Education vs Indoctrination
If you are a Christian and have watched the above video, I would ask that you imagine a similar video released by an Islamic group. Imagine that they stated that the best way to spread their beliefs would be to target children because “if a human does not hear about Mohammed as a child, they will most likely never follow him”.
And they’d be correct.
Almost all people who are religious have adopted the religion they were exposed to while they were children. It is undeniable that this is the most effective way to spread religious belief. Children are sponges.
Now, I’m confident that the maker/s of this video had nothing but the best of intentions when they outlined this strategy; they are likely convinced that nothing but good can come from introducing children to the teachings of Jesus and to ensure their eternal salvation by doing so.
Here are my thoughts on a more ethical approach:
If they are your own children or if you are their caregiver then I can think of no better gift than teaching children how to think rather than what to think. If you believe something to be true but you are aware that there is some controversy then, by all means, let them know what you believe but make an effort to present the alternatives. And let them know that they are entitled to make up their own minds in their own time.
If they are not your children (i.e. the ones targeted in this video) then leave them alone. Feel free to provide aid for the needy, even basic education, but please don’t turn their minds into your personal battleground. The best you can hope for is that their caregivers exercise the same restraint when it comes to the spreading of their personal beliefs.
“Don’t do to other people’s children what you wouldn’t want people to do to your own”.
Tags: children, education, indoctrination
Not only am I curious how you can teach a child how to think without (either implicitly or explicitly) in some way also teaching them what to think (though that may not be what you’re suggesting), I also have no problem whatsoever with teaching children what to think.
I suspect the real issue for you here is not that children are taught what to think (which happens all the time), but what they are taught to think. In other words, it’s really not about the age of the one being taught at all, it’s about the content of the teaching that you appear to be concerned about.
Content (of whatever worth – or lack thereof) will be (for better or worse) taught to young children. The difference is not found in teaching or not teaching, but in good content and bad content. Action point: teach children good content.
(tangent: I personally think one of the most important forms of teaching for children is the example that is modelled for them by their parents/care-givers/teachers/etc. I quite like the adage ‘more is caught than is taught‘…)
…and please understand that I am in 115% agreement that it is absolutely vital to teach children how to think.
I like the approach taken in Dawkins’ prayer for his daughter which analyses why people think certain ways – evidence, tradition, authority and revelation. It should be possible to convey a body of knowledge and categorise the processes of these according to the different approaches. Dawkins finishes off his advice to his 10 year-old daughter:
“Next time somebody tells you something that sounds important, think to yourself: ‘Is this the kind of thing that people probably know because of evidence? Or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition, authority or revelation?’ And, next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: ‘What kind of evidence is there for that?’ And if they can’t give you a good answer, I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say.”
Cheers chaps. (Ken, I really like that Dawkins letter!)
Dale, my angle was for topics that are contested by different, but considered, opinions. Politics is a great example of this. Recently the topic of politics came up between myself and a young fella I know and I shied away from telling him who my particular preference in politics was and tried to treat all parties fairly. The topic of religion has also come up and, once again, I’ve tried to remain as neutral as possible (he doesn’t know I am an atheist).
I guess I’d differentiate the what to think from the how to think as being the difference between me saying that my particular political party is the best and presenting the facts about the various political parties. Similarly, when it comes to religion, I refuse to tell children that atheism is the best but would not hesitate to impart as many facts about the various religions (as well as non-religion).
I mentioned that if you are the parent or caregiver that there’s even room to tell children what your preferences are but even this I am cautious of. Of course, they usually figure it out at some stage anyway.
My real beef is with “the great commission” (where the stated purpose is to spread the faith, not just aid) being targeted at 2/3 of the world’s children. Especially where the aim appears to blatantly be to tell them that “Christianity is the best”.
In essence, my plea is to teach those we are responsible for the facts as we know them but include any reasonable alternatives (this way, if we are mistaken, they’ll at least have the chance at correcting that mistake in their own lives). And to treat the children of others as we’d have others treat our own children – which pretty much rules out proselytising in anyone’s books.
Hmm… it appears like your suggesting a (mostly?) opinion-detached approach where the only permissible things to teach young children are things that are ‘factual’ (or in Dawkins’ prayer – supported by ‘evidence’). A ‘dispassionate’ approach?
Not only will they (as you say) ‘figure it out at some stage anyway’ (I actually think the best approach is to be quite up front about your own beliefs about things), I also think it important to realise that in choosing the ‘fact/evidence’ approach, you are (just presenting another perspective here) ‘indoctrinating’ the children with an epistemological framework in which ‘facts/evidence’ are the most important source for knowing. (and that’s to say nothing about the problems with the word ‘evidence’; of which there are many kinds)
Now, again, I’m not intending to -by default- defend each and every Christian’s understanding of what the ‘great commission’ is. I am deeply and passionately concerned about the approach of many which seems characterised by a pushing and persuading young children (or people of any age for that matter!) to give mental/propositional assent to a statement of belief – and has no instructional (let alone modeled) imperative to actually care for others. I think that’s not the great commission, but a great distortion – and very possibly the kind of thing Jesus rebuked some Pharisees for: “…you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice a son of hell as yourselves!”
The great commission (a phrase not in scripture, of course), is to preach the gospel to all nations, teaching them to obey Jesus’ commandments, which are summed up in the 1st and 2nd commandments – and (as Paul says) in one word – love. This is far more than selling one’s religion as ‘the best’…
But, again, it’s about the quality of the content being taught, not whether or not we should teach them what to think. For some, the quality of this content will be determined by how ‘factual’ or ‘evidence-based’ (but again, which kind?) it is… I do not hesitate to acknowledge such criterion, but there are many others as well.
I suspect there is much overlap in the kind of thing that truly and deeply scares us (case in point – ‘Jesus Camp’ doco). But ruling out non-factual/’evidential’ teaching says more about the epistemological position you’ll influence the children with than it says about what’s best for them to learn.
(sorry – rambled a bit – i do that sometimes…)
Dale, I’m not sure whether you are arguing for the sake of it or whether I’ve genuinely misread the kind of person you are in the few times we’ve met.
If you were in a situation where you and your family were in great need, would you be happy to have Muslims offering aid only to learn that the driving motivation for them was to target your children in order to “get them while they’re young”? This is essentially what this video is proposing but in reverse. And you’re defending this??
So far I’ve been careful to distinguish a fairly relaxed attitude toward parents teaching their own kids (i.e. do the best we can but try not to hem them in; see “If you believe something to be true…” in the original post) and focussed instead on the deliberate targeting of other people’s children in an effort to gain converts (which this video is clearly about).
I was sort of expecting your response to this topic to be along the lines of “yeah, if I ever heard someone giving this message in church I’d have to set them straight”. I’m a little bit perplexed that I may have misjudged you.
maybe both!?
(joking) see comments to follow…
First, I think anyone in great need would appreciate aid regardless of mixed motivations. The video isn’t answering the questions you’re asking of it. It’s not having the ‘aid v. gospel’ conversation that you’re comments imply. My own view is that a choice between ‘aid’ and ‘gospel’ is a false choice. If someone is starving and you only give them words about Jesus, that ceases to be the gospel of Jesus, and becomes spreading ‘christian ideas’. But it seems utterly ridiculous to suggest that a person feeding someone in urgent need cannot (at the same time) tell them about Jesus. So, again, whilst I’m not 100% convinced about the approach reflected in the video, I (again) think the real issue is not whether or not children are taught what to believe, but the quality of what they are taught to believe.
…and I think my last comment makes it fairly clear how I feel about the ‘convert-gaining-only’ (i.e. proselytising) approach. To be crystal clear, in my view, if it’s only information about Jesus you’re trying to get young children to ‘accept’, that’s anything but the gospel of Jesus.
If by ‘this message’ you mean the message reflected in the video, then I honestly don’t think it’s that shocking. I see nothing wrong with a focussed effort on getting the message about Jesus to young children. But (here’s the key, methinks) the reason I see nothing wrong with it is because I think it is good – AND because I’m assuming (giving them the benefit of the doubt, I suppose?) that one thing (among many) they are NOT saying is “look, don’t really bother about meeting urgent needs such as food, clothing, grammar, literacy, clean water, etc. – just make sure they have a chance to tick the Jesus box before they turn 12…” Now, maybe you are NOT assuming that… if so, I’m interested in which bits of the video make you think that they have such a sick and narrow mindset?
