Here’s where I have a problem with this:
You are saying that indoctrination is a good thing if the doctrine is truth, but what you mean is if the doctrine is what YOU believe to be true. And that specific mindset is the definitive source of both aggressive, intrusive “evangelism”, and of relgious intolerance.
The truth, as comprehended or expressed by any living being, is by necessity subjective; as it relies on the interpretation of the being comprehending or expressing it.
We could, potentially, stand side by side under the same sky, and you say that the sky is blue and I say that the sky is green. Perhaps my brain interprets what you see as being blue as being green, in which case, both statements are true, subjective to the way in which our minds interpret the impulses from our eyes.
Yet while, in that scenario, both of our statements are true in our own subjective state, neither observation is true to the other party. What IS true to both of us, regardless of how our brains interpret colors, is that the sky IS. (I am that I am.)
I can assure you that my beliefs, while completely true within my own subjective sphere, are VASTLY different from your beliefs, which are likely completely true within your subjective sphere.
I can also assure you that you would in no way consider it a good thing if I were to try to force upon you the doctrine of MY truth.
While I agree entirely as to how you and I might disagree as to the exact hue of the sky, I note that our disparity of subjective perception does not support a conclusion that the actual hue of the sky cannot be determined with a high degree of objectivity. Objective truth can be determined through analysis of commonalities in the subjective experiences of numerous individuals.
Our two experiences of the color of the sky disagree, and we have no cause to assign greater weight to either, but poll ten thousand, and see how the situation changes. If 9,950 people say the sky is blue, and 50 say it’s green, then you and I have a far greater base of subjective data against which to weigh our own, individual perceptions. Having that data set as a reference, we could quickly come to the conclusion that I am experiencing what most everyone else experiences, and that you ought to see an ophthalmologist. Furthermore, while the perceptions of each of the ten thousand individuals is subjective, the collection of their assertions as to the color of the sky is not; it is a data set — an object — that can be objectively analyzed. Yes, there is a small possibility — two-hundred-to-one against, given this hypothetical — that the 9,950 could be misperceiving the color of the sky, but ongoing input from additional observers would continue to be added to the data set, and test results from your ophthalmologist would be factored in, all of which would influence our trust — or lack of it — in the perceptions of those asserting, “The sky is green.”
At issue here, though, is that our subjective experiences of God — what we each assert to be “the truth” about Him — are not very much like our observations of the color of the sky. They are more like observations of the 3D images in those posters that enjoyed a burst of popularity a few years ago. The posters are multicolor 2D images processed by computer in such a way that they contain a 3D image that can be observed only when you look at them a certain way. When those images first appeared for sale in bookstores a few years back I would go to my local bookstore, and find people standing — sometimes for a half hour or more — staring at the posters, trying without success to resolve the 3D images. Some could look and be able to see the images in a few moments, but others would squint, stare, cross their eyes, change their viewing angle, and eventually go away frustrated in the attempt, having seen nothing but a flat, 2D color poster.
The makers of these posters include specific instructions for viewing them, and the 3D effect does not become apparent unless those instructions are followed. Those who invoke the personal discipline to follow the instructions are rewarded for their patience, if they persevere as, after a few moments, the 3D image suddenly jumps out at them. Then, having had that initial success, they can move on to look at other similarly produced posters, and reliably resolve the hidden 3D images in a few seconds. Furthermore, they can look at any poster, and reliably discern whether there is a 3D image hidden there, or not.
Two aspects of this interest me: first, that the hopeful observer needs to decide that it “is true” that the 3D image exists — that he has an established reason for his hope — prior to attempting to see it; second, that the hopeful observer needs follow specific instructions — to purposefully meet defined terms — before the image will resolve. Those who do that find success with a high degree of reliability; those who try to force it don’t, even if they initially believe that there really IS a 3D image to be seen. They do just about everything BUT follow the instructions, and they never get the 3D image to appear; they never submit to the terms of observation laid down by the producers of the poster. They try to impose their own methods, to force the image to appear to them on their own terms, or they expect it to just pop out at the first glance, and they fail.
That is completely like God: You don’t discover the truth about Him on your terms; He reveals it to you on His terms.
And we, as the observers, have requirements to meet; as do those attempting to resolve the 3D images in those posters. Like them, we must first decide that it “is true” that there is something there to be observed. This is the great “leap of faith” I referenced before. Wholly unlike observers of the color of the sky — who can all see that it “is true” that there IS a sky to observe, which must be of some discernible, describable color — we who would observe God, must assert that it “is true” that God is observable (i.e. He exists), as a precondition of success in our observations, and that He will reward our sincere seeking with success. As with the observers of the posters, we who would observe God must submit to these predefined terms apart from which our attempted observations will fail. One does not, by exertion and activity, force the experience of God; one accepts that He will reveal Himself to those who, by their persistent and sincere seeking demonstrate commitment to the truth of His existence, and their determination that, in light of that truth, they will persistently seek until they find Him.
Now, at this juncture, theologians will jump in with comments regarding election, and free will, but I will set them all aside as irrelevant to us as seekers of God for these reasons:
IF the doctrine of election is true, if we have no free will in the matter, the ONLY way that we may really KNOW that we are NOT among “the elect” is to pretend we are agents with free will, sincerely seek God until death, and pass out of this life having had no success in finding Him.
IF, OTOH, the doctrine of election is not true, and we DO have free will in the matter, then the ONLY reasonable course of action is to exercise that free will, and sincerely seek God, confident that we will find Him ere we breathe our last.
Either way, sincere seekers make a prior commitment to the possibility that they may expend their whole lives seeking, confident that He is yet there to be found, and this commitment becomes the principle manifestation of the sincerity with which they seek. So, whether finding God is by election, or by free will becomes, practically speaking, six of one, or a half-dozen of the other. Therefore I say, these doctrines, and the debate about them, are functionally irrelevant to those who seek.
There is a sufficiently great body of subjective experience asserting the existence of a God Who can be known that a life spent seeking Him cannot be considered wasted, that an expectation of success in seeking Him has a foundation that is entirely reasonable, and that the only ultimate failure in life consists in not having made the commitment to sincerely seek God; first believing that He is, and second believing that He will be found.
It would be easy, I suppose, to object saying that all I have done is to reiterate and shore up my own subjective experience; that I have not communicated "the truth", only "my truth", however that objection does not bear upon whether my perceptions and experience are accurate reflections of what is real, only that they amount to another subjective data point in a vast collection of similar subjective data points.
I grant you this: until one finds God, greater, and smaller collectives of variant subjective experiences are all there seem to be. It appears that it is up to each of us to decide where we stake our own claim, and it becomes our task to review the available positions, and evaluate what short and long range potential lies inherent in each. Everything really DOES seem to be a mere matter of subjective observation.
Once you find God, however, you WILL KNOW that NOTHING could possibly be further from the Truth. So I enjoin you to set your mind and heart to FIND HIM; if it takes the rest of your life, and is the last thing you do. The reward surpasses the price.
FIND HIM!