SOUL and SUBSTANCE: Exploring Faith vs. Indoctrination

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this blog is four-fold:
(1) to recognize that every person functions within a basic paradigm, which affects how all information is processed;
(2) to understand the paradigms of others;
(3) to discuss, in particular, paradigms which are related to science, religion, and philosophy.
(4) to reveal the paradigm shifts in my own life, a process that has completely changed the direction and purpose of my existence.

The purpose of this blog is NOT to convince anyone that their paradigms or beliefs are correct or incorrect. I am hoping for an honest dialog, but the discussions must remain respectful of others, even if there is profound disagreement. If any comments are not respectful, they will be removed.
(Revised 1/13/09)

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Exploring Faith vs. Indoctrination

Harold, in an earlier post, you mentioned being concerned about children who are indoctrinated with a certain belief system at a young age. It seems that children start out accepting all the social and religious beliefs of "The Family," without question--the family's "paradigm," if you will. That would be part of being a child. However, at some point, all normal children start to question the paradigm in which they have grown up. It goes both ways. There are plenty of stories of children raised in households with atheist parents, and who grow up to be devout Christians. There are also many stories of children raised by parents with a strong Christian faith, but who walk completely away from Christianity. Think of some of the recent news stories about Americans who converted to the radical-Muslim faith of Al Quaida.

This issue brings up brings up the question of Faith vs. Indoctrination. By definition, indoctrination is "teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically." [WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University].

Faith, in the context of religion, is defined as "-1-Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing; or -2-Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." [The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth EditionCopyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved].

At face value, these concepts would seem almost synonymous. However, most Christians I know question their faith many times over the course of a life-time, and with every challenge, their faith ends up stronger than it was before. Now, I have personal knowledge of how and why this happens in the life of a Christian. What I don't know is how it happens with other religions, and I am very interested in finding out. I will do a little research on it myself, and I hope that some others reading this blog, who adhere to other faiths, will give us some insight.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...: I would say that there are a lot of religions, like Christianity, that act in a developmental nature with a person and their faith.

Christianity has a level of determinism where the God figure is claimed to be omniscient. At the same time, the value of faith is based on a system of free will.

Any rite of passage or personal experience (especially a near-death experience) that's strong enough to impact our psyche will reaffirm the faith of an ardent believer. They may feel a radiating sense of well-being and belonging. This is healthy for our psychological development.

Extreme sport enthusiasts can feel more alive and think that they were somehow predetermined to live through the event.

There are many religions that operate like this. Religions are built to sustain a faith during our personal journeys.

Some Christians adopt other concept-religions, like reincarnation and astrology, into their beliefs.

Other cultures have used various rituals as rites of passage to develop their people and graduate an individual from one level to the next.

Most Christian services prepare the congregation for worship by taking them to a trance-like state with musical rhythms and group singing. Believers raise their hands high in expectation of a pleasant feeling of well-being.

Other religions have different rituals and different ways of entering a trance state, but the objective is usually the same.; February 11, 2008 at 2:32 AM
LucyS said...: I would assume that it is difficult to believe that true (as in, valid) affirmations of faith are hard to believe unless one has had the affirmation himself. This is a bit like trying to explain colors to someone who is color-blind. Another analogy is maybe closer to home, if you happen to have a dog. Try to explain, to someone who doesn't know dogs, that your dog is communicating with you when he (she, in my case) is looking into your eyes. It certainly can't be proven scientifically. In fact, there are some psychologists who think that all this thought that dogs have feelings is just anthropomorphism. You can see the paradigms in what you say and what a believer who has faith would say:

(1) Your implication (Please correct me if I am misstating it.): that all affirmations of faith are just just psychological responses to events and feelings.

(2) The stance of a believer: that there is true spiritual communication between himself and the Spirit of God, seen either in the circumstances of his life (i.e., what the average person might pass off as "coincidence") or in a powerful sense of internal "knowledge"--You know that you "know."

These paradigms, unfortunately, appear to be unresolvable, because unless one believes that there is a basis for faith, it is impossible to accept that basis. I will say this, though--When I was in my twenties (actually, even into my thirties), I believed exactly the way you do. Please don't think that I am denigrating what you say, because you clearly have a brilliant mind and have read a lot on these subjects. All I mean is that life sometimes hands you things that throw your paradigms on their heads. I think it is healthy, occasionally, to put our mind in neutral for a brief time, and reconsider our paradigms.; February 11, 2008 at 10:13 AM

Post a Comment

What is Occam's Razor?

(1) Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.

[From Wikepedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor]

(2) Okham's RazorSharon Kaye
There are so many interesting theories about the nature of reality. How do we decide which to accept and which to reject? As we go through life, we examine new ideas and reexamine old ones in an attempt to establish a suitable collection of beliefs. Sometimes this process feels like walking through the a la carte line in a cafeteria where you can pick and choose any combination you want. Just as a smart eater will use healthy principles to make these choices, a smart thinker will use epistemic principles to evaluate beliefs.
Ockham’s Razor is one of the most important epistemic principles. It states that if you have to choose from some number of competing theories, choose the simplest theory because it is most likely to be true.
Suppose, for example, that the newspaper, which is delivered daily to your doorstep, is missing this morning. There are a number of possible explanations. The delivery person could be ill, the newspaper plant may have shut down, or outer space aliens may have stolen it for the purpose of spying on Earthlings. The obvious choice among these three possibilities is the first. The second and third choices seem increasingly unacceptable. But why? If the choice is mine, what is there to prevent me from accepting the alien theory?
The answer is that the alien theory is too complicated. The illness theory requires me to believe in the presence of a virus, something I already believe in for other reasons. The alien theory, in contrast, requires me to believe in something that I have no other reason to acknowledge. This is to say that the alien theory asks me to adopt more assumptions than does the illness theory.
One might still wonder why added assumptions constitute a problem. After all, it is not as though we are short on brain space. My interest in creativity and originality might lead me to take pride in developing a more complicated theory.
But this would be a mistake. Complication is not something to take pride in because it necessarily increases the risk of error. Each and every belief is a liability insofar as it carries the possibility that it may not be true. The more assumptions you adopt, therefore, the more likely it is that you have unknowingly committed yourself to a falsehood. Falsehood is the great enemy of intelligence. To live intelligently, we must minimize the risk of error as much as we can.
Ockham’s Razor does not state that the world is maximally simple. Clearly, the world is not simple. The world is so complex that it would not be entirely surprising if it turns out that outer space aliens do exist. The point is that we should not move to that conclusion until the evidence forces us there – until we are not able to explain what we observe in a simpler way.
Philosophers have used the Razor in many different ways. Sometimes they use it to defend traditional views. The great twentieth-century philosopher Bertrand Russell appeals to the Razor in his refutation of idealism, the view that the external world does not exist. Russell writes:
Thus every principle of simplicity urges us to adopt the natural view, that there really are objects other than ourselves and our sense-data which have an existence not dependent upon our perceiving them. . . . Since this belief does not lead to any difficulties but on the contrary tends to simplify and systematize our account of our experiences, there seems no good reason for rejecting it. (The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1968, p. 24.)
On the other hand, philosophers have also used the Razor to attack traditional views. For example, atheists increasingly use it against theism. If we can now explain everything about the world that there is to be explained in purely natural terms, then there is no need for the supernatural assumption. Sure, you can still add it if you want, but it is no longer an intelligent choice.
As this last example suggests, there is room for disagreement over the use of Ockham’s Razor. After all, positing an extra entity can actually simplify a theory. (Imagine trying to do physics without the electron.) Richard Swinburne argues that the God hypothesis performs a similar function. Like any philosophical tool, the Razor is itself controversial, raising some interesting epistemological questions.
One question about the Razor that is rarely asked, however, is this: why is it called a Razor? When I ask my students this question, they often answer that it is called a Razor because it trims the fat. It is true that trimming the fat is an apt metaphor for what the principle of simplicity accomplishes insofar as it signifies getting to the "meat of the matter," the essentials. But who uses a razor for trimming fat? Ask any butcher and you will learn that there are plenty of other more effective tools for such a procedure.
Ockham’s Razor is named after the fourteenth-century logician, William of Ockham. Although he did not invent the principle of simplicity, he used it so effectively and with such devastating effect, that it became indelibly associated with him. Did they use razors for trimming fat back in the Middle Ages?
Of course not. The primary use for the razor in the Middle Ages was the same as it is today: shaving. The problem is that, unlike trimming fat, shaving is not an apt metaphor for what the principle of simplicity accomplishes. Setting aside certain medical contexts, shaving is a cosmetic procedure. We shave to beautify ourselves, not to simplify ourselves. In fact, one could argue that shaving makes personal hygiene considerably more complicated. Nor do we shave to get down to the essentials as though a bald man is somehow more authentic than a hirsute. Shaving is a matter of personal preference. If the epistemic principle in question were about personal preference, then it should have been named the ‘principle of prettiness’. Granted, ‘elegance’ has long been regarded as a desirable quality in theories, and elegance is closely related to simplicity. But since when is hair inelegant? Just what were they thinking when they named Ockham’s Razor?
My own personal theory is that they were thinking about another use of the razor during the Middle Ages. At the end of the fourteenth century, paper was only just being introduced in Europe as a common writing material. Before then, everything was written on parchment, which is made from animal skins. The picture below features a typical medieval scribe:
Notice the tools he holds. In his right hand is a quill for applying ink. In his left hand is a razor. He uses the razor to scrape the parchment clean when he makes an error. His razor is an eraser.
I believe that we would all do well to be more conscious of the principle of simplicity. It is not a matter of personal preference; it is a matter of accuracy. Ockham’s Razor is the way to keep your mind neat and clean.
(Sharon Kaye is assistant professor in philosophy at John Carroll University Cleveland, Ohio)

[From Royal Institute of Philosophy: http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/think/article.php?num=18)

GLOSSARY OF PHILOSOPHICAL TERMS

A list of USEFUL TERMS, from the University of Aberdeen, Philosophy, School of Philosophy, and Religious Studies, Old Brewery • High Street • Aberdeen • AB24 3UB http://www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml
DETERMINISM The theory that whatever happens (including human acts) is caused by something else. Physical Determinism maintains that the ‘something else’ is a physical entity or event; Psychological Determinism maintains that the cause (at least, the immediate cause) of a human act is a psychological or mental entity or event (e.g. a desire, a decision).
EMPIRICISM The doctrine that knowledge comes from experience.
EPISTEMOLOGY The branch of philosophy that involves the study of knowledge.
ETHICS The branch of philosophy that deals with moral issues. Key questions in ethics include: What is it right (or wrong) to do? Do the intentions behind an action determine its goodness or does the actual outcome of the action matter more? Are there any universal ethical rules?
FIDEISM Holds that religious beliefs can not be justified by rational means, but only through faith.
LOGIC The branch of philosophy that deals with the formal properties of arguments and the philosophical problems associated with them. Central questions in logic include: What is a good argument? How can we work out if an argument is good or not? What are paradoxes? Can they be resolved? How can we talk meaningfully about objects that don’t exist e.g. Sherlock Holmes, or unicorns?
METAPHYSICS The branch of philosophy which studies the underlying structure of reality. Central questions in metaphysics include: Can we act freely? What is it for something to exist? How are causes related to their effects? What is time? What is space? How is change possible?
NATURAL THEOLOGY Knowledge of God which is obtained by reason alone, without the aid of revelation.
ONTOLOGY The branch of METAPHYSICS which studies the nature of existence. Central questions include: What kinds of objects exist? What is it for something to exist?
PHILOSOPHY OF MIND The branch of philosophy which studies the nature of the mind. Central questions in the philosophy of mind include: Is it possible for a machine to think? How is the mind related to the brain? Do animals have minds? How can I know that anyone else has a mind? (This last one is sometimes called the problem of other minds.)
PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION The branch of philosophy which discusses the nature and existence of God. Central questions include: Does God exist? What sort of evidence could justify belief in God? If there is a God, why is there so much suffering in the world? Is there life after death? Do we have souls? How could we know anything about God?
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE The branch of philosophy which analyses the nature and results of scientific inquiry. Central questions include: Do scientist describe reality or just appearances? Can we have good reason to believe in the existence of unobservable entities (e.g. quarks)? What happens when one scientific theory replaces an older theory?
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY The branch of philosophy that discusses freedom, justice, rights, democracy and other political issues. Central questions include: Is democracy the best form of government? How can we balance rights and responsibilities?
RATIONALISM The doctrine that genuine knowledge, or at least the most significant kind of knowledge, is not established by sense-experience, or at least not by sense-experience alone.... Contrast EMPIRICISM
SOLIPSISM A form of SCEPTICISM. Solipsism is the belief that nothing exists except my mind and the creations of my mind.
THEODICY An argument which tries to explain how a good and all-powerful God could create a world with suffering and evil in it.
UTILITARIANISM The doctrine that acts are right solely in so far as their consequences maximize the general happiness (in some versions: maximize the general pleasure; in some versions: maximize the general welfare). It is controversial whether the general happiness must be interpreted as the happiness of the majority.
VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE An account of meaningfulness which claims that all and only those sentences which can be empirically verified are meaningful.

SOUL and SUBSTANCE

PARADIGM

Statement of Purpose

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Exploring Faith vs. Indoctrination

2 comments:

Blog Archive

About Me

ShareThis

Followers

My Other Blogs

An Inspiring Blog.......

BlogCatalog

FAVORITE SITES CONCERNING SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND PHILOSOPHY

Thought-Provoking Blogs

What is Occam's Razor?

GLOSSARY OF PHILOSOPHICAL TERMS