The Morality of Indoctrinating Children into Religion

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Hello, ILP. This is my first post here, though I’ve been lurking on the board for a while.

I know this subject has come up here before, but I’m continuingly interested in the various philosophical issues surrounding the teaching of religion to children, so I’d appreciate your thoughts. As a secular humanist atheist, I strongly believe in the ethical imperative for the education of minors to be secular. Schools should not act as recruitment agencies for religions, in my opinion. But the business of parents privately instructing their offspring in their worldview is trickier, and fraught with philosophical difficulties.

Of course, it’s practically impossible for parents to bring up their children impartially when it comes to matters of faith and politics and philosophy- the little creatures imbibe our beliefs, even if we think we’re being careful not to impose them. That said, I object to the deliberate indoctrination of children into religion when the intention is to ensure their adoption of it as adults. This, in my view, is immoral.

My reasoning is simple.

a) Children are incapable of making their own independent, informed choice in their adoption of a religion, since it requires a degree of discretion and understanding of highly complex issues- all of which is necessarily beyond their means.

b) Children are highly susceptible to parental persuasion (which is in itself generally a Good Thing, obviously).

c) A parent who knowingly influences their child to adopt a religious faith is acting in a way that takes advantage of this susceptibility.

d) By doing so, the parent effectively deprives their child of the complete freedom to make the choice for themselves when they attain the necessary maturity.

If an adult with limited means of understanding is somehow coerced by another adult in a position of similar advantage into adopting a religious faith, the coercion would be considered immoral (however benevolent the coercer may believe his coercion to be). Why not so with children?

2

Biases come in many forms. Being an atheist while choosing to not teach a child about religion is a bias in itself. It would be better for parents who love their child to apply their bias than let an outside influence ply their indoctrination.

3

So how would you or how do you avoid indoctrinating your children into secular humanistic atheism or is that OK in your opinion?

4

Although this interesting question (and the point made by Liteninbolt, above) is beside the point, I do appreciate how my question begs others. Since you ask, I believe an ethically responsible parent should ideally aim to teach his children about all forms of religious and non-religious belief without deliberately attempting to persuade them in a particular direction. Inadvertent indoctrination of worldviews is of course inevitable, but I’m specifically talking here about the deliberate influence of parents in persuading their children to adopt their own religious beliefs.

5

Coatless

Welcome to ILP :slight_smile:
(better late than never)

To answer your question, It’s never immoral to convince another to believe the truth. You tell your children that drugs are bad for them, you tell them about all the bad things that happen to your body and mind when you do drugs, you DONT tell them how great it is to be “high” or how it can lead to some unforgetable experiences ect…

The only time it’s immoral to convince someone of something, is when you know it’s not true. In the case of religious parents, they presumably believe that God really does exist and that the bible is his word or whatnot… in which case it would be rather sadistic of them to NOT convince their child but instead give him/her some options while believing that only one of those options will spare the child an eternity in hell.

6

Hmm. You get into all kinds of problems with this, chiefly because we’re talking about beliefs here, not truths.

I’m sure you’d say it’s immoral to teach a young man to believe he should strap a bomb to himself, walk into a building and set it off. So, how do you differentiate between that ‘truth’ and other taught ‘truths’?

7

Welcome to ILP!

I think we need to examine the relationship between parents and children and how that relates to questions like teaching religion. We have to assume for the moment that the parents are acting in a sincere fashion, and as MMP said, transmitting the truth can’t be said to be a bad thing. Since religious individuals believe their faith is true, it follows that they ought teach/indoctrinate their children in that truth the same way they would with 1+1=2. Indeed, very few people have the ability to assess whether 1+1=2 (the proof is a monster and didn’t come out until relatively recently – a hundred-or-so years ago) but we all accept this truth and proceed from there. To assume that religion represents a different set of truths already takes atheism as a given. And if atheism is a given, well sure parents shouldn’t indoctrinate their children in religion. But, as per the above, such a formulation can only apply to atheist parents.

As for relating suicide bombings to religion, that connection is a lot more tenuous that you might think. Suicide bombings are an integral part of asymmetrical warfare. Indeed, within that sphere they are entirely rational. Since there are several asymmetrical wars being waged against Muslim countries and communities, it makes sense that we should see a lot of it there.

8

Thank you (all) for your kind welcome.

Xunzian, if all that’s required for the indoctrination of any belief to be considered morally good is that the parents are sincere in believing it to be true, it must follow that indoctrination in any religious cult is always morally good. This cannot be correct, but you can’t have it both ways. So how do you determine which beliefs are okay to indoctrinate children with, and which are not?

9

Indoctrination into anything that the parents sincerely believe is not merely morally justified, the duty of being a parent demands it. I don’t see any contradiction there. As for which beliefs are actually good, that is a thorny question. Even more so if we want to try and equate the good with the truth. Thankfully, children are not exclusively indoctrinated by their parents but also by their societies. So there is a balancing system. Societal indoctrination forces children towards a mean, counteracting the occasional crazy parent. Parental indoctrination guards against damaging social narratives. By these and other dynamic forces, a useful system develops. Or the society and its attendant ideologies die out.

