tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction. Agnostics who never fail in carrying out their principles are, I am afraid, as rare as other people of whom the same consistency can be truthfully predicated. But, if you were to meet with such a phoenix and to tell him that you had discovered that two and two make five, he would patiently ask you to state your reasons for that conviction, and express his readiness to agree with you if he found them satisfactory. The apostolic injunction to "suffer fools gladly" should be the rule of life of a true agnostic. I am deeply conscious how far I myself fall short of this ideal, but it is my personal conception of what agnostics ought to be. http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn.html
So would it be accurate to say that your father brainwashed you into being a skeptic, by forcing concepts and principles into a brain that was not yet matured? Why didn't he wait until you were 16 or 18 to do that?
On the other hand, many people who internalize various important and positive beliefs about life and their self even before their brains mature enough to criticially understand those concepts, seem to do much better in life in general. Orphans growing up in foster homes, youth delinquents, children from dysfunctional families are troubled populations, and this appears to be connected with them not having internalized certain positive beliefs early enough.
At least as young as 8 when i started goin to sunday school i was yankin the chains of my sunday school teechers cause i didnt thank they was bein honest wit me.!!! ONe time we was given some old magazines an told to cut pics out an past 'em onto a bigger piece of paper... an i cut out a pic of a whisky bottle an pasted it an i sinsed that they didnt like it... LOL.!!! After they told a bible story i was confused an asked one of the teechers if Jesus an God was the same person an they didnt answr -- they just stared at each other... an even in my 8 year old mind i knew this stuff was Bull-Sht... haha.!!! But everbody seemed to go along wit the flim-flam -- frinds... parents... school teechers... so i sorta played along also -- mayb i wasnt brain washed good enuff to make it stick... or maybe my brain didnt evolve wit genes necessary to cause me to beleive crap like that.!!!
What one learns in a functional (and loving) family, and early enough, are positive values and beliefs about life.
Maybe you had "attention deficit disorder" or were "hyperactive" -- and that spared you from paying attention to what was said in Sunday school, so you didn't learn what was taught there. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
My grades (includin deportment) was good in the 1st 2nd an 3rd grade... but from the 4th grade on i averaged "C's".!!! It was a long time ago an i dont remember much teechin goin on at sunday school... but i did like the story (an pictures) of all the happy animals bein safe on the ark.!!! The activities was fun especialy at the Methodist church whare the teecher woud play the piano an we woud sang but i mostly went for the free cookies an cool aid.!!! The Baptist sunday school i went to first was in the basement an it was kinda dark an dreary... so i guess it was a good thang that they tried to cheet me out of winnin a little white bible for havin 6 weeks of perfect attendance... so after i finaly won the bible i quit an started goin to the Methodist sunday school whare i went for about 3 years.!!! They pressured to go to "Church" to hear the sermon... said the preecher woud realy like to see me thar... well i went about 3 times an evertime it was like a never endin hell... an when i turned 12 they put me in an adult type class whare you study the bible an no cookies or cool aid... so i went once an never went back.!!! Anuther good thang about the Methodist church... you coud get a ice cold 6 oz. coke for 5 cents out of a machine in the basement.!!!
From Mtf Post #6 above relates to my Posting I suppose your father taught you to be so open minded that your brains fell out. How can you equate advocating a skeptical attitude to brainwashing, which relates to a person or group imposing beliefs on another person or group?
Religion teaches children to have a stronger conscience by setting the bar higher than does atheism. If we assumed, for the sake of argument, God was all knowing and all seeing, he knows if you have been good or bad, even if you are hiding in the shadows and nobody sees. Manmade ethics come down to having a good lawyer for the dismissal of sin. But an all knowing and seeing God will serve justice in the future, making one control themselves, even if they can fool or hide it from fellow humans, or use a lawyer to forgive the sin. Look at the example of Hillary Clinton using a personal e-mail server, to conduct private business, so she could keep everything off record. How she would have handled this using two scenarios; one she thought God saw her or two she believed there is no god. The first requires more honesty with herself since she will feel justice will be served in the afterlife. She may not ever used the private server, since in her heart she knew her intent. The second is only dependent on not getting caught. If caught it is dependent on buying or forcing cooperation and/or leasing lawyers and operatives, so the optics are fuzzy. If they can't prove it, it is not a sin. Or if they do prove it, if you can rig the justice system, then one can also be innocent of all charges. If you also assume relative morality, and the ends justifies the means, others will even call this honorable. The God approach is more honest, upfront ,and needs far less politics and resources to redefine right and wrong. The rules are simple when the conscience is strong.
Not, it doesn't, and it isn't. Religion teaches people to think themselves superior to the outgroup; religion teaches people to feel good about themselves no matter what they do.
A fair few, as there are examples of conversions. From one religion to another, or from some form of non-theism to a religion. It's not alarmingly common, but it does happen, and speaks to the importance of personal experience in deriving one's beliefs. It's not all about what you're taught as a kid. And even then, I wouldn't call it 'brainwashing'. Unless you'd call literally any socialisation 'brainwashing'.
In one sense, if we posit that personal experiences are all we have, it's a truism that everyone derives their beliefs from their personal experience; it's just that people's personal experiences vary greatly. However, a person does not have full control over what they will experience in life, though, so using something like "Let your experiences inform your beliefs" isn't an instruction following which would lead to a positive outlook on life -- think of what would happen if people living in abject poverty and violence were to form their personal beliefs solely on their experiences.
