Randman's call for nonSecular education...

Man, I just paged through 100+ posts of atheism vs communism, just so I could respond to these latest posts... I want those 25 minutes of my life back! Ugh! I disagree. Society always exists in a historical context. Even if EVERYBODY is ignorant of the Bible, it can still drive society via it's historical influence. Of course with no guidance, the historical influence will gradually be lost over time.Which brings up a second objection: the majority are followers, and don't necessarily "drive" a culture. Those in positions of influence are who drive cultures. You can have a majority of "the few" (those who exert cultural influence) be actively making the Bible drive their influence, and thus drive the culture, while the masses remain ignorant. What is a basic education, and what's the purpose of a basic education? You ask the questions, but I can't tell your own view. I'd say it's to make people functional, contributing members of our societies, to give them skills such that they can relate socially to others and have necessary and discernable skills.I think that, in a globalized world, it's important to really understand the roles of religion and culture in the interplay of people in the world. I also think a historical perspective of our own country is important. I do think there is an important role for teaching about Christianity in a required setting, i.e. in school. The actual organization of the curriculum.. I'm not sure, but I like some of the suggestions that you and jar have made.To get to the point (your question), having the church teach it is problematic for two reasons:

• The church has a vested interest in teaching Christianity both sympathetically and less from the viewpoint of "one of many religious / ethical / cultural viewpoints". I want to see Christianity taught from the viewpoint of someone on the outside looking in.
• It then becomes optional. How do you require people to go to church after school to learn about religious things? And how do you deal with it when you move to other religions / cultures?

Well first of all, public education in the US IS like this; everything is taught in the same place. There's no such specialization.Second, even specialized schools have basic requirements. For example, engineering schools have requirements in the humanities. And they're taught by on-campus faculty employed by the university. So... I don't think you're objection is a good one.Ben

Even if randman's underlying motivation is such evagelism (and I really have no idea either way), this thread is about the merits of teaching about religion. I found it odd to hear you say this, because you previously objected to mikehagar's remarks in this direction...I think teaching about Christianity is not against anybody's rights, just as teaching about Western history to first-generation Eastern immigrants is not against their rights. History, both cultural and political, is really important stuff. With some things, appearance and reality are the same thing. I think to a large degree, this is true for the case you're talking about. To many people, science appears to be putting some boundaries and limitations on religious beliefs. To many people, the naturalistic assumptions, combined with the presentation of scientific results as describing reality (i.e. TRUTH), means that science is making the statement that reality is purely naturalistic (and not that it simply can be described usefully naturalistically).In that way, I am really reluctant to accept your statement... Totally agree. Just think the same argument should be given to Christianity. Especially given an EvC debate; understanding Christianity is a critical part in being able to usefully proceed in the debate. Otherwise, we just get caught up in "arguing" facts. ("Arguing" = talking at each other in a non-constructive manner)Do agree with the rest of your post. I'm quite surprised to disagree with parts of two of your posts in the same day. Must have been that "supreme" pizza I had for dinner, which was "supreme" in only one dimension--the indigestion I'm dealing with right now.Ben

Moose,I think holmes' post here is relevant to your thoughts.To summarize, this is supposed to be a thread about why ALL students should learn ABOUT Christianity. What you write sounds like you think it's a thread about "teaching" Christian faith (i.e. teacahing with the purpose of creating / recruiting / maintaining believers) to some people.Ben

Moose--I did read the other messages (and re-read them now), but I still think religious education is an important part of understanding our past and current culture. For that reason, it should be presented in school. Because, that's one major reason for having school--to make us functional in our culture and (hopefully) in interacting with cultures around the world (we live in a globalized world, after all)There's workshops all over the place that people can attend, but the problem is that they're not mandatory. And that the purpose behind them can be really questioned.Why do you think that an optional workshop on Christianity would address the real issue (that understanding major roots in your past and current culture is an important part of what allows you to have the perspective necessary for making good, informed decisions within your culture)? You could honestly make any subject optional / elective; why this one?Ben

I think it would be great if we had classes that help people understand what makes a culture, and make religion a big part of that. To teach people what is at the core of cultural tolerance. (Some) people exercise cultural tolerance because they're taught to do it. I want the beginnings of an understanding of it. It's a poor man's version of studying abroad.Living in another culture and dealing with the differences, and being "culturally tolerant" on your own turf are two different things. I don't see that we have any mechanism that teaches us such things. Some communities are able to provide that, but seems to me there are lots of communities that do NOT provide it (due to a lack of diversity [cultural, economic, etc].There are so many subjects that lack true utility for most students, and should be elective. I think it would be worthwhile to list out what classes are currently mandatory in some school, which are optional, and to each state which classes we think should be mandatory and why. Is this the thread for that, or should it go in another?In the case you gave, it's super easy. Bye-bye Russian & Soviet history, it's unnecessary. US history is OK... but I'd rather there were more interactive classes that are more useful ("Applied History of the United States of America" would be one).Being multi-culturally functional should be a requirement that we don't ignore. And part of that is understanding your own culture and religious foundings, and the culture of those around you.How much can fit onto a semester? That's a good question, I'm not going to address it unless someone asks (because it takes a lot of thought).Ben

