Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Lagayscienza]

Is education really “indoctrination”? I took Belinda to be saying that education fosters clear thinking and the ability to think for oneself. If that is what she was saying then I agree.

Many educated people no longer see organized religion as ancient traditional “knowledge”. They see it as ancient superstition that causes more misery than just about anything else. They see it as irrational, divisive and often abusive. But they recognize that many still cling to religion and that such people cannot be reasoned out of it. And, as long as religious beliefs do not harm others, then atheists generally understand that religion must be tolerated.

But the religious do not return the favor. They hate atheists and cannot tolerate any questioning of religion, and especially not of their religion. Indeed, in many places doing so can get you beheaded.

One of the few good things about our modern, globalized, corporatized, technological world is that it has provided the internet and spaces such as this forum where religion can be discussed in relative freedom and safety. But even here, there are religious who cannot tolerate questioning of religion and who snap at anyone who does so - even when the person who questions traditional religion still sees themselves as “spiritual”.

As I see it, religion and spirituality are not necessarily the same thing. I have had “peak” spiritual experiences and so I know how real they feel. That feeling of the numinous is indeed ancient and real and still alive even in atheists.

I wish the touchy religious could at least appreciate that and be tolerant of non-religious spirituality. But they cling to all the god stuff of their intolerant, parochial, vengeful, organized religions and lash out when opposing views are expressed. They see the expression of opposing views as a personal affront. However, it has nothing to do with them personally. But they cannot separate the religion from their personal selves – they cannot allow themselves to think outside the box.

[Sy Borg]

Of course education is indoctrination. This is where the left is hypocritical. On one hand, there is the myth of the noble savage, resulting in many of the less savoury aspects of indigenous cultures to be censored from educational syllabuses. The message seems to be that evil European colonisers killed off the "noble savages" who lived in peace and harmony with nature. So you won't hear about Aboriginal tribal wars, wiping out of opposition tribes or routine wife beating and infanticide/cannibalism. The ancient colonisers were horrified at indigenous brutality and aimed to civilise them, and to discard "ancient superstitions that cause more misery than just about anything else". This has been happening for the long time. It happened with Cortes and the Aztecs, the Spaniards horrified at the ritual slaughters.

This is all very well, but their patronising approach meant ignoring ancient wisdom and knowledge. This dismissal of indigenous knowledge built up over a long time ultimately came at the cost of the natural environment. Modern science is still playing catch up in terms of land and animal management.

Likewise, today's secular schools - the ones who falsely peddle the old noble savage myth - are discarding the Christian religion (while championing Islam, go figure). Now enlightened secularists are discarding ancient superstitions and, along with it, ancient wisdom. It's always the same mistake, and the same double standards.

I would also say that atheists today show at least as much loathing and contempt for theists as the other ways around. Presenting this as one-way traffic betrays bias.

Science is no replacement for spirituality, although it is presented as such. Worse, science's best quality - reliability - has been diminished by corporate interests, eg. Big Pharma peddling harmful drugs in lieu of healthy diet and exercise, media presenting unhealthy foods as healthy and vice versa. Mainstream media creates anxiety and existential dread with their sensationalism and selective use of data (eg. skewed charts), especially in the young and impressionable, eg. treating "the climate crisis" as immanent. In truth, humanity needs to change to prevent a crisis later this century.

My general point is that we are being bombarded by BS by the education system and the media. So, singling out religions for peddling their BS is rather rich.

Again, we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater - more rationalist moderns discarding all ancient knowledge rather than trying to understand the deeper meaning of ancient ideas. When a dominant modern group takes over a less sophisticated traditionalist group, there is always a level of arrogance, a sense that the defeated groups are simply idiots fooled by nonsense ideas, and they need to be taught.

This is what's happening with secularists and Christians. It happened with Christian colonisers and indigenes, Romans over German barbarians, Israelites over Canaanites, Muslims and their huge slave trade in Africa. Each time, the enlightened prevailed over "primitive fools", bringing their modern knowledge to the ignorant. A wiser approach would be to try to understand the logic of those cultures - and there is always goodness and wisdom to be found.

