How to Tell You've Been Indoctrinated

[Angrboda]

I'm not sure what you mean by "indoctrinated." It seems you're using it as a synonym for brainwashed, which is a concept of some ill repute. If we were to rephrase the question as, "How do you know when you've learned about the existence of God?" then the question tends to lose the rather negative attitude involved by using the term "indoctrinated." I think you're biasing your conclusions by using loaded terminology.

... We know indoctrination and brain-washing occurs. To the best of my knowledge that's not in dispute - please correct me if I'm wrong. ...

Well then, your knowledge differs from mine, as my understanding is that "brainwashing" as a psychological concept has fallen on hard times. If you have anything which says otherwise, please present it.

"The suggestion that NRMs [New Religious Movements] use mind control techniques has resulted in scientific and legal controversy." ~ Wikipedia

Reexamining the concept of brainwashing after the war, in 1956 the U.S Department of the Army published a report entitled Communist Interrogation, Indoctrination, and Exploitation of Prisoners of War which called brainwashing a "popular misconception." ... Two academic studies of the repatriation of American prisoners of war ... concluded that brainwashing ... had at best a transient effect. More recent reexaminations of the notion of brainwashing likewise have concluded brainwashing per se did not occur.

(ETA: I don't think it matters where its posted so long as the focus is understood. And while I think you're putting words in my mouth, and then using a fallacious appeal to ridicule, the question, "How do you think one realizes that one has learned about the existence of God when one has learned about the existence of God?" is a perfectly valid question with surprising implications. [See Robert Burton's book, On Being Certain, or would you prefer to simply mock doctor Burton?])

In 1983, the American Psychological Association (APA) asked Margaret Singer to chair a taskforce called the APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC) to investigate whether brainwashing or "coercive persuasion" did indeed play a role in recruitment by such movements. Before the taskforce had submitted its final report, the APA submitted on February 10, 1987 an amicus curiæ brief in an ongoing court case related to brainwashing. Although the amicus curiæ brief written by the APA denies the credibility of the brainwashing theory, the APA submitted the brief under "intense pressure by a consortium of pro-religion scholars (a.k.a. NRM scholars)". The brief repudiated Singer's theories on "coercive persuasion" and suggested that brainwashing theories were without empirical proof. Afterward the APA filed a motion to withdraw its signature from the brief, since Singer's final report had not been completed. However, on May 11, 1987, the APA's Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) rejected the DIMPAC report because the report "lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur", and concluded that "after much consideration, BSERP does not believe that we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue." This leaves the APA's position on brainwashing as equivalent to: more research is needed until a definitive scientific verdict can be given.