The Difference Between Education and Indoctrination

[cleanhippie]

The difference between education and indoctrination is vast, but it is often subtle when the mind thinks of these two subjects. Education involves the seeking of facts, and learning about what is the truth, and what is not. Indoctrination is aimed at influencing people to believe in facts, without being able to back up these newfound facts with anything but opinion.

--snip--

Education uses statistical analysis to encourage thought toward reasoning, and proposed solution finding. Indoctrination often uses statistics, but has offered no analysis of size, duration, control subjects, criteria, or duration of the gathering of those statistics. Thus, the statistics offered through indoctrination are simply misrepresented, and are used only to support the beliefs being posed. Any statistics that might dispute the beliefs are not brought to attention.

Education is unbiased. It is founded in fact, and isn’t there to persuade anyone to come up with a certain belief. Education is development of one’s own beliefs based on the facts that are discovered throughout the process. Indoctrination has an agenda. It is used to encourage the embracing of another’s beliefs, and developing blinding and complete agreement with those beliefs.

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-education-and-indoctrination/#ixzz1I0Sja7X1

----------------------------------------------------------


The difference between religious education and religious indoctrination, ESPECIALLY when talking about children, is an important subject.

Should parents have the right to INDOCTRINATE their children into the religion that THEY believe, or can it be considered a form of brainwashing and child abuse? I think it is the latter.

[humblebum]

1. Kinda describes militant atheism too, doesn't it? nt

[Goblinmonger]

2. It's your strawman, you can describe it how you want, I guess. n/t

[cleanhippie]

3. Only in your world.

Considering only you and other apologists use that term (and give it your own meaning).


But we both know where the true problem lies, and its right in your lap.

[humblebum]

5. That term is a very old term and was first coined by atheists themselves,

but then you already knew that, and it is as true today as it was then.

[cleanhippie]

6. I see you put that broken record back on the turntable.

:nuke:

[humblebum]

8. No more so than you have just done. How about comparing the

anti-religious post here against anti-atheistic posts? Then we shall see who sounds like the broken record.

[cleanhippie]

9. Yawn.

Your stick is old, tired and worn-out.

[humblebum]

13. And it is also true and one that you are unable to argue against.

And you think your stick is not old and worn out? Like I said, let's compare anti-atheistic posts to anti-religious posts and see who scores the most.

[cleanhippie]

14. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

[WolverineDG]

4. also leaves the distinctions between the two open to interpretation

because as seen in the other thread, the OP clearly believes that anything parents wish to teach their child about God is "indoctrination" if the parents aren't atheists.

dg

[cleanhippie]

7. I guess you really do not know the difference between the two.

Teaching and indoctrination are two mutually exclusive activities (regardless of subject matter). We can discuss this further once you have that concept mastered.

[WolverineDG]

24. I do know the difference between the two, as you "define" them

"Indoctrination" is teaching anything you are against. "Teaching" is teaching anything you are for. Since you believe all religion is wrong, there is no such thing as religious "teaching," unless it's to teach children there is no God. Anything else, to you, is all "indoctrination."

dg

[cleanhippie]

25. You seem to already have all the answers, and are not open to a reasonable discussion.

Such a shame.

You know, "teaching children that there is no god" would also be indoctrination, but your apparent hatred of anyone who would express an opinion different that yours seems to have hindered your ability to have a reasonable conversation about it.

[WolverineDG]

28. I don't hate anyone

And as for "reasonable discussion," it seems that the only people you think have "reasonable discussions" with you are those who agree with everything you say.

dg

[cleanhippie]

29. Well, for the record, I am attempting to do that, but your intentional obtuseness is hindering us.

Since you seem to not like the way indoctrination and education have been defined here, how do YOU differentiate the two?

[WolverineDG]

31. No, what you are attempting to do is get everyone to agree with your definitions

& since I already know (from reading other posts of yours) that you believe any religious training to be "indoctrination" & "brainwashing," what's the point of going further?

Funny how you've projected all of your issues onto me...hatred, obtuseness....I stand with what I said in the beginning: The activities described (children walking through campus, handing out pamphlets about the "End of the World") are protected under the First Amendment & do not fall into the category of "child abuse" or "indoctrination." A similar activity involving children walking through campus handing out pamphlets stating that there is no God would likewise be protected under the First Amendment & also not "child abuse" or "indoctrination."

The difference between you & me is that I would stand up for the rights of the parents & children in the second example, even though I believe in God, whereas you would have the parents in the first example labelled as "child abusers" based on nothing more than your own opinion.

dg

[cleanhippie]

33. You left one part out.

I already know (from reading other posts of yours) that you believe any religious training to be "indoctrination" & "brainwashing

of CHILDREN. Thats an important distinction. We are talking about children here, not adults.

[WolverineDG]

40. And again, the difference between you & me

is that I would stand up for someone's rights, even if I do not agree with them, whereas you would not.

dg

[cleanhippie]

41. I see you have devolved into ad hominem attacks. That usually happens when your argument fails

I will chalk this one up to me.

[WolverineDG]

43. Ah, the old "ad hominem" accusation attack

:rofl:

Projection didn't work, so I guess that's all that was left for you to say.

