Argumentum Ad Inculco

[Proteas]

This is something I've been pondering for a while, so bear with me.

It's been my experience on here with certain discussion (religious discussions in particular), the atheist/agnostics on this board view anyone having a religious background as having been indoctrinated into that school of thought. They can't fathom why anyone would actually choose to believe in a God or any form of organized religion, so they seek the undermine their opponent's credibility by painting them as being brainwashed.

But really... doesn't this just add up to nothing more than a personal attack on that individual, and not actual debate on the ideas they put forth? You don't know anything about that individual's personal life or their motivations for being religious, you're just taking one fact they've given you and making a very broad generalization about them.

Which brings me to the name of this topic; Argumentum Ad Inculco, or "Argument by Inculcation/Indoctrination." Something to call out your opponent on when they are using Strawman, Hasty Generalization, and Argumentum Ad Hominem against you sooner than debating what your actually saying.

*suits up in Asbestos body suit*

[Drakim]

Hmm, I would agree, but only if this "Argumentum Ad Inculco" was actually used to dismiss an argument made by a Christian, not if it's used as an insult. I can't personally remember anybody ever saying that "This argument isn't valid because you were brainwashed as a child".

[Ericho]

Religion is obviously a controversial subject. The notion that I think is that we clearly have freedom of religion (and lack of, I believe), so we should learn to respect each other's freedoms and not say that we are in any way superior to other people for our beliefs, or lack of.

[tony4moroney]

Proteas, observing a phenomenon occurring and then penning it in latin does not make it a credible point of refute. "Argumentum Ad Inculco" isn't a logical fallacy. The logical flaw, in this case is the assumption that a person's belief is through indoctrination.

[Humbucker740]

At 11/2/09 11:12 PM, tony4moroney wrote: Proteas, observing a phenomenon occurring and then penning it in latin does not make it a credible point of refute. "Argumentum Ad Inculco" isn't a logical fallacy. The logical flaw, in this case is the assumption that a person's belief is through indoctrination.

Yeah, this really isn't anything more than a specific Argumentum Ad Hominem.

[Proteas]

At 11/2/09 11:12 PM, tony4moroney wrote: Proteas, observing a phenomenon occurring and then penning it in latin does not make it a credible point of refute. "Argumentum Ad Inculco" isn't a logical fallacy. The logical flaw, in this case is the assumption that a person's belief is through indoctrination.

To say that my idea isn't a logical fallacy and then say that the idea is sound is a contradiction. The whole point of calling somebody out on a logical fallacy is to show that they've made an error in the logic or the way they've structured their argument, making it an excellent refutation for bad arguments.

I'm amazed this topic hasn't gotten as many responses than it has views.

[MarcusTuliusCicero]

At 11/3/09 06:40 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/2/09 11:12 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

To say that my idea isn't a logical fallacy and then say that the idea is sound is a contradiction. The whole point of calling somebody out on a logical fallacy is to show that they've made an error in the logic or the way they've structured their argument, making it an excellent refutation for bad arguments.

I'm amazed this topic hasn't gotten as many responses than it has views.

What brings me to question the necessity or utility of this particular debate is that no one seems to offer a sort of counter to this use of counter-ethos that Proteas originally criticized. While the dismissal of an individual from public discourse for a matter of their personal lives is certainly rude, the sort of apologetic arguments often applied by theists are indeed poor in the way of their establishment of authority as the writer to the reader. I think you, Proteas, may be mistaking this as personal smearing. The abuse of and incivility towards any individual of the forum, however, is most disrespectful and detrimental to the quality of the forum. This may often be recognized by the readers, and you are in your power to comment on such behavior when it arises. When exposed, it does greater damage to the authority of the abuser. I would, however, be interested in seeing some specific instances of this abuse of theists for that identity's involvement in indoctrination.

[tony4moroney]

At 11/3/09 06:40 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/2/09 11:12 PM, tony4moroney wrote: Proteas, observing a phenomenon occurring and then penning it in latin does not make it a credible point of refute. "Argumentum Ad Inculco" isn't a logical fallacy. The logical flaw, in this case is the assumption that a person's belief is through indoctrination.

To say that my idea isn't a logical fallacy and then say that the idea is sound is a contradiction. The whole point of calling somebody out on a logical fallacy is to show that they've made an error in the logic or the way they've structured their argument, making it an excellent refutation for bad arguments.

I'm amazed this topic hasn't gotten as many responses than it has views.

After I posted that, I realized it had a problem reading clearly so I apologize.
What I meant to say is; while your observation that "many atheists assume theists have come to their belief-system through indoctrination" may or may not be accurate (let's assume it is), penning your theory and publishing it as Argumentum Ad Inculco is a little disingenuous.

It in itself can't be described as a new form of 'logical fallacy', which is what it appears you're trying to pass it off as, but rather it could be a common misconception specific to the topic of interest. To illustrate my point analogously: "All brits have bad teeth" as a generalisation. You wouldn't then coin it as 'Argumentum Ad Bada Teethos' and declare it a new type of logical fallacy to call people out on. It's patently wrong.

The logical fallacy as I said, is the assumption itself. This is what you were referring to.

[JohnnyWang]

Well, sure, people might choose their religion, but the fact that for the first 16 years of my life I was Finnish Lutheran Christian was simply for the reason that I live in Finland, where the Lutheran Church holds majority, and we were taught it in school.

Had I been born elsewhere, I might have been christian, but say, a catholic, or orthodox. And the denomination matters, as they often have radically different interpretations of the bible. Unless you've later converted to another denomination, I will question wherther you have genuine faith in the teachings of your denomination, or wherther you belong to it because everyone you know belongs to it.

Still, I won't really use that argument against anyone, only if they start yammering something about their dennominational faith as being the ultimate truth.

[poxpower]

At 11/3/09 07:07 AM, MarcusTuliusCicero wrote: This may often be recognized by the readers, and you are in your power to comment on such behavior when it arises.

Look the simple truth of the matter IS that they're being brainwashed.
It has SERIOUS implications to say that someone's argument is not the result of logic but of brainwashing.

That instantly put them on the defense and they have to explain why it is they think they're not brainwashed, which they fail MISERABLY at every single time because, again, they ARE brainwashed.

A debate against a religion person is not so much about logic and respect as it is about trying to find a hole in their mental armor where you can finally pump some seed of common sense into. If you're religious, you most likely ALREADY DON'T understand logic.

Consider this argument:
"How can something come out of nothing? God made it!"

That's THEIR FINEST ARGUMENT. You will not find any argument better than that in all of the land throughout all the ages. In 5000-6000 years of being religious, no man has come up with a better one yet many people called bullshit on that argument before they grew their first pube.

Considering this, can you really take anything they say or do as a serious logical argument and not an attempt to excuse their right to belief?

In which case, yeah, I will call them out on being brainwashed because that's what they are. It's not a fallacy OR an argument, It's a statement of fact.

[Proteas]

At 11/3/09 07:07 AM, MarcusTuliusCicero wrote: I would, however, be interested in seeing some specific instances of this abuse of theists for that identity's involvement in indoctrination.

*looks towards Pox's post*

I present the people's exhibit A.

At 11/3/09 08:32 AM, tony4moroney wrote: This is what you were referring to.

Oh... well makes sense. Thank you. :-)

[poxpower]

At 11/3/09 08:32 AM, tony4moroney wrote: This is what you were referring to.

That's definitely not what he's talking about :o
He's saying that some people say "you're brainwashed" as an argument.

Which I've never seen anyone do.

He hasn't either, I'd be on it.
He thinks I just did it in my other post. I clearly did not. You be the judge.

[Elfer]

At 11/3/09 05:30 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/3/09 07:07 AM, MarcusTuliusCicero wrote: I would, however, be interested in seeing some specific instances of this abuse of theists for that identity's involvement in indoctrination.

*looks towards Pox's post*

I present the people's exhibit A.

There's a difference between saying "What you believe is wrong because you're brainwashed" and "What you believe is wrong for reasons X and Y, the reason you believe what you do is because you've been brainwashed."

In the second case, the brainwashing thing is irrelevant to the argument, with the exception of using it as a response to argumentum ad populum.

[aviewaskewed]

At 11/3/09 06:38 PM, poxpower wrote: He's saying that some people say "you're brainwashed" as an argument.

I haven't seen it in theist debates. But I was debating someone (I think RightWingGamer...but it may have been some other hardcore conservative) who claimed I was "indoctrinated" by the "liberal system" because I wholeheartedly support gay marriage. So this argument has in fact popped up.

Which I've never seen anyone do.

Well I have had it happen to me once, beyond that, yeah, I personally have not seen it either.

He hasn't either, I'd be on it.

Links or it didn't happen? Links or it didn't happen Prot :-p

He thinks I just did it in my other post. I clearly did not. You be the judge.

I think what happened is he was referring to the general point that was made about abuse of theists and their views in general here. Then he pointed to you. Also you DID say they were brainwashed in this very topic so...actually he HAS now seen someone argue the point of brain washing and "you only believe because you're indoctrinated to believe" used.

