Indoctrination: the act of indoctrinating, or teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view – Dictionary.com
I found this graphic on an Internet atheism community, so it’s obviously aimed squarely at people of faith. The inference is clear: believing in a loving creator is false, so the only way to make it acceptable is to brainwash young minds that don’t know any better.
If that’s true, then how does one explain Rosalind Picard? According to Wikipedia, she’s a professor of media arts and sciences at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Picard is also director and founder of the Affective Computing Research Group at the MIT Media Lab, co-director of the Things That Think Consortium, and chief scientist and co-founder of Affectiva, an emotion measurement technology company.
Here’s the kicker: Picard, 53, says she was raised an atheist, but converted to Christianity as a young adult. So is it fair to say she was indoctrinated to believe there is no God? And if that’s true, why did this brilliant scientific mind go in the opposite direction – and stay there?
Let’s be honest here: absolutely EVERYONE gets certain ideas hammered into their minds while they’re young and defenceless. Deny it all you want, but think hard about your own life.
- If you live in a developed country, wasn’t it likely you were indoctrinated with the virtues of capitalism and democracy?
- If your father abandoned your mother at a very young age, isn’t it possible you were indoctrinated to believe that he (and often, by extension, all men) are self-centred and irresponsible?
- If you live in certain Middle Eastern countries, isn’t it quite feasible that you were indoctrinated to think of the United States — and by extension, the entire “west” — as immoral and evil?
In each of these cases, the truth didn’t matter very much. The world was seen through biased eyes, just as I believe the graphic that sparked this essay was created with a deep-seeded bias.
So, if you’ve given this some thought and realize you’ve had a long bias against following Jesus Christ (whom serious Christians believe is the divine Son of God), then maybe this is the time to investigate this whole Christianity thing with an open mind.
Why Christianity and not other faiths? Consider these facts:
1. Eight hugely important predictions about Jesus, made in the Bible’s Old Testament, came true. Among these were where Jesus was born, the fact He would be betrayed by a friend, that He would be crucified and that He would be resurrected.
2. Jesus said that He alone was the Way, the Truth, and the Life and that no one can find God without Him. Nice claim, but what backs it up? The Bible details all kinds of miracles performed by Jesus, including healing diseases, restoring sight, feeding thousands of people with just a few loaves of bread & fish and coming back from the dead.
3. As the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (www.carm.org) explains, “Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Krishna did not rise from the dead. Only Jesus has physically risen from the dead, walked on water, claimed to be God and raised others from the dead. Why trust anyone else?”
So what makes all this credible? Simply read about the life of one of Jesus’s most devoted followers, Paul of Tarsus. I write about him, and how he is a testament to Jesus’s reality, here: http://wp.me/p2wzRb-g3
The fact that people are indoctrinated with other things doesn’t make any of it right. That one scientist converted to belief doesn’t indicate in any way that all people will find it convincing. Let’s compare apples to apples: how many people who are indoctrinated with belief grow up to learn about science and stop believing? That number has provoked believers to think their faith/religion is in a crisis. So one scientist converting to belief is just an outlier in what is otherwise a huge trend the other way. The fact remains that the existence of any god, not just yours, remains as not self evident and indoctrination is the only way that religions keep their ranks full.
If a god, any god, were self evident there would be no need for religious education – it would be called science and history education. There is a reason that it is called religious education. That reason is because it’s not science and it’s not history. Religious belief, by definition, concerns itself with that which is not self evident; that which is not part of the natural world.
Teaching people stuff for which there is zero credible evidence and charging them for the education is generally called a scam. Religion seems to get a special treatment on this but that IMO is mostly because religious people are or have been very violent people. Just ask the Danbury Baptists, American Indians, Mayans, Incas, and pretty much every indigenous people on this planet. When the Christian ‘church’ was first organized and the texts codified, what do you imagine was one of the first things that was done with it? Violence. See the life and times of Constantine.
Remember that there is more to religion than your particular sect. While you might feel that your sect is not part of that equation the rest of the world has to deal with your sect as part of a much larger situation. Your sect is a minority and no matter how big you think it is, it stands in opposition to other similar sects and all those which are very different rather than just non-believers.
If the evidence for your god was all that and a bag of chips, there would be converts every day from other religions because those people really really want to believe. Clearly your god is no better than those other gods, your sect is no better than those other sects. The one thing that all the sects have in common is that they can’t produce credible evidence of any kind for the existence of their god. Indoctrination is the only hope they have of keeping their sect from dying out.
If a believer wants to prove their sect and their god are the true belief, true god they will have to convince not just atheists but the majority of the population that don’t believe in their religion and god. When you can start doing that to the point it is measurable and significant then you’ll have the attention of atheists. I double dog super swear dare you to do that.
Thanks for your thoughts. I have no interest in addressing your first point, since that’s not what the essay is about.
Point 2: There is plenty of evidence for God, such as this planet and the universe. But it’s been my experience that people who don’t want to believe will always find a way to justify their non-belief.
Point 3: “Teaching people stuff for which there is zero credible evidence and charging them for the education is generally called a scam.” Absolutely. And please note, this essay is NOT about “religion”. It’s about faith in Jesus Christ. Some people see no difference. I do and I’ve explained the difference several times on this website (for example, see: http://wp.me/p2wzRb-I).
Point 4: “Clearly your god is no better than those other gods, your sect is no better than those other sects.” The only thing this “clearly” is, is the *opinion* of a committed atheist. I have no trouble with opinions. But I have issues when opinions are passed off as fact.
Point 5: “If a believer wants to prove their sect and their god are the true belief, true god they will have to convince not just atheists but the majority of the population that don’t believe in their religion and god.” I have ZERO interest in “proving” my faith in Christ. It’s not provable. It will NEVER be provable in a scientific, mathematical way. It’s a mix of evidence and faith. Some people hate faith; that’s their choice, not mine.
As I’ve written before, while everyone is welcome to visit and read Frank’s Cottage content, this website is clearly for people who are open to spirituality. By its very definition, atheism is not. So I’m puzzled as to why you are here and responding. Am I missing something?