Now, today's enlightened secularists contemptuously dismissing primitive-minded Christians are about to have their rationalist butts kicked by AI. They will likewise complain that AI is "inhuman", that the good things about humanity will be lost by soulless automatons. And, not for a moment, will they appreciate that that is exactly what they did. Dominant groups are always seen as soulless and clinical by the vanquished.

History is about to repeat.

[Belinda]

Of course education is indoctrination. This is where the left is hypocritical. On one hand, there is the myth of the noble savage, resulting in many of the less savoury aspects of indigenous cultures to be censored from educational syllabuses. The message seems to be that evil European coloniser killed off the "noble savages" who lived in peace and harmony with nature. So you won't hear about Aboriginal tribal wars, wiping out of opposition tribes or routine wife beating and infanticide/cannibalism. The ancient colonisers were horrified at indigenous brutality and aimed to civilise them, and to discard "ancient superstitions that cause more misery than just about anything else". This has been happening for the long time. It happened with Cortes and the Aztecs, the Spaniards horrified at the ritual slaughters.

This is all very well, but their patronising approach meant ignoring ancient wisdom and knowledge. This dismissal of indigenous knowledge built up over a long time ultimately came at the cost of the natural environment. Modern science is still playing catch up in terms of land an animal management.

Likewise, today's secular schools - the ones who falsely peddle the old noble savage myth - are discarding the Christian religion (while championing Islam, go figure). Now enlightened secularists are discarding ancient superstitions and, along with it, ancient wisdom. It's always the same mistake, and the same double standards.

I would also say that atheists today show at least as much loathing and contempt for theists as the other ways around. Presenting this as one-way traffic betrays bias.

Science is no replacement for spirituality, although it is presented as such. Worse, science's best quality - reliability - has been diminished by corporate interests, eg. Big Pharma peddling harmful drugs in lieu of healthy diet and exercise, media presenting unhealthy foods as healthy and vice versa. Mainstream media creates anxiety and existential dread with their sensationalism and selective use of data (eg. skewed charts), especially in the young and impressionable, eg. treating "the climate crisis" as immanent. In truth, humanity needs to change to prevent a crisis later this century.

My general point is that we are being bombarded by BS by the education system and the media. So, singling out religions for peddling their BS is rather rich.

Again, we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater - more rationalist moderns discarding all ancient knowledge rather than trying to understand the deeper meaning of ancient ideas. When a dominant modern group takes over a less sophisticated traditionalist group, there is always a level of arrogance, a sense that the defeated groups are simply idiots fooled by nonsense ideas, and they need to be taught.

This is what's happening with secularists and Christians. It happened with Christian colonisers and indigenes, Romans over German barbarians, Israelites over Canaanites, Muslims and their huge slave trade in Africa. Each time, the enlightened prevailed over "primitive fools", bringing their modern knowledge to the ignorant. A wiser approach would be to try to understand the logic of those cultures - and there is always goodness and wisdom to be found.

Now, today's enlightened secularists contemptuously dismissing primitive-minded Christians are about to have their rationalist butts kicked by AI. They will likewise complain that AI is "inhuman", that the good things about humanity will be lost by soulless automatons. And, not for a moment, will they appreciate that that is exactly what they did. Dominant groups are always seen as soulless and clinical by the vanquished.

History is about to repeat.

The qualitative difference between education and indoctrination is education has taught the student to evaluate ideas but indoctrination has taught the student which ideas to believe. Those two approaches towards the student result ,respectively , in freedom on the one hand , or stunted , compliant individuals on the other.

Sy Borg is right in her assessment of the current political and economic situation .Artificial intelligence is a god out of the machine : the problem will be likely be resolved by an unexpected event.
However freedom is not impossible. True, the devil is constantly seeking to devour the free intellectuals and the free honest workers. But even today goodness and honestly are firmly embedded in the culture.

Religious sects are not all the same but are arrayed on a spectrum between the poles of education and indoctrination. To seek freedom and education may be uncomfortable or even dangerous and nobody ever claimed otherwise.

[Sy Borg]

It's a game of dominance that has gone on for eons. The winner gets tells the tale, while the loser grumbles about how the winners screwed everything up.

