Is it ever a good idea to indoctrinate children?

Just for the record, are you are saying that you have no problem with parents teaching their children their religion, just as long as it's done in the home?

I'm usually not against that; teaching being anti religions or religious would add up to the same. I speak as a child and teen and adult in a place where thinking freely is a good idea.

Do you have any problem with parents taking their children to church to worship, learn, and share in fellowship?

I am not clear about what you are against then. Are you against talking about Buddhism at a party? Either teaching religion at home, or talking about it in public seems perfectly fine with me.

I teach my kids my values and beliefs. The fact that they will encounter different values and beliefs outside the home (at a party for example) is a good thing in my book.

We are indoctrinated by our parents and we are indoctrinated by your social peers. Both of these are normal parts of being human. I don't really see what the problem is here.

Was I not clear? I was raised as such.
I understand it.

I veered away, but I understand my past and other's pasts.

Then read it again.

No, but I'm not very interested.

It's one thing to teach children what you know. It's another thing to teach them what you believe. Not saying it's wrong to teach them what you happen to believe is right and what is wrong. But teaching them to believe that your god is real and should be worshipped is simply teaching them to believe what you believe.

I went back and reread. It didn't help.

It seems like you are opposed to something, but I can't say for sure what exactly that is.

I'm open, which may confuse you.

It appears that you don't believe that God and science can exist together. It appears that you believe that you cannot believe in both God and science at the same time. If my conclusion about you is incorrect, please accept my apology.

The only difference between "teaching" and "indoctrinating" is whether you agree with the message.

We teach our children. They indoctrinate their children. It is as simple as that.

Teaching differs from indoctrination in that it is about the communication of information regarding skills and the explanation of mechanisms--things that are supported by evidence and demonstrated by experiment. Indoctrination is the instillation of beliefs which are not supported by evidence or demonstrated by experiment, and which are supposed to be accepted without question.

We teach our kids that women are never obligated to have sex... ever. Is this teaching, or is it indoctrination? There is certainly no experiment on which to base this principle. Other cultures, and even other species in the natural world break this principle.

Not everything that we believe as a society can be based on experiment.

That women are never obligated to have sex is a matter to do with a female's preference, which is another way of saying that it isn't right to force yourself on a woman.

My point is that even though you and I have been brought up to believe it is absolutely right... you can't propose any experiment to prove that it is right. We believe it because we were indoctrinated to believe it.

There is no point in arguing since you and I were both indoctrinated into the same culture (of course we are both going to agree). I am just pointing out that your ideas that your personal indoctrination is based on "experiment" is simply untrue. There is no experiment.

No plausible and useful distinction is being made here between teaching and indoctrination.

We as a society learn our history because that information has been passed down. History was put into our history books because it had been passed down. Video and audio technology didn't always exist to record mankind's history. The invention of photography didn't always exist to record mankind's history. Newspapers didn't always exist to record mankind's history. Prior to the invention of newspapers, photography, audio devices, and video devices, history was passed down by scripture or some form of writing. Many believe that the Bible is a history book of mankind that has been recorded by writing it down in scripture. That can be seen as evidence. So, if the Bible is accepted as a history book, it would then be seen as evidence. If the Bible is seen as evidence, it would then not be seen as indoctrination. It would then be seen as teaching history.

So you're saying that it is because of my indoctrination that I believe that a woman should not have sex forced on her?

I know what my definition of the word is, but out of curiosity I checked a few common reference sites:

Merriam -Webster: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach

Google: the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

Dictionary.com: teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view

Vocabulary.com: Indoctrination means teaching someone to accept a set of beliefs without questioning them

All but one of these has a slightly different take on the concept, but I'm not entirely satisfied with any of them. I'm surprised by Merriam-Websters' as it is, I think, significantly different than the others. Of course M-W provides more than one definition and #2 is to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle. This is more in line with the others.

The word is most commonly associated with religion or ideology, but someone can be indoctrinated relative to any subject. I don't think it's synonymous with teaching, although I appreciate M-W's inclusion of fundamentals and rudiments. For a great many people the term has a negative connotation, but to max's point, people tend not to use the term to describe what they teach but often use it conjunction with someone else's teaching of something with which they disagree. It can be an emotionally and politically charged term.

I think we commonly and tacitly agree to use teach over indoctrination when we commonly and tacitly accept that the subject being passed on to others is not subject to questioning. I know that since I was a kid, the teaching of spelling has, in some venues, changed based on educational theory, however when I was in grade schools (and I think this remains the case in most primary educational settings today) we were clearly indoctrinated in the spelling of English words. Teachers didn't offer us the opportunity to question how to spell "knowledge," we were told how to spell it and that was that. Of course the spelling of English words doesn't seem to most people to involve a set of beliefs, principles or ideology, but doesn't it involve (except where experimental methods are employed) a belief that there is only one correct way to spell a word like "knowledge?"

My point is that children, in particular, are indoctrinated on a host of subjects, but we consider the process to be teaching because we accept what is being taught as either true or not practical to question.

Is not teaching our children our values (including religious ones) distinct from indoctrination if we allow them to be critically questioned? How about if the teacher's answer is always the same and essentially what has been taught?

I don't think a certain degree of indoctrination of children is possible to completely avoid, nor is it desirable to attempt to do so. The age of the child and their capacity to understand complex concepts is, I think, always an important consideration.

I also agree with max and those who argue we should teach our children our values, and I don't believe it is a good thing to do so in a manner that suggests to the child that the subject is open to debate. At the same time I think it is important to teach our children as they grow that it is not only acceptable to question doctrine, but a good thing. Balance and timing are important, and I don't think we can make blanket statements about indoctrination never being a good idea. If done properly and with good intent, our children are likely to grow to intellectual stages (reached at different times by different individual children) when they are capable of critical though that is rational and not simply a reflex of rebellion or defiance.

My wife and I taught our children our values and our religious beliefs (which differ in fairly significant ways). We also taught them our ideological beliefs which changed over the time the kids grew (which might have been confusing to them at certain points). We never sat them down and gave them lessons in critical thinking, but following the process I previously described, we encouraged them to question doctrine and what they were being taught at school as well as at home and in other settings.

Perfect parents we were not, but I like to think all of my children share the same set of basic values that their parents hold and most of the people they are surrounded by everyday hold too. All three have different beliefs about religion ranging from atheism to fairly orthodox Christianity. I'm happy to report that all three share their parents' conservative political principles, although only the atheist never went through a progressive period.

While children should ultimately become adults with the capacity for critical thinking, I think it's important that throughout that learning process, their parents convey to them that they are committed to their values, and serious about their beliefs (or at least about those beliefs that are serious) We always tried to impress on our kids that it's not a matter of wearing whatever is in vogue at any given moment, and, of course, it is extremely important that parents model the values and beliefs they teach their children