[aviewaskewed]

At 11/2/09 10:00 PM, Ericho wrote: Religion is obviously a controversial subject. The notion that I think is that we clearly have freedom of religion (and lack of, I believe), so we should learn to respect each other's freedoms and not say that we are in any way superior to other people for our beliefs, or lack of.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The hypocrisy in YOU making that very statement is fucking staggering considering even a recent sampling of your postings in "the case for god" thread.

[Proteas]

At 11/3/09 06:42 PM, Elfer wrote: In the second case, the brainwashing thing is irrelevant to the argument, with the exception of using it as a response to argumentum ad populum.

I'm aware of that, which is why I wrote this topic to address that tactic instead of the issue of who is right in the discussion. I have no problem with somebody showing an idea or ideals wrong, what I have a problem with is calling that individual a brainwashed idiot for believing them, because that makes the argument way more personal than it need be.

At 11/3/09 06:59 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Links or it didn't happen? Links or it didn't happen Prot :-p

If you want links to topics where the argument is spelled out phonetically, then the only thing I'll be able to find you are topics where I've had this discussion with Pox and he used such an argument against me. However, it doesn't take much faith to belief that disrespect for a belief goes hand in hand with disbelief, the main thing around which atheism centers it's philosophy.

[Dawnslayer]

At 11/2/09 12:31 PM, Proteas wrote: It's been my experience on here with certain discussion (religious discussions in particular), the atheist/agnostics on this board view anyone having a religious background as having been indoctrinated into that school of thought. They can't fathom why anyone would actually choose to believe in a God or any form of organized religion, so they seek the undermine their opponent's credibility by painting them as being brainwashed.

Your perception is understandable (and not without basis), but ultimately not true. A link to the case in point is provided at the top left corner of this post, next to the winking mood icon.

-----

If you're curious...

My sister and I were both born into a Christian family. I eventually arrived at agnosticism, having seen no direct evidence of God's existence or his influence in the universe. But my sister, who tends to overrationalize the world even more than I do, had a different experience - whilst at a church she offered a prayer, in total silence, asking for a sign that God was there; and immediately a woman sitting nearby approached her and said something along the lines of not being afraid to believe.

I have to confess her story is compelling; and although I still distance myself from giving any certain explanation for how the hell it happened, for my sister it was her defining moment. It wasn't indoctrinated, she wasn't brainwashed - she took an entirely solitary and even intellectually sound path in search of God, and apparently found him. I'm still wandering down my own path, but I have by no means decided that believers are an irrational bunch or a lost cause.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 11/2/09 10:00 PM, Ericho wrote: Religion is obviously a controversial subject. The notion that I think is that we clearly have freedom of religion (and lack of, I believe), so we should learn to respect each other's freedoms and not say that we are in any way superior to other people for our beliefs, or lack of.

OMG will you stop with these shitty pro-religion posts that have next to nothing to the original post and contribute nothing to the discussion?

And stop acting all "Oh well I think we should just play nice and why can't we all just get along". This is a politics forum, the whole point of which is to debate things, so start putting forth actual arguments instead of saying the same crap over and over.

[Proteas]

At 11/4/09 12:57 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: Your perception is understandable (and not without basis), but ultimately not true.

*wraps head in duct tape*

Okay, please explain why my seemingly understandable point based somewhere in reality is patently not true.

A link to the case in point is provided at the top left corner of this post, next to the winking mood icon.

Your user page? I see nothing of the sort on there.

[amaterasu]

This is the way I see things. People tend to need a means to feel like they are better than the next person. Zealous theists achieve this by convincing themselves that atheists are terrible people, "going to hell", etc. Zealous atheists achieve this by convincing themselves that theists are brainwashed idiots, "sheeple", totally illogical. So it really goes both ways.

[gumOnShoe]

Brain washing or "learning by wrote" is unavoidable and isn't really an argument for why someone is wrong. You are technically brainwashed in to scientific thought when you accept that the scientific method and all concepts derived thereof are sound, rigid, and accurate ideas. Because frankly, humanity passes knowledge down through various kinds of lessons and it is entirely rare for an individual to confirm even a scientific idea with actual experimentation, though many scientists make this their life's work.

You can't test everything and people have to at some point take things on faith and become brain washed, or become indoctrinated. It is impossible not to have this happen to you.

So rather than make the argument that someone is wrong simply because they learned from someone else and didn't do the work themselves, it would be more persuasive if you actually argued the against the faults in the idea you have an issue with.