Today's educated "enlightened" types who look down their noses at primitive theists are going to find themselves outclassed and deemed to require re-education. And they too will think that cyborgs/AI screwed things up.

[Belinda]

"Re-education is a euphemism for indoctrination. It 's part of the struggle for freedom to be resisting indoctrination. Vanity such as you describe(" look down their noses") is a weakness and is not part of a free man's armour against indoctrination by those you call "winners".

[Sy Borg]

Oh yes, "re-education" is indoctrination, as is being forced on to traditionalists by the new enlightened. For example, the courses slated for Gina Carano by Disney or Jordan Peterson by the College of Psychologists of Ontario. Progressives today will cheer on such re-education but they will be less keen when it is their turn to have their "wrong thoughts" fixed. Yesterday's progressives are today's traditionalists.

[Gee]

You need me to list the many ways in which our pereption of apparent reality could be mistaken or misunderstood? Really?

Never mind - Forget it. I don't have the mental fortitude for this discourse, all the best buddy.

Pattern Chaser is a good guy and intelligent, but he is more scientist than anything else. So he buys into this idea that consciousness is solely in the brain; all knowledge goes through the brain from the senses. So what we see, hear, taste, smell, touch and know is what we perceive of reality as it is interpreted by the brain. We have no direct knowledge, so it could be real, imagined, misinterpreted, etc.

I don't buy into that theory and see consciousness as being outside of the brain, even outside of the body. This is where spirituality comes to play as it interacts with life and connects life. This is a direct connection with valid information.

Gee

[Gee]

Sy
Thank you. I think you were the only person, who really understood my post.

Gee

[Gee]

Is education really “indoctrination”? I took Belinda to be saying that education fosters clear thinking and the ability to think for oneself. If that is what she was saying then I agree.

My experience is that the teacher tells you what is correct, or what to think, and then tests you to see if the lesson was learned. If you come up with an answer that conflicts with what the teacher taught, then you fail.

Many educated people no longer see organized religion as ancient traditional “knowledge”. They see it as ancient superstition that causes more misery than just about anything else. They see it as irrational, divisive and often abusive. But they recognize that many still cling to religion and that such people cannot be reasoned out of it. And, as long as religious beliefs do not harm others, then atheists generally understand that religion must be tolerated.

You appear to have a very bad view of religion. I remember Katrina, the hurricane that hit Louisiana and devastated New Orleans. President Bush diddled, or maybe fiddled while New Orleans drowned. After days and days, the churches finally said, "Enough". They brought food, water, clothing, beds and bedding, tents, set up infirmaries, and helped every way that they could. When that was not enough, they transported people all over the country in order to find them safe havens working with other churches in other states. Some came up here to Michigan.

It was easier for the churches to help than it was for individuals. Why? Because they were organized religions, which means that they already had a lot of supplies for their homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and other charities. Organized religions are not necessarily the evil that you are portraying them to be.

But the religious do not return the favor. They hate atheists and cannot tolerate any questioning of religion, and especially not of their religion. Indeed, in many places doing so can get you beheaded.

Beheaded? Where do you live? We don't have a lot of beheading in the United States -- except in the movies.

I wish the touchy religious could at least appreciate that and be tolerant of non-religious spirituality. But they cling to all the god stuff of their intolerant, parochial, vengeful, organized religions and lash out when opposing views are expressed. They see the expression of opposing views as a personal affront. However, it has nothing to do with them personally. But they cannot separate the religion from their personal selves – they cannot allow themselves to think outside the box.

If you want me to stop being so "touchy" then stop telling me what I "believe" in, as you are mostly wrong. Also consider this, I am not religious. I do not have a religion. People who know me, my friends and family, would think it a great joke if you told them that I was religious.

Gee

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern Chaser is a good guy and intelligent,

Thanks.

...but he is more scientist than anything else.

My education and training is science-based. Before I retired, I was a (firmware) designer though, not a scientist. Design is quite different even from practical science (technology), and bestows a very different outlook on ... life, the universe, and everything. Design is creative. It is the skill whereby we create a practical solution to meet a particular requirement. It tends to give one a view on life that differs quite significantly from a scientific view. A good software designer needs to learn all kinds of things, in all kinds of ways. Even (good) poetry can offer greater benefits to a designer than one might imagine...

