• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Is only imposition of ideas of religion indoctrination?

sravna

Well-known member
We have frequently seen the association of the word indoctrination with religion.

I am asking what about imposition of ideas of science?

If religion is seen as less than science in rationality so will science will be seen with respect to Intuition. The best thing to do is not to impose either but synergize them and arrive at a balanced understanding of reality.

I will accept the notion of God and ethics as part of the synergized knowledge and then try to probe and get a good and true understanding of reality.

What do you think?
 

prasad1

Active member

Definition of indoctrinate


transitive verb
1: to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle
2: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments: TEACH



Britannica Dictionary definition of INDOCTRINATE
[+ object] disapproving

: to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs
  • The goal should be to teach politics, rather than to indoctrinate students in/with a narrow set of political beliefs.

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating a person with ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or professional methodologies.
Humans are a social animal species inescapably shaped by cultural context, and thus some degree of indoctrination is implicit in the parent–child relationship, and has an essential function in forming stable communities of shared values.

The precise boundary between education and indoctrination often lies in the eye of the beholder. Some distinguish indoctrination from education on the basis that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2] As such the term may be used pejoratively or as a buzz word, often in the context of political opinions, theology, religious dogma or anti-religious convictions. The word itself came about in its first form in the 1620s as endoctrinate, meaning to teach or to instruct, and was modeled from French or Latin.[3] The word only gained the meaning of imbuing with an idea or opinion in the 1830s.

The term is closely linked to socialization; however, in common discourse, indoctrination is often associated with negative connotations, while socialization functions as a generic descriptor conveying no specific value or connotation (some[citation needed] choosing to hear socialization as an inherently positive and necessary contribution to social order, others[citation needed] choosing to hear socialization as primarily an instrument of social oppression). Matters of doctrine (and indoctrination) have been contentious and divisive in human society dating back to antiquity. The expression attributed to Titus Lucretius Carus in the first century BCE quod ali cibus est aliis fuat acre venenum (what is food to one, is to others bitter poison) remains pertinent.




On the contrary to OP religion does not enter the definition at all.
 
Last edited:

renuka

Well-known member
We have frequently seen the association of the word indoctrination with religion.

I am asking what about imposition of ideas of science?

If religion is seen as less than science in rationality so will science will be seen with respect to Intuition. The best thing to do is not to impose either but synergize them and arrive at a balanced understanding of reality.

I will accept the notion of God and ethics as part of the synergized knowledge and then try to probe and get a good and true understanding of reality.

What do you think?
Imposition of ideas of science?

I fully agree!
For eg the whole world is forcing us to be smartphone app dependent on each and everything these days.

No freedom to be manual.
Humans can comply to all these forced aspects of science but yet humans make the most noise when religion suggests some ideas and some impositions on us.

It shows we are just hypocrites who shut up and follow science like a brain dead piece of meat but somehow our neurons only object religion.
 

prasad1

Active member
I Think Sravanaji meant something and wrote something else, or may e it is me.
Indoctrination has a connotation of coercion. Without physical or mental coercion it can not be indoctrination.

A free choice is not indoctrination. A smartphone or its app is not forced on you, you choose it for your own use. You can refuse it. We have a few friends who do not use any social media or smartphones. They make it difficult for their friends to keep in contact with them, and slowly start feeling lonely. But it is of their own making.
 

prasad1

Active member
Less than 500 years ago, science was a dangerous business. In 1600, the Italian monk Giordano Bruno was sentenced to death and burned at the stake because he believed in free-thinking in philosophy and science. Galileo Galilei narrowly avoided the same fate but only by publicly renouncing his support of Copernicus’ heliocentric view. Of course, the days of autodafés are over and modern science has an important influence on the development of society as a whole, compared with the days of the ill-fated Bruno. But while scientific progress has been rapid and astonishing, it is still disturbing for those people who feel excluded from the debate surrounding the application of science in new technologies and products. Furthermore, as scientific progress becomes increasingly fundamental to society, it is constantly challenging if not completely clashing with long-held beliefs concerning our ethical values. It is, therefore, necessary to conduct ethical discussions in order to adapt the use of scientific knowledge—namely new forms of technology—to a general context that is in agreement with the basic principles of our civilization. Scientists should be concerned about the use of scientific knowledge and they should address the ensuing ethical questions, both in general terms and in terms of their own work.