So, yeah, I agree. That said, questioning the source of information is never a bad thing, but it can't be the sole reason for denial.

[Ericho]

At 11/4/09 08:27 AM, amaterasu wrote: Zealous theists achieve this by convincing themselves that atheists are terrible people, "going to hell", etc. Zealous atheists achieve this by convincing themselves that theists are brainwashed idiots, "sheeple", totally illogical. So it really goes both ways.

Thank you very much for saying this. The fact of the matter is, it is wrong for atheists to say something as spiteful as theists being "mentally ill", which is simply beyond bigotry. Keep mind of the Nietzsche quote, "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he does not become one himself. For when you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes at you".

[Dawnslayer]

At 11/4/09 06:33 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/4/09 12:57 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: Your perception is understandable (and not without basis), but ultimately not true.

*wraps head in duct tape*

Okay, please explain why my seemingly understandable point based somewhere in reality is patently not true.

Did you read my whole post? I thought I explained it pretty well.

A link to the case in point is provided at the top left corner of this post, next to the winking mood icon.

Your user page? I see nothing of the sort on there.

Not the userpage - the person. Again, read the whole post.

[poxpower]

At 11/4/09 08:44 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

You can't test everything and people have to at some point take things on faith and become brain washed, or become indoctrinated. It is impossible not to have this happen to you.

There's a difference between being brainwashed and making assumptions.

[gumOnShoe]

At 11/5/09 01:28 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/4/09 08:44 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

You can't test everything and people have to at some point take things on faith and become brain washed, or become indoctrinated. It is impossible not to have this happen to you.

There's a difference between being brainwashed and making assumptions.

Yes, an assumption you come to on your own and a brainwash is when you accept something that someone else tells you.

You're young, you're told gravity is a force that attracts things down, you assume this is true because things fall all the time, but you never verify the speed at which they fall, you grow up relying on the formulas you've never tested every time you get in an aircraft and you'll defend gravity to the death. I've not claimed Gravity does not exist. I'm just saying not everyone can be a scientist. Someone has to believe at some point. Clearly if someone told you that you were brainwashed over gravity, you'd have many logical arguments as to why gravity is legitimate if you took the time to research it. But a man naive in the scientific study of gravity has been brainwashed, and it was a good thing he was.

[morefngdbs]

At 11/5/09 06:58 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: You're young, you're told gravity is a force that attracts things down, you assume this is true because things fall all the time, but you never verify the speed at which they fall, you grow up relying on the formulas you've never tested every time you get in an aircraft and you'll defend gravity to the death. I've not claimed Gravity does not exist. I'm just saying not everyone can be a scientist. Someone has to believe at some point. Clearly if someone told you that you were brainwashed over gravity, you'd have many logical arguments as to why gravity is legitimate if you took the time to research it. But a man naive in the scientific study of gravity has been brainwashed, and it was a good thing he was.

;;;
I don't believe 'brainwashed is a good way of describing someone who doesn't scientifically understand the fundemental's of Gravity. You really don't have to, you can simply prove there is gravity affecting you & everything around you right now by simply picking something up...& seeing if it will 'hang' in mid air.
Did you just try it ?
Fell on the floor, didn't it ?
So you have proved on your own that gravity is real... & the object that you have to pick up is proof of that.
You don't have to 'know' there is a thing called gravity, you have learned that the nature of the place you live has this effect. That objects, for the most part, do not float around in the air. That they have weight & that weight
causes them to fall, and in some cases sink in water. You can feel that you ,yourself have weight, you relax your muscles & you won't remain standing.

After all Aristotle had a basic understanding about gravity, although not perfect. Those explainations have been found from 370's BC.

But god, you can't prove the so called facts presented by any religion about god.
For me, looking at the size of the Universe, our position & effect on it, that causes me to totally scorn any religious belief. Doesn't mean there can't be an all powerful entity, or creator....It's just I don't believe for a second, some half starved old guy in the desert talked to him...nor do I believe some thieving pedophile with delusions of grandeur has it right either.
The best or IMO closest we've come, to a possible understanding, is probably Buddhism, & with that belief system, there's just too much concern for what I consider food sources being sacred...for me to ever follow that.
Plus I beleive reincarnation is just another mankind, 'hope' for something after death...like heaven is for other religions.

[poxpower]

At 11/5/09 06:58 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Someone has to believe at some point.

Again it's one thing to assume, it's another to "believe".

The MAIN indicator of someone being brainwashed is their absolute distrust of authorities in whatever subject they claim knowledge in.
That's a dead giveaway of someone who's not just making assumptions but staunchly ignoring opposing views DESPITE HAVING A KNOWLEDGE OF THEM.