If I use the ideas of scientists in my philosophy, or those of analytic philosophy and the like, I use them strictly, as intended. And so I might refer to Objective Reality, referring to the Objectivist certainty-fantasy, but I hope I do so fairly, using their terms as they intend. It's their vocabulary, after all.

For many years, I tried to talk to other philosophers. Many of them were science-oriented in their approach to philosophy. And I learned, by long repetition, that one had to use their own language when talking to them, or they were unable (unwilling?) to understand. Even when discussing something like aesthetics, these 'philosophers' only seem able to use scientific terms and concepts. And so I adopted their vocabulary — because they would not adopt mine. It was that or nothing.

And finally, here, science is a tool. For a certain class of problem, science is the obvious and optimal choice of tool. But for other types of issue, science is unsuitable. Things like metaphysics, or morality, are more suited. Personally, I favour 'horses for courses', and flexibility in our (philosophical) thinking. I favour pragmatism too. Most of all, I favour honesty, with myself and others; I prefer to recognise, out in the open, how little I really *know*.

So he buys into this idea that consciousness is solely in the brain; all knowledge goes through the brain from the senses. So what we see, hear, taste, smell, touch and know is what we perceive of reality as it is interpreted by the brain. We have no direct knowledge, so it could be real, imagined, misinterpreted, etc.

Now, we enter the realm of fantasy. Now, we are ascribing odd (or oddly-expressed) views to me. It's a more or less accurate description, as far as it goes, but it's only describing possibilities, not certainties. Another possibility is Jung's collective unconscious, where consciousness is (much?) more than is contained within an individual mind, and not limited to what is contained there. There are many other possibilities too, probably an infinite number of them. You get me very wrong when you fail to mention all of them as well.

I would echo your own later comment here:

If you want me to stop being so "touchy" then stop telling me what I "believe" in, as you are mostly wrong.

The latter part of your paragraph is a better rendition of my views — that if we have no absolute knowledge (as we do not), then we should treat what we *appear* to perceive with caution. Not dismissal, caution; prudence. But not dogmatic acceptance either.

My philosophy is characterised by (an awareness of) uncertainty. Not scientific uncertainty, via Herr Heisenberg, but ordinary, everyday, real-world uncertainty. So much of what we think we *know* is guesswork, based on assumptions, or just fantasy; wishful thinking. We even call some of those assumptions "axioms", to disguise their true nature. Self-deception is also something a waking philosopher must recognise, and (try to) allow for. Not self-deception observed in others; self-deception.

I don't buy into that theory and see consciousness as being outside of the brain, even outside of the body.

That's another possibility, one that I quite like. But my liking is not sufficient to confirm its truth or usefulness.

I would observe that consciousness, being an attribute of the mind, occupies a qualitatively different 'space' from the brain, no matter what is the connection between the mind and brain. Is it reasonable to consider consciousness, as you have done here, as having a physical-world location? Is that even meaningful?

This is where spirituality comes to play as it interacts with life and connects life. This is a direct connection with valid information.

Ah, finally. Spirituality and Life. The invisible aspect of life that science, and a scientific perspective, ignores or denies. Spirituality does not interact with life. To do that, it would need to be separate from life; distinct. Whereas spirituality infuses life, IMO, and probably shouldn't be considered separately, as a separate thing.

But can you expand on the "direct" connection, the "information", and its "validity"? That might be interesting...


Finally, thanks for stinging me into writing this post. I've had fun.

[Lagayscienza]

My experience is that the teacher tells you what is correct, or what to think, and then tests you to see if the lesson was learned. If you come up with an answer that conflicts with what the teacher taught, then you fail.

That is not my experience of good teachers or my understanding of good education. Good teachers know that rote learning is the lowest form of education. It does not teach people how to think for themselves. In grade school, some rote learning (the multiplications tables for example) is useful. With the tables under their belt, kids are then shown how to do multiplication sums and they are then given more or less random numbers to multiply and, if they have absorbed the examples of how to perform the operation given by the teacher, they can then independently multiply any two numbers. As one proceeds through secondary and tertiary education the ability to think for oneself when dealing with more abstract problems to do with things like history, politics, literature or the media, becomes more and more important. It is this ability think for oneself which good education fosters. However, thinking for oneself is not what religion fosters. Quite the opposite.

