There is no religious freedom anywhere !!

[JimC]

Coito, you have no excuse for not getting it.
I made it perfectly clear, right from the start, by giving the comparison with drugs.

According to your "logic" then, you can give your child heroin for fifteen years, then send him on his way, and he's perfectly free to stop, or keep taking heroin whichever he fancies . That's how stupid your argument is. UNLESS you claim that religion isn't addictive. If you do, start a thread, why don't you?

Actually, this comparison is silly, because opiates are addictive. Religions, while habitual, aren't addictive.

I agree that it is not a valid comparison, and it's not needed for mistermack's main argument, which is that religious indoctrination as a child is effectively a reduction of freedom. Mind you, I think this only makes sense when the indoctrination reaches a certain level or intensity; something much less common in western society than it used to be (but still present in places), but it is very much a reality in many other places.

Such indoctrination is very different to any generalised form of value formation in a non-religious, or mildly religious household, and I contend that it does truly represent a diminuation of freedom for the child. Sure, a certain number will throw off its effects later, but that can bring its own traumas...

And in some places in the world, such rejection of a religion inculcated in childhood will mean cutting oneself of from family and friends, as well as the real danger of violence.

[Warren Dew]

I did, never had any religion pushed on me. Been an atheist as long as I can remember.

Same here. My Atheist father did want me to make my own choice, so my mother took me to mass at age 4 or so. It was deadeningly boring, so I decided to stay an atheist.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Coito, you have no excuse for not getting it.
I made it perfectly clear, right from the start, by giving the comparison with drugs.

According to your "logic" then, you can give your child heroin for fifteen years, then send him on his way, and he's perfectly free to stop, or keep taking heroin whichever he fancies . That's how stupid your argument is. UNLESS you claim that religion isn't addictive. If you do, start a thread, why don't you?

Actually, this comparison is silly, because opiates are addictive. Religions, while habitual, aren't addictive.

I agree that it is not a valid comparison, and it's not needed for mistermack's main argument, which is that religious indoctrination as a child is effectively a reduction of freedom. Mind you, I think this only makes sense when the indoctrination reaches a certain level or intensity; something much less common in western society than it used to be (but still present in places), but it is very much a reality in many other places.

Such indoctrination is very different to any generalised form of value formation in a non-religious, or mildly religious household, and I contend that it does truly represent a diminuation of freedom for the child. Sure, a certain number will throw off its effects later, but that can bring its own traumas...

And in some places in the world, such rejection of a religion inculcated in childhood will mean cutting oneself of from family and friends, as well as the real danger of violence.

Very well-put. One of the trade-offs we have for having our large brains is that those brains must get filled. The key marker to use in determining one's freedom is not the message being taught, it seems to me, but the attitude with which it is taught. Is the child taught the basics and then encouraged to think, or is the child conditioned to provide programmatic responses?

To my mind, that is the crucial issue -- not whether it is religion being taught, or mathematics, or whatnot.

I could have imparted to my son my own atheism, but I didn't, because to me, the point of pedagogy is not teaching our children what we think, but teaching them how to think for themselves.

[Svartalf]

They are... not physiologically as as opiates are, but they provide a kind of comfort that is definitely psychologically addictive.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I disagree. One of the reasons for my apostasy was the intense discomfort brought about by its teachings, particularly that I was in all likelihood going to spend eternity in Hell.

I think what really happens is that thoughtlessness is instilled into children alongside religion, so that they don't examine what they think they believe.

Also, mental discomfort is very different from the anguish caused by kicking heroin. Equating the two is plainly fallacious, and a rhetorical flourish. Withdrawal from physical addiction oftentimes kills the addict. Equivocating religion with a poison that pernicious is not useful to the discussion.

[mistermack]

Coito, you have no excuse for not getting it.
I made it perfectly clear, right from the start, by giving the comparison with drugs.

According to your "logic" then, you can give your child heroin for fifteen years, then send him on his way, and he's perfectly free to stop, or keep taking heroin whichever he fancies . That's how stupid your argument is. UNLESS you claim that religion isn't addictive. If you do, start a thread, why don't you?

Actually, this comparison is silly, because opiates are addictive. Religions, while habitual, aren't addictive.

Where's your evidence? I think they are, and I can point to billions of people, hooked for life by the indoctrination they received as a child.
Just because a small portion don't get addicted, that doesn't mean that they are not addictive.
The same is true of heroin and cocaine.

I think you are one of those who can't see it, because it happens slowly, drip drip. If getting hooked by a religion happened instantly, after a single injection, most people would say that it was addictive. As I pointed out here :

I think that the reason people can't see religious indoctrination as a loss of freedom, is the same reason that some people can't get evolution.
It happens bit by tiny bit, incredibly gradually. It's hard for some people to be able to stand back, and look at the bigger picture. They just don't have that ability.