Just to reiterate/clarify, I don’t give 100% agreement to the approach of the video. I’m far too picky for that. The main reason for commenting was that I didn’t see the cause for outrage – or to (implicitly) suggest that telling young children about jesus = ‘indoctrination’ (at least in the sense you likely mean it… ‘doctrine’ simply is a word meaning ‘teaching’, so any impartation of any teaching will be –grammatically– an ‘indoctrination’ – but you know what I mean).
re: “you’re comments imply” (embarrasing!)
The definition of ‘indoctrination’ I’m using here is “teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically”. Under this definition not all forms of teaching are identical. And not all forms of target audience are identical.
I presume that you agree with me that children are far less able to think critically than adults. If you tell them something is true they are more likely to accept it even if it is incorrect. The fact that many contradictory religions exist in the world today in clearly defined family and cultural boundaries should be a testament to the lasting power of indoctrination.
This video sets the scene by highlighting the number of people who’ve not “heard the message”. I then goes on to suggest a winning strategy and that is to target the children because “if a human does not hear about Jesus as a child, they will most likely never follow him”. Here they acknowledge the power of proselytising to people who lack the ability to weigh all the options and think critically. According to the video, 60-80% of all ‘responses’ (I presume they really mean ‘conversions’) to proselytising is by children under 15. For this reason they say “our first challenge in the Great Commission is to aim at a lower age”.
This video is not about tending to the bodily needs of the oppressed and the sick. It is entirely about spreading Christianity to those who lack the ability to discern. Outwardly it’s a deeply cynical move. But I’ve been there and I know that what can seem cynical can stem from genuine motives (after all, what can be more genuine than wanting to saving someone from hell?).
Given the opportunity to indoctrinate children from all over the world into my atheistic worldview (which I believe to be the closest to the truth – otherwise I wouldn’t hold it) I would decline because I don’t think children should inherit what I believe. I think they should come to their own conclusions in their own time. I’d rather a child grow up only to chose Christianity of their own accord than being indoctrinated into my atheistic worldview. Why? because then any decision would be their decision and I think the world is a richer place for having people capable to making up their own minds rather than blindly following what they’ve been told to think.
In retrospect it doesn’t surprise me that you’d feel duty-bound to support such a cause but can’t you see how unfair it is to target children in this manner? Does your sense of loyalty to any cause in the name of Christianity blind you to what they’re suggesting here?
Surely I don’t need (yet again) to say that I don’t 100% support the approach reflected in the video. I hope that’s clear…
I just don’t see the cause for outrage. Yes, young children are easily persuaded and don’t think as critically as educated adults, etc. This puts the ‘teacher’ (of whatever kind of content) in a place of much power. With great power comes great responsibility. Teachers have the responsibility to teach good things.
For me, it’s not a matter of teach them or don’t teach them (or ‘target’ them or don’t ‘target’ them), but rather when you teach (or ‘target’) them – do it well, and with their best interest in mind.
So, the real beef you’ve got, methinks, is whether or not it’s good for young children to be taught about Jesus (which, frustratingly for me, would of course depend on which kind of ‘Jesus’ was being taught – hopefully the ‘love your enemies’ kind!).
Please understand, I’m not for brain-washing kids or using guilt/fear/scare-tactics to get them to ‘make a decision’, etc. That’s immensely angering to me. But teaching young children about Jesus is something I totally support – becaus I think the message about Jesus is good. Why wait?
Dale, I have no issue whatsoever with teaching other people’s children about Jesus. Just as I don’t have an issue with teaching other people’s children about Islam or capitalism or communism or atheism. Providing these children’s parents or caregivers are in agreement.
Remember, we’re not talking about our children here. We’re talking about the 2/3rds of the world’s children who don’t have access to the gospel – i.e. in continents like Africa and Asia, etc.