And pointing out the fact that I choose to stand up for people's rights while you choose not to when you don't like/agree with them is not "ad hominem."

dg

[darkstar3]

44. You're standing up for the parents' rights,

and obviously have no concern for the rights of the children. How very authoritarian.

[WolverineDG]

50. I'm standing up for your constitutional rights

because, last time I checked, all parents have the same rights to direct their children's religious & moral upbringing without any interference from busybodies wanting everyone to believe the same thing (be they fundie righties or fundie lefties).

dg

[darkstar3]

53. And what about the constitutional rights of the children?

Are they to be abridged in favor of the parents'?

[cleanhippie]

47. No accusation, your attempt to question my character is demonstrable by your own words.

The very definition of ad homenim.



:shrug:

[WolverineDG]

51. It's based on observation

I thought you were all about basing opinions on observation.

:shrug:

dg

[cleanhippie]

55. So you admit it is an ad homenim. Got it. We agree that you cannot support your argument then.

:shrug:

If you could, this would not be about me, but about the topic.

[laconicsax]

49. You made the argument about cleanhippie, so yeah, that's an ad hominem.

[WolverineDG]

52. Uh, no. nt

[darkstar3]

54. Uh, yeah, #40.

[laconicsax]

56. "And again, the difference between you & me

is that I would stand up for someone's rights, even if I do not agree with them, whereas you would not."

Your comment #40.
Would you like to explain how this isn't arguing about the person?

Also, in your comment #31,

The difference between you & me is that I would stand up for the rights of the parents & children in the second example, even though I believe in God, whereas you would have the parents in the first example labelled as "child abusers" based on nothing more than your own opinion.

I may not be a "better than average attorney," but I do know that this is also an ad hominem attack.

[humblebum]

34. You have a habit of using that "hate" accusation when you're in a pinch.

pathetic

[darkstar3]

35. If you think you've ever put anyone here in a pinch,

then to quote Lewis black: "you've lost your goddamn mind!"

[humblebum]

37. I think you just proved my point. nt

[darkstar3]

38. You didn't have a point I could possibly prove,

but you do provide evidence of, shall we say, insanity?

[cleanhippie]

39. Are you stalking me now?

I think you have an obsession, bum.

[darkstar3]

36. Your hyperbole serves nothing, did you know that?

Your characterization of cleanhippie's POV serves no purpose here except to inflame. It is possible, easily so, to educate children about religion and faith without indoctrinating them. The method, however, requires that you clearly delineate between your personally held opinions and the facts of today's current religions.

It also requires that you steer quickly away from hyperbole, and persecution complexes.

[WolverineDG]

42. More projection :yawn: nt

[darkstar3]

45. I don't think that word means what you think it means. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

30. What is militant atheism? Can you give an example? nt

[Iggo]

57. N'uch thing.

[Bad Thoughts]

10. What about indoctrination to something else,

say the English language? A language assumes stable definitions that everyone shares, whether they speak a different language or another. It encourages the learner to see the world in a specific way. It's no surprise to me that xenophobes of all stripes want linguistic purity in the most unrealistic sense.

[cleanhippie]

11. Certainly you see the difference between teaching the english languge in order to be able to speak

it and indoctrinating children to think that they should only learn English because it is superior to all other languages and that other languages are evil, depraved or harmful.

[Bad Thoughts]

15. I understand the difference

Language is not like the religious instruction about which you are writing, but it nevertheless shapes the mentality of the learner. It's not simply a matter of learning the letters, words and grammar. Indeed, linguists will admit that it is a form of cultural education as well as a way of shaping cognition.

[cleanhippie]

17. Well, perhaps that a thought for a different thread. Lets stay on topic.

This is getting away from the OP. Want to discuss that aspect?

[Bad Thoughts]

19. I want to discuss what you mean by indoctrination

The post you quote states, "Indoctrination is aimed at influencing people to believe in facts, without being able to back up these newfound facts with anything but opinion." It attempts to describe something about religion based upon the distinction that it offers between indoctrination and education. I find the distinction weak. There are many forms of instruction that do what the post claims is indoctrination. They do not offer critical thinking. Language is one example, perhaps the one that is most widespread. Of course, with more education, particularly in foreign languages, someone might come up with a more sophisticated understanding of language. The same could be said of religion.

[darkstar3]

22. That's crap.

To claim that language instruction does not offer or require critical thinking is total crap. Vocabulary and spelling may require rote recitation, but syntax and grammar, inference and implication, analysis and rebuttal, all require significant critical thinking.

[cleanhippie]

23. Ok, so lets talk about it.

Lets discuss the distinction.

You brought up language, and I differentiated between teaching a language and indoctrinating someone into a language as a part of a culture indoctrination process.

You also stated you understood the difference between the two, so what is it we are discussing here? I have the feeling that you are trying to be a bit obtuse here for the purposes of argument, and your argument seems to be a Non sequitur, which is why I asked we stick to the topic of the OP.

And to address your desire to discuss what I mean by indoctrination, I think both the OP and my responses have made it very clear exactly what I mean.