But I'm determined to try to help :

Imagine, instead of the gradual drip-drip of religious indoctrination over the first fifteen years of kids' lives, there was an injection that did the same job.

One single injection, given at age 14, with a 90% effectiveness. 90% of those getting the jab become instantly religious.

So the effect is exactly the same. The only difference is that it all happens at once.

Would being given that jab, take away your freedom to choose?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Where's your evidence? I think they are, and I can point to billions of people, hooked for life by the indoctrination they received as a child.
Just because a small portion don't get addicted, that doesn't mean that they are not addictive.
The same is true of heroin and cocaine.

My evidence is in the definition of "addiction". My evidence is also in the fact that withdrawal from religion doesn't cause physiological issues which can themselves kill the apostate.

I think you are one of those who can't see it, because it happens slowly, drip drip. If getting hooked by a religion happened instantly, after a single injection, most people would say that it was addictive.

You're wrong. I understand what you're saying; I simply disagree with it. You are touting the comparison because it's a powerful rhetorical wave ... so long as you don't examine the nuts-and-bolts of it. Have you ever nursed anyone through heroin withdrawals? I can assure you, it's very different than talking someone through the loss of faith.

As I pointed out here :

I think that the reason people can't see religious indoctrination as a loss of freedom, is the same reason that some people can't get evolution.
It happens bit by tiny bit, incredibly gradually. It's hard for some people to be able to stand back, and look at the bigger picture. They just don't have that ability.

But I'm determined to try to help :

Imagine, instead of the gradual drip-drip of religious indoctrination over the first fifteen years of kids' lives, there was an injection that did the same job.

One single injection, given at age 14, with a 90% effectiveness. 90% of those getting the jab become instantly religious.

So the effect is exactly the same. The only difference is that it all happens at once.

Would being given that jab, take away your freedom to choose?

Yes, I read all that. The problem with your logic is that pedagogy is necessarily programmatic to a certain extent, but that once a mind has been formed, smacking it over the head with an injection is a violation of its freedom.

The same amount of energy may be expended in tapping in 500 tacks and bashing in the piece of wood. It's not just the quantity of energy expended, it's how it's expended.

Having been raised a Southern Baptist, but not in a heavy-handed manner, I was drip-fed the faith. In that same time, my own skepticism grew as well ... even as early as six or seven. There was much that was unusual about my youth, but the existence of my skepticism wasn't, I don't think.

I'm fine with disagreement on this issue, because I understand that my experiences aren't regnant. My main objection is the misplaced comparison between religion and addictive drugs. I've never buried anyone whose heart was stopped by a religious overdose. I've buried two friends from heroin overdoses. Equivocating the two, without acknowledging that religion may be the expression of a deeper issue, is, in essence, a form of post hoc, because you cannot say that the religion is not merely an expression of craziness that would otherwise find another avenue of expression.

[mistermack]

That's all right. You don't like the word addiction to be applied to anything but addictive substances.

I think it has a wider meaning, but if there's a better word for what I'm saying, I'd be happy to use it.

Why I would call religion an addiction is because once hooked, many people are on it for life. And it can rule their lives. And they fall back on it for comfort when things get tough. It takes away the pain of harsh circumstances.
If you make an effort to shake it off, it's easy to fall back into it if you mix with the wrong crowd.

Just because it's not a substance, it doesn't mean that you can't call it an addiction. It's not heroin addiction, it's addiction to religion. In my opinion.
It sticks with people longer than many substance addictions.

The only point I'm making is that if you drip-feed people religion for the first fifteen years of their life, then they haven't really chosen that life or belief for themselves.
A few people can kick it, but the majority don't even know it's happened, don't want to know. What they want has been decided for them by their conditioning.

The lack of genuine freedom was my point. It might be hard to see, what with it happening so gradually, but it's still a genuine lack of real freedom.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The word "programming" would be more apt, I think. Religions are uncomfortable with questioners, and anathematize skepticism, characteristic of mindsets which aim to teach what to think, and not how to think.

The lack isn't in freedom, though. It's in vision.

"So oftentimes it happens that we live our lives in chains/and never even know we have the key."

[hiyymer]

That's all right. You don't like the word addiction to be applied to anything but addictive substances.

I think it has a wider meaning, but if there's a better word for what I'm saying, I'd be happy to use it.

Why I would call religion an addiction is because once hooked, many people are on it for life. And it can rule their lives. And they fall back on it for comfort when things get tough. It takes away the pain of harsh circumstances.
If you make an effort to shake it off, it's easy to fall back into it if you mix with the wrong crowd.