You appear to have a very bad view of religion. I remember Katrina, the hurricane that hit Louisiana and devastated New Orleans. President Bush diddled, or maybe fiddled while New Orleans drowned. After days and days, the churches finally said, "Enough". They brought food, water, clothing, beds and bedding, tents, set up infirmaries, and helped every way that they could. When that was not enough, they transported people all over the country in order to find them safe havens working with other churches in other states. Some came up here to Michigan.

You are correct in that I dislike religion. Kids do not choose religion but are indoctrinated into it. On balance, I see organized religion as an evil force in society. In respect of charity, churches sometimes help, but there are secular charities that do the same around the world when disaster strikes. Helping those in need is a human trait which is not dependant on religion. It is part of core human morality which has been part of our psyches since long before the advent of organised religion. Organized religion is mostly about power and control with charity as a side dish.

It was easier for the churches to help than it was for individuals. Why? Because they were organized religions, which means that they already had a lot of supplies for their homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and other charities. Organized religions are not necessarily the evil that you are portraying them to be.

Yes, in religious areas like the deep south, churches may help out. And so they should. Afterall they are funded by their parishioners. They should help out more instead of wasting money on proselytizing, which is mostly what they do. When governments cannot provide timely and adequate responses to natural disasters then people turn to self-help, sometimes under the aegis of religious organisations. But this happens not only through churches. Medicines Sans Frontiers (Doctors Without Borders), Save The Children and the Red Cross are examples of such secular charities through which people help each other. Charity does not need religion and religions don’t always provide charity.

Beheaded? Where do you live? We don't have a lot of beheading in the United States -- except in the movies.

I might ask you the same question. Even though you live in the US, it’s hard to believe that you are ignorant of how Islam treats anyone who questions religion. Hundreds of millions of people are subject to laws of apostasy whereby they can be executed. It wasn’t so long ago that the Christian religion also wielded such power of life and death over people who questioned its authority. And they are still about power and mind control.

If you want me to stop being so "touchy" then stop telling me what I "believe" in, as you are mostly wrong. Also consider this, I am not religious. I do not have a religion. People who know me, my friends and family, would think it a great joke if you told them that I was religious.

I did not tell you what you believe. You yourself have made it clear what you believe. If you do not have religion, you do a good job of appearing as if you do.

[Belinda]

Child education at least since the 1950s at any respectable university has been Socratic, experiential, and safety conscious regarding safe information retrieval which is deliberately also taught.

Indoctrination is identified by lack of Socratic method and by active discouragement of independent information retrieval.

[Belinda]

Child education as taught at respectable universities at least since the 1950s has been Socratic, experiential, and inclusive of information retrieval from accredited sources.
Indoctrination on the other hand is identifiable by not permitting dissenting ideas, by lack of Socratic questioning, and by sensoring information sources for reasons other than safety.

I have studied education as an academic subject a as an undergraduate at the Open University, and also at the University of Newcastle's college of education. There are degrees of child -centredness in educational method, probably maximal during the 1960s- 70s. However there is still a qualitative difference between education and indoctrination

[Belinda]

Pattern Chaser is a good guy and intelligent,

Thanks.

...but he is more scientist than anything else.

My education and training is science-based. Before I retired, I was a (firmware) designer though, not a scientist. Design is quite different even from practical science (technology), and bestows a very different outlook on ... life, the universe, and everything. Design is creative. It is the skill whereby we create a practical solution to meet a particular requirement. It tends to give one a view on life that differs quite significantly from a scientific view. A good software designer needs to learn all kinds of things, in all kinds of ways. Even (good) poetry can offer greater benefits to a designer than one might imagine...

If I use the ideas of scientists in my philosophy, or those of analytic philosophy and the like, I use them strictly, as intended. And so I might refer to Objective Reality, referring to the Objectivist certainty-fantasy, but I hope I do so fairly, using their terms as they intend. It's their vocabulary, after all.