[darkstar3]

12. Oh for crying out loud.

Language "encourages the learner to see the world in a specific way"?? Next you'll tell us that 2+2=4 is indoctrination because you're locking the learner's mind onto a single concept of "2".

Oy...

[Bad Thoughts]

16. You need to read some linguistic theory. eom.

[Goblinmonger]

18. yeah, yeah, yeah

Metaphors We Live By and all that. I understand. Any alternative to the learning of language? Perhaps you can discuss how the impact of language and the "decision" to teach that language is the same as making a kid grow up to be a specific religion just because that is the religion you either grew up in or chose for yourself.

[Bad Thoughts]

20. I am not trying to discredit language learning.

Keep trying to outflank.

[Goblinmonger]

21. No, you're trying to discredit the distinction in the OP

which would discredit the application of indoctrination to religion. That all seems pretty clear. You use language as an example that we indoctrinate all the time in order to minimize the indoctrination discussed in the OP. My point, which you don't respond to, is that the distinction is pretty clear. I asked you to clarify why you think it isn't.

Who's trying to outflank whom?

[Bad Thoughts]

26. ...

The distinction is not clear because it is applicable to many forms of instruction at the lower levels, teaching simplicity and recitation rather than complexity. Language, science math, history, are bound to involve more critical thinking at college at beyond. The same holds true for religion. We've known for one hundred years that Newtonian physics isn't an accurate explanation of gravity, just a useful mathematical model. Yet only a small number of students in high school will learn that the reality of physics is much more complex. Indeed, relativity (not to mention quantum physics) will be encountered with indifference by those who learn no more, perhaps even hostility. (If if the truth were told, most people could get by with good ole Aristotle in their daily lives.) Language is a useful example because it shapes mentality, not only before such things as culture, religion and politics, but in essence laying the groundwork for them. English itself is well-disposed to preparing someone to accept the tenets of Christianity. Other philosophical and religious perspective--even atheism--are problematized by their relationship. Language is not like culture, a very tightly defined logic. Now if language shapes the way someone sees the world, then how language is instructed at the lowest levels could fall under the stated definition of indoctrination. Many types of instruction tell the student what the world is like, but I would not normally call them indoctrination. I would not say that religious instruction is necessarily indoctrination either. Of course, we are all familiar with strains of nearly all religion that attempt to tightly control what the individual believes as a means of tightly controlling the individual. Christianity and Islam, perhaps because they stress peculiar ways of knowing the truth (what they call Faith), are predisposed to such instruction. However, there are forms of religious pedagogy that encourage the individual to discover the natural world and question the tenets of the religion. Doubt is not a challenge as it is in Christianity and Islam. Much deeper analysis of what is being taught and a more sophisticated understanding of what counts for indoctrination, measuring the intent and deception. My critique is only a problem because it might deny a blanket equating of religion with indoctrination.

[cleanhippie]

32. I think you are (intentionally?) missing the point here.

You make a great argument, but not for the topic.

[Bad Thoughts]

46. If the intention is to equate religious ed with indoctrination ...

... than how indoctrination is measured and understood is completely a propos. Moreover, it is necessary to do so against other forms of instruction.

[cleanhippie]

48. Actually, I am saying there is a difference between religious ed and indoctrination.

Not equating, differentiating.

[humblebum]

27. I am assuming you have been educated to some extent in philology? NT

[Jim__]

58. "Education is unbiased." - Nonsense.

Look at the recent squabble over the Texas textbook standards. Take history as an example. They want to look at figures from the conservative resurgence of the 80s, playdown the study of slavery in early America, include more information on Jefferson Davis. Biased? Sure. But, what about the textbooks that chose to teach different information? Textbooks that had more information on slavery in early America, information on the protests of the 60s, more information on the Vietnam War. Biased? Sure. Whatever is taught about history at an elementary level is just a selection of some set of historical facts over another set of historical facts; and so, a biased selection. Do you then claim that there is no history education at an elementary level? Not if you're realistic. There is history education at an elementary level, and that education is always somewhat biased.

And, of course, there are examples in many other subjects. And, to claim that there is no elementary education in any of these subjects but only indoctrination, is nonsense.

And, yes, parents have a right to teach their children about their religion; just as atheists have a right to teach their children that there is no god. Children can only begin to form mature opinions about the world after they have formed some primitive opinions about the world. Trying to keep them from forming these primitive opinions, or telling parents that they can't teach their children what the parents believe about the world, is just idiotic.

[cleanhippie]

59. Your last paragraph demonstrates you may have the two confused.

And, yes, parents have a right to teach their children about their religion; just as atheists have a right to teach their children that there is no god.

Teaching children ABOUT their religion is education, teaching children there is no god is indoctrination.
It does work both ways.


I, personally, advocate the teaching of Freethought, as it is the best way to teach learning principles without imposing our own biases onto our children, but instead give them the tools with with to evaluate the world and form their own opinions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought

[Jim__]

60. If we must quibble: Parents have the right to teach their children their religion. - n/t

[cleanhippie]

61. On that I am not in disagreement. Teaching about it is fine.

That is educating. Indoctrinating, as in "this is the way it is because it says so in the bible, so don't question it", is not teaching.