10

Although it may be a demand of the duty of good parenthood to teach their child about the parent’s beliefs, I’m not convinced there’s a moral obligation for them to indoctrinate their child into believing it too. That aside for now, I strongly contest your assertion that their child’s indoctrination into a belief is justified by the parent’s sincere holding of that belief.

What of the deluded? If I’m sincerely convinced I’m Napoleon, is it then morally correct for me to indoctrinate my children into also believing I’m Napoleon? And what about objective harm? Should a member of a suicide cult, who sincerely believes their children should have sex with their Leader and then kill themselves, indoctrinate his children into sharing his beliefs?

Please would you demonstrate how the sincerity by which a belief is held to be true necessarily justifies the indoctrination of children into adopting that belief?

11

I think parents can teach their children in accordance with their faith without insisting that it is a known certainty. You can say something along the lines of: We believe X to be true. Our community believes X to be true. But not everyone believes this. Ultimately, no one really knows what’s true in the absolute sense, and so everyone, even you, has the right to choose their own beliefs. But as a member of our family and our community, you should know that X is our belief. This by no means entails that you are obliged to adopt the same belief, but it is important to keep it in mind.

Of course, this assumes that the parents in question are at least enlightened enough to appreciate the fact that no one has the right to claim absolute certainty about anything, and there are certainly parents out there who do believe their faith counts as absolute certitude (an oxymoron if there ever was one). When they do believe this, the issue becomes all the more confounded, for the question arises concerning whether it is morally permissable to refrain from teaching one’s children the Truth, especially when it is considered to be of the utmost importance, even nothwithstanding the possibility that such certitude may be all together wrong.

In my humble opinion, however, the vast majority of people who believe in absolute certitude and that they have it don’t cling to such a belief for honest reasons. Most of the time it is clung to simply to preserve a sense of superiority over those who are so-called “blind” or “in the dark” about the Truth - or simply to convince one’s self that his own upbringing wasn’t a complete farce - in other words, for psychological, usually unconscious, reasons as opposed to rational ones.

I don’t particularly like absolving one of moral responsibility just because he is psychologically “predisposed” to cling to one or another belief, even if it is completely unconscious, and so I would still hold such parents morally responsible for the indoctrination of their children.

12

Coatless,

I think you are drawing a false distinction here. We don’t teach our children about biology, for example, we simply teach them biology. If that is a bridge too far for you (and it can be argued that religious truths are conceived differently than those in the hard sciences), think of it like politics. A child’s political views are irrevocably filtered through those of their parents. Now, it isn’t an active indoctrination. That is why I think subjects taught in schools are a better parallel, since they are generally something taught by both parents at home and a separate authority structure outside the home. But look at the values contained within the political discussion and how they are taught to children and you’ll see great similarities. Are parents not to teach their children what they value? That seems nonsensical to me.

Indeed it is. Thankfully, society provides a counterbalance to such things – as I addressed earlier.

Naturally, if the parent truly believes it they would be wrong not to. The nice thing about suicide cults is that they have a hard time propagating their message and tend to die out rather quickly. Hard to find new members when the old ones are being killed off. The belief in suicide under certain conditions, on the other hand, can’t be assumed to be prima facie bad. As for having sex with the leader, if they are over the age of majority as the society deems it, where is the harm? If they aren’t, again, society serves as a counterbalancing force, steps in, and puts a stop to it.

I don’t see any other method of transmission. Why would anyone not teach their children what they hold to be the truth? Would you rather people taught what they held to be false? Your position doesn’t make sense without already assuming what they hold to be true is false. And that assumption is rather critical for the discussion!

Gib,

Would you argue the same for a base 10 number system? We have no reason to believe that a base 10 number system is true, though we ourselves think that way and our community behaves that way. Should a child be able to choose to operate in a base e or 60 system?

13

Greetings and welcome, i agree with the initial post.

Depriving someone of free thought is tantamount to mind control

14

Bias is precisely the point. Once one or parents develop a certain mindset and find it relevant in there lives, then it follows they would want their children to do the same. This includes religious leanings. People don’t mature with a clean slate mind. We are to some degree products of our parental upbringing.

For instance, parents who go through some indoctrinal epiphany that eating meat is not the thing to do, it stands to reason they would get their children to be vegans. Even before they have children then change their eating habits, do you think they would give their children the option to eat meat when they become old enough? You can not expect people to not influence their children in every facet of their lives. Especially where religion is concerned. Core beliefs in spiritual matters probably have the strongest foothold in family bonds.

Humans for the most part are spiritual creatures due to their reasoning abilities. Emotions are apart of this. You can not raise a child in an uninfluential environment. Usually where they lack in a certain knowledge, they often try to fill that void. If people want to pursue atheistic tendencies, that is fine. When those people ply their reasoning to get others to move away from religion, then they are promoting bias. This is true on the other side of the coin with religious people. There is no guarantee a child brought up in an atheist setting won’t become religious in some manner. The opposite is true regarding this. Most of the people I know have become atheists due to their religion not aligning with their thinking (I have seen this mainly in the Catholic vein). So, in my estimation, it seems it would be impossible to raise children in a secular vacuum with all of the external influences beyond the parental circle.