I do have an issue with proselytising to other people’s children throughout the world. This video does not suggest spreading education, its goal is the conversion of children (who lack discernment) to Christianity. You say you don’t 100% support this approach but what percentage of it do you support? 80%? 10%?
I find it unethical to attempt to convert children to my political or religious views because I believe that we live richer lives when we are free to make our own decisions. Childhood indoctrination reduces these choices.
It seems I have misjudged your character. I’d thought you’d also see this as an underhanded way of spreading religion.
perhaps yet more clarifications are necessary then…
Maybe we have different definitions of proselytisation? For me, ‘conversion’ is far deeper and more holistic than a change of boxes ticked for ‘religious affiliation’. Jesus himself did not seem to have too high a view of the ‘proselyte[convert]-making’ strategy; he wanted disciples/followers. The main problem I have with the approach of this video, is that (and I admit this is reading in-between the lines, a bit) it appears to be a tad (to coin a phrase) ‘box-tick-ish’. My problem (perhaps like you?) is not that they want to teach young children about Jesus, instead my problem would be the ‘decision-getting’, narrowed understanding of the gospel that may well be behind this video.
Using this terminology, allow me to make a distinction between ‘teaching’ and ‘indoctrination’.
I would see indoctrination as characterised by a forceful, manipulative approach/technique that takes away the free choice of the children (or anyone for that matter). It is forcefulness and manipulation that takes away –or drastically reduces– free choice.
I would see teaching as characterised by an approach where the free choice remains intact.
I think the main difference is that you appear to think that ‘the conversion of children to Christianity’ is a bad goal. I think it’s perfectly fine to seek to share the life and teachings of Jesus with young children and to see them come to identify with this – as long as it’s not done in a manipulative and choice-denying way (i.e. ‘indoctrination’). From the video, we have no clear indication at all as to the amount of forcefulness the teaching is to be given with. In other words, we have no idea if the video is sponsoring ‘indoctrination’. We have no reason for outrage.
I do. And so do I believe that ‘the conversion of children to atheism’ is a bad goal. Even though I truly believe it to be closer to the truth than Christianity and that people, on the whole, are better served by truth.
The video identifies a tendency for children to be more receptive in ‘responding’ (i.e. 60-80%). It also identifies the problem that they are less likely to become followers if not introduced as children. It then goes on to advocate a strategy to better fulfil what they call ‘the great commission’ and that is to target these children.
Like I said previously, I’m using the definition of ‘indoctrination’ as being “teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically”. This doesn’t require forcefulness. All it requires is presenting belief as fact to children who are unable to think critically and to not present any of the valid arguments otherwise.
So, I find it hard not to see the intent of this video as indoctrination. Perhaps you should let me take some Sunday School classes at your church for a year or so? I’ll use exactly the same methods as suggested in this video but with a slightly different message and we’ll see how ethical you find it. I mean, there at least it would be almost fair game as the children would be regularly ‘de-programmed’ by their parents afterwards. In a third world country imagine the converts I could gain! Can I have some aid funding to go with that? (Disclaimer: my conscience wouldn’t let me follow through with this generous offer.)
I’ll give you the last word mate.
Well, it feels a bit pre-mature to call for final statements, but both of us probably have better things to do with our time, so fair enough…
I’m not seeing how communicating “the life and teachings of Jesus with young children and to see them come to identify with this” (my words) equates to “teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically” (your words). Nowhere in the video is the uncritical acceptance of doctrines mentioned. The video doesn’t go there.
As for the example of you teaching Sunday School, as long as you weren’t forceful (i.e. ‘indoctrinating’), it would be a perfectly ethical form of communication/teaching, though –due to the content– (‘a slightly different message’) it would obviously not be respectful of the wishes of the parents (which is a concern you share with me).
The point here is that teaching/instruction becomes unethical (and then worthy of outrage) only when it is forceful/manipulative. And if we’re not talking about the method of teaching, then we’re talking content – and that’s another conversation.
(as usual, i’m open to further discussion – conversations don’t always end in mutual agreement, but it’s always desirable to at least have mutual understanding, which I’m not sure we’ve achieved yet – this being [only] the 15th comment)