Indeed, discussions about the ethical foundations of society and their re-interpretation usually take place when traditional customs or behaviours are challenged by new developments. In a static society, values are well codified, usually by religion or by tradition. This is true for numerous ancient societies, which remained unchanged for centuries. But wars, invasions or a new culture or religion usually prompt the evaluation of the traditional values. For instance, the French and Russian revolutions in Europe as well as colonialism on other continents effectively upset and irrevocably changed society’s traditional values to varying degrees. Later in the 20th century, the creation of new technologies through scientific progress had a profound effect on society, public opinion and our way of life and has thus sparked discussion on how to use this knowledge. In the 1950s and 1960s, ethical discussions dealt mainly with the use of physics and engineering for the construction of new weapons. In the 1970s and 1980s, the focus was on environmental problems. Today, most ethical discussions deal with the progress in biology and its consequences for society.

Scientific progress, the driving force for the majority of the changes witnessed in the 20th century, requires a critical mind, free of prejudice and open to new ways of thinking. The rapid development of modern science since the Renaissance is due mainly to the postulate that scientific theories should be independent of theological or religious beliefs. In the 17th and 18th centuries, knowledge was mainly exchanged through scientific academies which disseminated new theories and thus accelerated scientific progress. At the beginning of the 19th century, there was a remarkable rise in academic research at universities, also labelled ‘pure’ research. Scientists were not interested in practicalities and were not concerned with the technological applications of the results of their endeavours. They proclaimed the neutrality of science, stating that the advancement of knowledge could not be considered good or bad. In this context, science was not responsible for its applications, and even less for their subsequent use.

Industrial research, on the other hand, was radically different. Although based on the same knowledge, it had completely different aims and rules. Results were not owned by scientists but were the property of the industries financing the research. The aim was not to acquire new knowledge but to invent new products in order to increase profits. Ethical problems were considered to be the responsibility of the company and not of the scientists.

As a result, discussions concerning ethical problems were more or less absent from both realms. In academia, scientists were indifferent to the possible consequences of their work and in industry, employers did not consider it appropriate for scientists to worry about ethical problems. Of course, this description of academic and industrial research is schematic and does not truly represent the real world. Nevertheless, it still exists and sways the minds of those who have the greatest influence on our contemporary scientific culture.

 

prasad1

Active member
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.

You can be indoctrinated into a political party, a cult, or a belief system. In fact, all of us are indoctrinated into a belief system as we are growing up. Whether our parents or guardians are open and understanding people, or if they are bigoted, and want nothing to do with anyone outside of their own race and affiliations, we are subtly indoctrinated into their belief system. As we grow, many of us seek education in order to develop our own belief systems.

Education can be directly supported by data that is derived from facts. Indoctrination tends to use language that encompasses everything, referring to ‘all’, or ‘every’, as though the insights created are a statement of fact for each and every individual of a group. For example: ‘All democrats spend too much money.’ ‘All Republicans are religiously oriented and bring the bible to work with them.’ You can’t support these statements of ‘all’ and ‘every’ without actual data. If you believe it, then it has grown from opinion to indoctrination.

Education points out that there are different solutions, often to the same problem. Indoctrination poses the belief that there is only one solution to a problem. In Nazi Germany, the solution to growing economic problems was to exterminate all minorities and Jewish citizens, as though this was the only possible solution. There was no room for any kind of secondary thought to the proposed solution.

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 the 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.

 

renuka

Well-known member
I Think Sravanaji meant something and wrote something else, or may e it is me.
Indoctrination has a connotation of coercion. Without physical or mental coercion it can not be indoctrination.

A free choice is not indoctrination. A smartphone or its app is not forced on you, you choose it for your own use. You can refuse it. We have a few friends who do not use any social media or smartphones. They make it difficult for their friends to keep in contact with them, and slowly start feeling lonely. But it is of their own making.
I guess then may be in USA , smart phone's app for covid tracing is not compulsory.
Here no entry into any place if the covid tracing app is not used for scanning our entry and location plus blue tooth on for tracing our location and movements 24/7.

Very soon highway toll payment also through e-wallet apps only.