15

If indoctrinate means “to teach with a biased or one-sided ideology” (the Wiktionary definition) it is always wrong to indoctrinate anybody into anything.

16

Coatless

Let’s turn it around… Could a religious person not say the same thing about your beliefs? That a lack of religious “indoctrination” (they would call it “teaching” i’m sure) is irresponsible in that you risk your childs immortal soul?

Could they not argue that you are neglecting your child?

Assume for a moment that there truly is a God… Someone who loves and watches over you if you believe and worship ect. What then? is it still moral to encurage the child to question God’s existence?
What then if there was a hell for those who denied this God’s existence? Still moral?

The problem is not that they are telling their children what to believe… Everyone does that.
The problem is (as you percieve it) that what they are teaching their children is not true!
But they think it IS true and so there is no problem from their perspective!

I happen to share your perspective in this case, but let’s assume theirs for a moment and ask ourselves would it still be immoral to “indoctrinate” your child to believe the truth?

17

This is all, of course, relative to whom the parent is.

If the parent is themself a product of indoctrination, then their moral capacity is diminished. They are, therefore, simply an example of what is desired to be avoided, and their child is simply an extension of this same example.

If the parent became a devotee of a given religion as an adult, in a condition of sound mental health, then they have good reason to recognize that meaningful engagement with the religion may well require a mature mind, such that they have a duty to their child to provide them with a simular decision-making platform to their own.

If the parent is like (perhaps) most churchgoers, and attends to a particular religious brand largely out of an uncritical habitual routine, then the indoctrination will likely be a lazy one and not something one need be overly concerned with.

If the parent is a mystic and has achieved ontotheological union with the divine, then they may need to be very careful about anything they say at all, as it may well be severely misunderstood by the likes of minors. They may also be very distracted, and have difficulty attending to mundane matters such as child rearing.

If the parent is an atheist, they may want to give their child a tour of the temples at some point, in order to assuage their own sense of overprotectiveness.

18

What do you mean a base 10 number system is “true”? In what sense is such a thing “true”. It’s a tool. We use it by convention. It’s not a statement or theory about reality. We teach it to our children because it’s best they use the same numbering system as everyone else they’ll come in contact with.

19

Insert “Gravity” instead of X… Would you still recommend that same speach?

What if you child came to you and told you that he/she no longer believed in gravity? how quickly would you set the kid stright?

20

Thank you for all your excellent answers and contributions.

Xunzian:

I fully agree about how parents do teach their children, and how their own worldview and values are inculcated as part of normal, moral parenthood. It is however possible to teach children about religion without indoctrinating them to adopt it; I do it myself, as a matter of fact. Morally responsible Christians, I’m sure, also teach their children about other world religions (and atheism) without trying to persuade their child to adopt those faiths. Similarly with politics, your example- it is possible to teach a child about the function of government and even the political ideologies of the various political parties without enrolling them into membership of those parties, but despite your suggestion, this is exactly what happens with parents who indoctrinate children into their faith.

The key point of my argument, which you don’t appear to have addressed, is the deliberate intention of the parent to ensure their child adopts their belief. We have agreed that parents will inevitably inculcate their values in their child’s upbringing whether they mean to or not- but that is totally beside the point here. What I’m talking about, specifically, is the wilful and deliberate effort of parents to influence their child in ways that intentionally encourage their adoption of their faith before the child develops the capacity to make that decision independently for itself. It is the intention here that I find immoral, since it acts purposefully to deprive the child of its own free choice.

Reference your societal counterbalance. Yes, of course, the gravitational force of socio-cultural influence can act to counterbalance a parent’s influence on his children. However, that is also beside the point, since it in no way alters the morality of the parent’s indoctrination. Otherwise you might say society’s Laws morally counterbalance parents who teach their children to be criminals. The parental teaching remains immoral.

Your defence of the morality of suicide cults is bizarre, and I’m afraid I cannot find a way to engage with it. The fact that these cults tend to limit their own evil by killing themselves does not negate their immorality! Nor does contradictory societal culture and law enforcement let them off the moral hook.

Of course, parents must teach their children what they themselves sincerely believe to be true, and it would be wrong for them to teach their child to believe what they themselves believe to be untrue. However, I repeat, that is not the question here. Perhaps it’s a too subtle distinction? In any case, I hope you’ll forgive my repetition in trying to convey it one more time.

The question here is whether it’s morally correct for the parent deliberately to indoctrinate their child to adopt those beliefs in such a way as to deprive that child of freedom of choice.

(FWIW, I suppose the really big underlying question of morality here hinges on whether you feel the adoption of a religion should or should not be a matter of free choice. I understand most Christians claim we should all be free to choose to allow Jesus Christ into our hearts and lives- that accepting the faith must be a willing and free, informed decision. If so, their indoctrination of their own children is the hypocritical and immoral antithesis of this.)