Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadre.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!idis!cadre!sm
From: sm@cadre.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.flame
Subject: Re: Arndt talks about television
Message-ID: <241@cadre.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 3-Feb-85 14:36:32 EST
Article-I.D.: cadre.241
Posted: Sun Feb  3 14:36:32 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Feb-85 04:22:31 EST
References: <293@decwrl.UUCP> <398@pyuxd.UUCP> <237@cadre.ARPA>
Reply-To: sm@cadre.ARPA (Sean McLinden)
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pgh.
Lines: 72
Xref: watmath net.religion:5487 net.flame:8204
Summary: 

In article <237@cadre.ARPA> jay@cadre.ARPA (Jayaram Ramanathan) writes:
>... It does help at
>times to look at our own beliefs without the cloud of religion/ideolgy/etc.
>that each of us has acquired over the years, thanx to our parents/teachers/
>friends/etc., which I'd term as an unseen form of "brainwashing" -- strong,
>gradual, but very potent.  Maybe independent thinking is not encouraged
>in our schools?  Even society looks down upon these "heretics" who dare
>step out of the fold?  My own guess is that the powers-that-be (whether
>it be the religious leaders, politicians, or whoever) have a vested
>interest in perpetuating this status quo, and the brainwashing goes
>on in various forms.

You might call it "brainwashing", but it isn't, and the use of that
term is an example of the inflammatory rhetoric you claimed that you
wished to avoid. Religion is NOT science (although the latter arose
from the former), and does not require the rigorous scientific 
justifications that other intellectual disciplines do. The fact that
certain of yours (or my), beliefs are rooted in what is demonstrable
through experimentation is not sufficient to require that ALL beliefs
be so justified. Some of what I (and I would assert you, too), believe
in, has come to us on the authority of another. This authority might
be a textbook, a journal article, a speech bu a Nobel laureate, or
a teacher. You may choose to accept or deny the authority of any
source of information but I would venture to say that a good percentage
of your beliefs are rooted in authority rather than your ability to
demonstrate them to your own satisfaction.

Children, long before the acquire the discipline to reason, must accept
authority as the basis for certain beliefs and behaviors. You are told
"Don't play out in the street!". Do you accuse your parents of being
neofascist propagandists and demand that they give incontrovertable
evidence for why you shouldn't play in the street? If you are like
most of the children I grew up with, you accepted the fact that your
parents beliefs should be observed, at least for a time, because they
held higher authority than you did. As a child develops, he/she begins
to question these beliefs and may reject some as untenable. Some
beliefs may continue to be held because they are demonstrable to one's
satisfaction. Some beliefs may continue to be held on the basis of a
greater authority. Each of these approaches is valid, to the extent
that only you can determine by what method you chose to believe in
something.

Many religions operate in just such a fashion, by providing authority
as the basis for a belief or a way of life. In some of these religions,
certain people are endowed with special "powers" which allow them to
interpret messages from this authority (God). In the Christian religions
(and some others, as well), the interpretation of this authority was
not merely left to inspired humans, but instead, this authority assumed
a human form in order to communicate to people, the principles in which
they should believe. 

It is not undesirable for us to learn to accept certain things on authority
from others. It is not "brainwashing" to teach beliefs in addition to
facts. The mere fact that you question what you have been taught is
evidence that parents/teachers/etc., whom you have accused of brainwashing
you, cannot, in fact, control what you believe. Life is considerably
simplified by accepting certain concepts on authority (religious and
otherwise), without us demanding unequivocal proof.

I agree with you that religion (as has science, and practically every
other intellectual discipline), has been considerably corrupted by zealots
who are unwilling or unable to tolerate dissention and those who would
manipulate legitimate believers in to satisfy their own ends. History
verifies these assertions. That is the nature of people, not the nature
of religion, science, or philosophy. I would disagree that people who
accept the teachins of religion, science, or philosophy are incapable
of independent thought. To suggest that these people have been "brainwashed"
whereas you have been freed from the shackles of intellectual slavery
suggests to me that you have some ax to grind other than what you are
expressing.

Sean McLinden