I do hope heaven or hell doesnt use apps so that after life will be having more freedom.
 

prasad1

Active member
I guess then may be in USA , smart phone's app for covid tracing is not compulsory.
You chose to live in a society, and that society determines what is good for them You have the choice of giving up that society and migrating to Swami Nityananda's country you may not need a smartphone.
Here no entry into any place if the covid tracing app is not used for scanning our entry and location plus blue tooth on for tracing our location and movements 24/7.

Very soon highway toll payment also through e-wallet apps only.

I do hope heaven or hell doesnt use apps so that after life will be having more freedom.
There is a delicate balance between self liberty Vs Social responsibility. Each society has to find that equilibrium.
In the USA anti-Vaccinators is a vocal minority and cause spread Coid among the general public. There is no recourse for the common public. So what is important?

1% of truckers in Canada are holding up traffic as they refuse to Get Vaccinated, would you support that 1% who are threatening the lives of 99%? The 1% claim it is their freedom not to get vaccinated.

After the 9/11 Terrorist attack we had to compromise with a lot of liberties we had, I do not mind the infringement on my rights for common good.

In Malaysia Statistics show that there are an estimated 30.41 million smartphone users in Malaysia now, for a population of 33.22 million. So not everyone has it.

The vast majority of Americans – 97% – now own a cellphone of some kind. The share of Americans that own a smartphone is now 85%, up from just 35% in Pew Research Center’s first survey of smartphone ownership conducted in 2011.

In 2020, the penetration rate of smartphones in India reached 54 percent and was estimated to reach 96 percent in 2040, more than doubled from the financial year 2016, when only 22 percent of the mobile subscribers were using smartphones. In 2020, the volume of smartphone shipments across India was around 149.7 million.

Yes, technology is ruling and ruining our lives, but it is a necessary evil, just as Money is a necessary evil, but we can not live without it
 
Last edited:

renuka

Well-known member
There is a delicate balance between self liberty Vs Social responsibility. Each society has to find that equilibrium.
In the USA anti-Vaccinators is a vocal minority and cause spread Coid among the general public. There is no recourse for the common public. So what is important?

1% of truckers in Canada are holding up traffic as they refuse to Get Vaccinated, would you support that 1% who are threatening the lives of 99%? The 1% claim it is their freedom not to get vaccinated.

After the 9/11 Terrorist attack we had to compromise with a lot of liberties we had, I do not mind the infringement on my rights for common good.
Once upon a time, the world did handle worse without an app.

That's what I am talking about
Why be so technology dependant?

One fine day a huge solar flare is going to destabilize and shut down the whole world and then lets see how we cope being brain dead over dependant on technology.
 

prasad1

Active member
Once upon a time, the world did handle worse without an app.
Once upon a time, humans lived as Hunter, gatherer fortunately we evolved.
We used to travel by Ox carts, we evolved to drive the cars and trucks. When we glorify the horrendous suffering as Golden days, we need to go back and live in those days or read Charles Dickens and other period books. They may have been golden for a few but the majority suffered. It was a lump of coal for the poor.
That's what I am talking about
Why be so technology dependant?

One fine day a huge solar flare is going to destabilize and shut down the whole world and then lets see how we cope being brain dead over dependant on technology.
Fortunately for the Vast majority, that day is not in foreseeable future. So we live with the limitations. If the living in the society is too much, some take drastic measures.

 
Last edited:
OP
OP
sravna

sravna

Well-known member
I Think Sravanaji meant something and wrote something else, or may e it is me.
Indoctrination has a connotation of coercion. Without physical or mental coercion it can not be indoctrination.

A free choice is not indoctrination. A smartphone or its app is not forced on you, you choose it for your own use. You can refuse it. We have a few friends who do not use any social media or smartphones. They make it difficult for their friends to keep in contact with them, and slowly start feeling lonely. But it is of their own making.
There is coercion. I constantly see touting of science as the genuine source of knowledge and others as pseudo or fake. Is that not indoctrination? Why one has to impose the supposed superiority of science?
 

prasad1

Active member
There is coercion. I constantly see touting of science as the genuine source of knowledge and others as pseudo or fake. Is that not indoctrination? Why one has to impose the supposed superiority of science?
Society imposes whatever it thinks is advantageous to itself. You have every right to accept or leave that society. You may be like a reformer and try to change society but generally, it is difficult. So we accept it and work around it.
 
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks