Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

I'm not sure that makes sense. I think they can learn it, but simply haven't learned it yet. That means teaching it would make sense, as it would yield results. I think it's better to keep the children free of indoctrination either way until they can understand critical thinking better, and be left to analyse the situation objectively.I didn't put that forward very well. I should clarify that the context is very significant to my observation here; it's a matter of magnitude. If something as minor as some posters can really translate into a fixed idea and prevent the development of critical thinking in youth, then that suggests critical thinking is an exceptionally fragile thing (which makes teaching it rather futile). If we're speaking more broadly, though, then I do see your point. I still don't agree, but that's because I'm rather cynical about the human capacity for critical thinking. I don't regard it as a common attribute, at least not in any rigorous form. Even if people are taught it consistently and well, I'm not confident the outcome would be critical thinkers. There's just never been sufficient pressure for us to develop that way, and being illogical is sometimes even a greater asset. Reasonable people are the outliers and there's not much education can do about that on my view. At the end of the day that's just my opinion about what is right (which I think we both agree isn't enough to make it right), and perhaps perhaps it would be more beneficial to indoctrinate them into out interests, as you put it, but I personally don't think that would be fair, or right.It's an interesting dilemma, isn't it? To have an interest against indoctrination that requires at least the minimal indoctrination into valuing critical thinking to resist indoctrination. I'm curious how you might approach that, while still holding to the view that indoctrination more broadly isn't fair or right. I don't think indoctrination is wrong, so it's not a conundrum I run into myself... and I haven't been able to think of a way around it.I think it's okay for the educating institute to accept scientific ideas as valid, simply because they seem to work, although this might be unprovable. [...] Things like the existence of God aren't directly in conflict with science - there's no scientific evidence against God.That seems reasonable to me, and consistent within the value you identified in science. But it still seems to be indoctrination into the value of science at the exclusion of other views, on the basis that they aren't legitimate on a scientific view. How is this not a form of indoctrination? Or if it is, how is it defensible while other forms aren't? (Basically, my preceding question again...)An interesting point. Treating people equally is beneficial to society as a whole I would expect (Can we agree that the goal is to get what's best for society here?) , as it won't result in people rioting, etc. about injustices. I'm not sure how to go about deciding whether or not egalitarianism has been over-valued.Usually a safe assumption, but no. I don't believe that society exists, so I also don't believe in the social or collective welfare. Even if I did, it wouldn't be my goal. I'm an egoist. I like a certain bit of interpersonal stability but only insofar as it benefits me and those I actually care about (which, frankly, isn't most people). Egalitarianism isn't necessary for that, just avoiding extreme inequality (and maybe not even that, so long as people feel sufficiently well off themselves).But beyond all of that, my concern is that I think many people (not you specifically) treat the values of egalitarianism and social welfare as interchangeable when they are distinct. It isn't necessarily the case that social welfare is only or best achieved through egalitarianism, and I think quite a bit is presumed on that score. Personally, I think we would all be better off if we were all more (honest about being) egoistical. There is a fair bit of dishonesty around egalitarianism, which purports to be of value for what it does for people while also using them for ends that aren't their own. I don't like that, and it gives me pause in what I presume it is capable of outcomes that I might like.I think if reason and science are as good as we think they are they should take over anyway if it is possible to prevent any sort of indoctrination into non - reason things. You are supposing that if reason and science are really as valuable as we personally find them to be that, absent indoctrination into anything (including science and reason), people would naturally turn to them. I don't think that follows. It presumes a certain intrinsic value to reason and science that simply doesn't exist. It's only valuable because we find value in it, and I don't think it's just indoctrination that keeps people from finding value in reason and science. People are governed by sufficiency, not optimization, and reason and science can be a real inconvenience relative to just accepting things as they suit a person.  I think you might be wrong to say that egalitarianism prevents pro science and reason being advocated for by the govt. There's nothing to stop the govt. promoting reason, just that they might not be able to promote things like atheism, even if they are the product of reasonTaking a positive stand for any thing, reason and science included, is to preference that thing relative to other things. That's not egalitarian. It's preferential. And coming from the government, it's indoctrination. When you say "Why can't we overtly be anti-theistic and just claim that we're not? What actually prevents that?" I'm not entirely sure what your point is.It's a bit tangential at this point, but it was in response to your point that if we pursue indoctrination then other people can too. Alongside the observation that others will pursue indoctrination anyways, the gist of this remark was that we can practice double standards and refuse people who disagree with us access to the same avenues of action by denying that we're taking them and then faulting them for being oppressive tyrants (or something to that effect). It's a proved tactic, really (I'm only a little jaded).