Hi holmes,Thanks for taking the time to refocus the thread. I think it's an interesting thread. I understand. Just to clarify, my position is that it doesn't matter if it's "necessary" or not; I agree with randman that it's useful to a degree that it's worth making room for. Because of that, for me, arguing whether it's "necessary" or not is not worthwhile. Well, you can see that I disagree with you strongly on this one. Too much responsibility in the parent's hands, there has to be a system of "checks and balances" in education. It's not uncommon for parents to have a limited scope of cultural knowledge. It just doesn't work in today's globalized world.I'll expand a bit more on this below. I probably couldn't disagree more.What is the use of language? Do you mean a foreign language, literature, or study of our own native language? I assume you mean study of our first language. How is that helpful at all? Vocabulary is best learned in an applied environment; just study those applied environments. Every discipline has different jargon and vocabulary; why focus on expanding vocabulary without a specific subject area to increase it for? Maybe I'm totally missing your point... but when you say "language", what can I do but guess? As for logic... I completely disagree that the study of abstract logic better equips students with the ability to make logical deductions. The ability to apply logic is very contextual; i.e. logic is an applied subject. Even though it seems best to teach it abstractly, it just doesn't work--ability to do logic in different contexts correlates with academic experience, but not with whether you've taken a logic course¹. For those who have less education, ability in logic is extremely contextual.No way a course in abstract logic is going to accomplish what you want. Logic has to be taught in applied, contextual settings.And math... what is math good for these days? If there's one utility for computers, it's to do math for us. I don't think math inspires great creative thinking... those who are interested in mathematical subjects, such as ... math, physics, computational modelling... that's fine. But I think we teach math much more than we need to. Who needs geometry?And again, I'd strongly suggest that applied math would be much more useful than math theory. It's amazing how hard word problems are, even for those who have the necessary math. The world is word problems; if we're not teaching the skills to solve such problems, we're not teaching useful skills. Yes! An applied setting. Teaching in context. I love it. Let's do that. We need to get some information on the types of jobs that are available in the US. I have a real hard time believing that the contents of science class are useful in any jobs.Now, critical thinking, such as hypothesis testing, is a great skill applicable in all sorts of jobs. I'm all for teaching that. Science class is a good applied setting for teaching such a skill. See, to me, these are necessary. You need to situate yourself in the world, give context to your own life. Without it, I just see "big fish in a big pond" syndrome; believing that your local community is somehow representative of larger parts of the world. Not only that, but having a lack of concern... or thought about the rest of the world.Applied history and applied geography. I love it. History not as facts, but as decisions, as tangible cultures, as having an active hand in shaping the world you see before you. Teach geography as world travel, teach it in the context of neighboring countries, how they relate, what kinds of relations can exist and where they do exist, how different cultures find different ways to relate to each other. Let students personify different cultures, different relations, propose solutions to problems. Sounds ambitious... but kids can be smarter in their ADD simplified ways than adults can be... because adults create hangups for themselves. I agree. Some degree of facts need to be taught, so that a "cultural literacy" is maintained and people (past, present, and future) can communicate efficiently and accurately. But I agree with your basic point. I don't mean to be insulting... but I do feel this stance is a cop-out. Yes, it's hard to choose, yes, you're damned no matter how you choose... that doesn't mean it's right to ditch the enterprise. It just means every choice is imperfect. Making no choice is just worse.You can probably guess by now--I don't believe belief should be taught in a factual, unapplied manner. It has to be contextual, applied... teach cultures, teach differences, teach celebrations of the good sides of different cultures. Hell, make class a party every day for all I care. The most basic point is to forge an interest in other cultures, to foster the idea that other cultures aren't foreign or strange, but familiar, knowable, not a priori threatening.At the same time, as I mentioned above, it is important to give people context to their lives. I think teaching about Christianity, some historical, some cultural, is a very important part of establishing that context. This is something worth discussing with randman. I hope you can see that what I really want to be taught is what can provide useful context to people's lives, and to help them relate.

---

¹ Kurtz, Kenneth J., Gentner, Dedre, & Gunn, Virginia. (1999). Reasoning. In D.E. Rumelhart & B.M. Bly (Eds). Cognitive Science: Handbook of Perception and Cognition (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press, p. 154.

---

I've never written such a long reply, and I haven't adequately argued why all this stuff belongs in school and not at home. Suffice it to say that families don't always have the necessary knowledge or perspective in order to deliver these things to their kids. And it's a critical element in a functioning society. So... sounds like something that should be mandatory to me. Put it in schools.Anyway, I'll just let you deal with what's here, and we can go forward from that. I know there are points that I've only addressed weakly, but ... best to move on as is.Thanks again for your work in summarizing and moving this forward.BenThis message has been edited by Ben, Friday, 2005/11/18 07:59 AM

holmes,Thanks for the reply. By the way, I forgot to paste in my reference to my claims on logic. Hopefully I'll remember to do so after writing this reply. (Now realizing the unlikelihood of that)... consider this a pre-re-failure apology. Oops!I'm a big believer in starting new threads, so that others can participate. My purpose of talking about classes was to show where we can fit in teaching about Christianity.. now it looks like we're moving into the realm of "Education: what is it for and how should we do it?"I think I'll start a PNT and try to move this discussion there? THat way more people can participate. And sorry about misunderstanding the purpose of the thread.I'll look forward to responding to your new thread. I have a lot to say! Again!Ben