For many years, I tried to talk to other philosophers. Many of them were science-oriented in their approach to philosophy. And I learned, by long repetition, that one had to use their own language when talking to them, or they were unable (unwilling?) to understand. Even when discussing something like aesthetics, these 'philosophers' only seem able to use scientific terms and concepts. And so I adopted their vocabulary — because they would not adopt mine. It was that or nothing.

And finally, here, science is a tool. For a certain class of problem, science is the obvious and optimal choice of tool. But for other types of issue, science is unsuitable. Things like metaphysics, or morality, are more suited. Personally, I favour 'horses for courses', and flexibility in our (philosophical) thinking. I favour pragmatism too. Most of all, I favour honesty, with myself and others; I prefer to recognise, out in the open, how little I really *know*.

So he buys into this idea that consciousness is solely in the brain; all knowledge goes through the brain from the senses. So what we see, hear, taste, smell, touch and know is what we perceive of reality as it is interpreted by the brain. We have no direct knowledge, so it could be real, imagined, misinterpreted, etc.

Now, we enter the realm of fantasy. Now, we are ascribing odd (or oddly-expressed) views to me. It's a more or less accurate description, as far as it goes, but it's only describing possibilities, not certainties. Another possibility is Jung's collective unconscious, where consciousness is (much?) more than is contained within an individual mind, and not limited to what is contained there. There are many other possibilities too, probably an infinite number of them. You get me very wrong when you fail to mention all of them as well.

I would echo your own later comment here:

If you want me to stop being so "touchy" then stop telling me what I "believe" in, as you are mostly wrong.

The latter part of your paragraph is a better rendition of my views — that if we have no absolute knowledge (as we do not), then we should treat what we *appear* to perceive with caution. Not dismissal, caution; prudence. But not dogmatic acceptance either.

My philosophy is characterised by (an awareness of) uncertainty. Not scientific uncertainty, via Herr Heisenberg, but ordinary, everyday, real-world uncertainty. So much of what we think we *know* is guesswork, based on assumptions, or just fantasy; wishful thinking. We even call some of those assumptions "axioms", to disguise their true nature. Self-deception is also something a waking philosopher must recognise, and (try to) allow for. Not self-deception observed in others; self-deception.

I don't buy into that theory and see consciousness as being outside of the brain, even outside of the body.

That's another possibility, one that I quite like. But my liking is not sufficient to confirm its truth or usefulness.

I would observe that consciousness, being an attribute of the mind, occupies a qualitatively different 'space' from the brain, no matter what is the connection between the mind and brain. Is it reasonable to consider consciousness, as you have done here, as having a physical-world location? Is that even meaningful?

This is where spirituality comes to play as it interacts with life and connects life. This is a direct connection with valid information.

Ah, finally. Spirituality and Life. The invisible aspect of life that science, and a scientific perspective, ignores or denies. Spirituality does not interact with life. To do that, it would need to be separate from life; distinct. Whereas spirituality infuses life, IMO, and probably shouldn't be considered separately, as a separate thing.

But can you expand on the "direct" connection, the "information", and its "validity"? That might be interesting...


Finally, thanks for stinging me into writing this post. I've had fun.

There are various conscious states some of which may be described as all or nothing .e.g. sleeping or waking, and others of which are matters of degree e.g. dementia.
In all cases consciousness is not a thing that owns spatial attributes therefor it makes no sense to say it's in the brain or anywhere else. Each individual is a body-mind that experiences conscious states. Does a starfish dream? Nobody knows except insofar as scientific theory expounds. A state of consciousness is experience that owns no essence of itself.

[Sy Borg]

Child education as taught at respectable universities at least since the 1950s has been Socratic, experiential, and inclusive of information retrieval from accredited sources.
Indoctrination on the other hand is identifiable by not permitting dissenting ideas, by lack of Socratic questioning, and by sensoring information sources for reasons other than safety.

I have studied education as an academic subject a as an undergraduate at the Open University, and also at the University of Newcastle's college of education. There are degrees of child-centredness in educational method, probably maximal during the 1960s- 70s. However there is still a qualitative difference between education and indoctrination

Education has largely been shaped by Rockefeller to create obedient and standardised workers.

I don’t want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers.

That approach is antithetical to transcendent experiences.