It can be very hard to differentiate what's a harmless assumption and what's hardcore brainwashing
but ultimately it comes down to testability and occam's razor type scenarios. Brainwashed people will usually avoid testing their hypothesis or rationalize away any and all results that don't concord with their views or, when testing is harder/ impossible, assume a crazy explanation over a simpler one.

I think, mainly, that to be properly brainwashed you need SOME kind of intelligence otherwise you're just a retard who'll believe anything anyway. How can you brainwash that which has no brain?

And then there's that stage where you have to see if someone is just lying or actually brainwashed. I've seen so many religious debates now and it seems pretty damn obvious that the people on the religious side know they're wrong. They will repeat, shaggy-style, the same arguments over and over and over no matter how many times you prove them to be false ( KENT HOVIND ANYONE? ) and make a CAREER out of debating and writing books.
Their livelihood is clearly too dependent on their belief structure to ever truly assume they're innocently brainwashed.

[Ericho]

At 11/5/09 08:41 AM, poxpower wrote: The MAIN indicator of someone being brainwashed is their absolute distrust of authorities in whatever subject they claim knowledge in.

So, you're saying that religious people are not brainwashed? I certainly don't mistrust authorities nor do I think do other religious people.

And then there's that stage where you have to see if someone is just lying or actually brainwashed. I've seen so many religious debates now and it seems pretty damn obvious that the people on the religious side know they're wrong.

Uh, know they're wrong? I think that's a pretty big assumption. Why would so many people do it if they know they're wrong?

[Elfer]

At 11/5/09 06:58 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Clearly if someone told you that you were brainwashed over gravity, you'd have many logical arguments as to why gravity is legitimate if you took the time to research it. But a man naive in the scientific study of gravity has been brainwashed, and it was a good thing he was.

But that's the thing. With science, you actually can go verify everything for yourself, and there's a very active community of people constantly trying to prove things wrong. You can make very good arguments for why the scientific community can be trusted to make sound scientific conclusions in the vast majority of cases.

For example, I can tell you right now that you have a great trust in the competence of engineers and the soundness of engineering design processes. Were you "brainwashed" into this? No, the reason that you trust in it is because you've been shown time and time again that your trust is well-placed. The building you work in doesn't collapse, the rims on the vehicle you're in don't crumple, and your phone doesn't send a shock down your arm when you pick up the receiver. This has been true every single time. And if it wasn't, you can bet your ass there's a team working on it to make sure it will be the next time.

Trusting a source of information when you have good reason to do so is very, very different from being brainwashed. If someone tells you something over and over starting when you're a kid, but can't tell you how they know it's true or why they believe it or how you can go check for yourself, that's being brainwashed.

[poxpower]

At 11/5/09 10:36 AM, Ericho wrote:

So, you're saying that religious people are not brainwashed? I certainly don't mistrust authorities nor do I think do other religious people.

I'm saying it's not black and white.
What's being brainwashed, really? It's just believing an authority figure over another, ultimately. The North Koreans are "brainwashed" but it's not their fault.

I guess I'd define brainwashing as MISLEADING someone or as being MISLEAD. But that happens a LOT and we just call that "lies". But at the base of it, brainwashing is just a series of X lies told to a person, intentionally or not.

So the best way to avoid that is to:

- LISTEN TO SCIENTISTS
- DON'T INVEST YOUR LIFE IN THINGS YOU CAN'T PROVE OR DISPROVE
- GIVE UP WHEN THERE'S ENOUGH EVIDENCE AGAINST YOU

Most people would change their minds if engaged in debates, they just don't ever get into any so they stay ignorant and give out the appearance of being brainwashed.

But then there's people like you and shaggy who do you have all the evidence you need to realize you're wrong and yet refuse to snap out of your delusion.

Brainwashed is a pretty appropriate term for that.

Uh, know they're wrong? I think that's a pretty big assumption. Why would so many people do it if they know they're wrong?

Fame, money, power.

Religious is and has always been a business. From its humblest beginnings to the height of the Vatican's power. Shamans / magicians / priests/ prophets/ holy men etc. etc. are all in the business of living off people's credulity. Why work when you can sell someone a magic spell for a week's worth of income? Why start a business when you can scare people into donating vast fortunes to you when you threaten with hellfire or promise them eternal rewards?
Some might innocently be self-deluded but I'm sure a SIZABLE portion of them is full of shit and laughing all the way to the bank while fondling little kid's bums.