1 Tan, C. (2008). Religious Education and Indoctrination. In Tan, C. (ED.), Philosophical Reflections for Educators. Singapore: Cengage Learning. CHAPTER 16 Religious Education and Indoctrination Charlene TAN Abstract Given the traditional association of religious education with indoctrination, the question faced by educators is: “How can parents and educators teach religion to children in a non- indoctrinative way?” There are three main approaches available to educators and parents in religious education. This chapter points out the problems associated with the first two approaches and argues for the “teaching from commitment” approach where religious faith is acquired not indoctrinatively but autonomously and meaningfully. The chapter concludes by suggesting some attitudes and approaches for parents and educators to provide a stable initial culture for their children within a particular religious faith while encouraging the development of rational autonomy. Introduction A major concern of educators and policymakers is the problem of indoctrination in religious education. 1 Given the traditional association of religious education with indoctrination, the question faced by educators is: “How can parents and educators teach religion to children in a non- indoctrinative way?” There are three main approaches available to educators and parents in religious education, namely “teaching for commitment” (the confessional approach), “teaching about commitment” (the phenomenological approach), and “teaching from commitment” (Thiessen, 1993). This chapter discusses these three approaches and argues that parents and educators should adopt the “teaching from commitment” approach where religious faith is acquired not indoctrinatively but autonomously and meaningfully. Three Approaches in Religious Education Teaching for Commitment The first type is the confessional approach that was traditionally used in ancient churches. Philosophers such as Hirst (1973) and Kazepides (1983) have charged that such an approach is indoctrinative as there are no valid objective tests and scientific evidence for religious claims. In the “cold hard glare of rational scientific scrutiny”, the daily ritual of Christian worship in schools “may also have amounted to little more than a crude conditioning or indoctrination into views which are highly questionable, if not actually meaningless” (Carr, 1996, p. 171). However, what is objectionable about this approach is not that the religious beliefs are held non- rationally without regard for evidence. I have elsewhere argued that scientific investigation rests on assumptions which are themselves beyond proof and evidence (Tan, 2004). The search for empirical evidence is a fruitless endeavour that will only lead to an infinite regress. Many of the basic beliefs that we hold on to such as the reliability of senses are not evidentially grounded, nor open to change when challenged by better-grounded beliefs. Philosophers such as Plantinga (1983) and Alston (1993) have also pointed out the incongruity of justifying religious beliefs based on evidence due to the unique nature of religious beliefs. 2 What is objectionable about this approach is that it indoctrinates by paralysing one’s intellectual capacity, characterised by an inability to justify one’s