Just because it's not a substance, it doesn't mean that you can't call it an addiction. It's not heroin addiction, it's addiction to religion. In my opinion.
It sticks with people longer than many substance addictions.

The only point I'm making is that if you drip-feed people religion for the first fifteen years of their life, then they haven't really chosen that life or belief for themselves.
A few people can kick it, but the majority don't even know it's happened, don't want to know. What they want has been decided for them by their conditioning.

The lack of genuine freedom was my point. It might be hard to see, what with it happening so gradually, but it's still a genuine lack of real freedom.

I'd say people can be addicted to religion. That doesn't mean everyone who is religious is addicted.

My son is an addict (pot). Simple definition. (1) tolerance (2) out of control (need to get totally wasted every time) (3) withdrawal (can't stop thinking about next hit -> self-destructive behavior). Viewed as an underlying physical change in the brain (dopamine pathways). Doesn't mean everyone who smokes pot is an addict.

Don't you think some people get so off on religious observance that they can't wait for next Sunday, and spend the week going to bible class every night to the detriment of having of life? Must be some physical change in the brain.

By the way, kids can actually think for themselves. (although they say one of the risk factors for addiction is early exposure).

[mistermack]

The thing about addiction is that lots of people DON'T EVEN KNOW that they're addicted.
Or they brush that suspicion aside. Most cigarette smokers would tell you that they're not addicted.
Because addiction covers a huge range of states of being.

Take smokers. Most people would agree that smoking is addictive. But you can smoke five a day, or ten a day, or forty a day. There's no line that you cross, where one side of it, you're addicted, and the other side you're not.
You just go from a tiny bit addicted, to full-on can't stop.
From just a variable habit, to something you need often, just to survive.

It's similar with religion. You have the entire range, from a variable habit, to an obsession.
And just like smokers, most, if not all, would tell you that they are not addicted.

If being addicted just means "you couldn't quit if you tried", then I suppose that's true.
But I think you can be a tiny bit addicted, leading up all the way to totally addicted.

If there is a word for "a little bit addicted", then I'd be happy to use it.
But an awful lot of people take addicted to mean the point at which you just can't stop.
What were they, just before that?

[JimC]

Personally, I prefer to leave the word addiction to chemical substances whose absence causes clear and unpleasant symptoms. Perhaps psychological dependency is a better term...

[Coito ergo sum]

The usage of the word "addiction" in the context of religion is no different than saying that parents raise their children with certain beliefs and values. Of course that happens. No person is a blank slate at adulthood, and we've all had things inculcated into us by our parents. Sometimes that may be religion. Sometimes that may be a political leaning. That doesn't mean we don't have freedom.

[hiyymer]

The thing about addiction is that lots of people DON'T EVEN KNOW that they're addicted.
Or they brush that suspicion aside. Most cigarette smokers would tell you that they're not addicted.
Because addiction covers a huge range of states of being.

Take smokers. Most people would agree that smoking is addictive. But you can smoke five a day, or ten a day, or forty a day. There's no line that you cross, where one side of it, you're addicted, and the other side you're not.
You just go from a tiny bit addicted, to full-on can't stop.
From just a variable habit, to something you need often, just to survive.

It's similar with religion. You have the entire range, from a variable habit, to an obsession.
And just like smokers, most, if not all, would tell you that they are not addicted.

If being addicted just means "you couldn't quit if you tried", then I suppose that's true.
But I think you can be a tiny bit addicted, leading up all the way to totally addicted.

If there is a word for "a little bit addicted", then I'd be happy to use it.
But an awful lot of people take addicted to mean the point at which you just can't stop.
What were they, just before that?

In the context of substances, addicted is something physical. The brain of an addict actually changes and creates the behaviors indicated above; the hi-jacked brain. That is distinct from someone who can use either lightly or heavily without that effect. My father loved his happy hour, and he would do ugly stuff after a couple. But he was very functional, and he could quit at will. He did it once when he was in his 40s for a year, just to see if he could. Later on, when his doctor told him he had to stop and take heart medicine there was no problem at all. I'd say he wasn't an addict, although he had his water glass sized Jack Daniels pretty much every day of his life. He was no more an addict than a teetotaler. Just didn't have an addict brain.

[MrJonno]

You can't stop adults attempting to brainwash children but you don't have to make it easier for them to do so.

Home schooling where you keep your child away from other kids as they might have thoughts different from your own is an abomination. Allowing children to leave school early as they don't need a longer education if all they will ever do is be a member of the parents cult.

Turning children into clones of their parents is evil full stop