I constantly marvel and chuckle at the interesting names that people use when they disagree with a point of view. I’ve heard and seen some doosies. Until today, I’ve never encountered “wackaloon bigotry.” Nice.
Though I think Kevin’s off his onion, I gotta say: he coined one heckuva phrase. If nothing more, it’s creative.
Just in case you are wondering, Kevin used that phrase in his response to The Drip Syndrome, which I wrote attempting to generally explain some of the withering boredom found in the public school classroom these days. Saying Kevin disagreed with me is an understatement.
The following is brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department: for his full comment, see the comments section (Since it was deleted by my spam filter, I had to post it under my own name…my bad.).
Kevin started off by arguing:
Nobody buys it when Christians say they want a dramatic paradigm shift in schools so that they can teach their own versions of morals and ethics, and somehow it’s not going to violate the Separation of Church and State. Nobody seriously believes Christians when they say they just want schools to be “neutral” in regards to religion and morals, just like nobody believes Muslims when they say that they want European court systems to be “neutral” as to whether they practice local vs. Sharia law. It’s like when Creationists suggest they just want to let students “make up their own mind” whether humans evolved, or whether they were created by God in their present form. First of all – BS. We know exactly what they want students to believe (the plea for neutrality is merely the tip of their “wedge strategy”).
Recall what I originally argued: schools, in general, do not teach that ethics, character, and morality are areas in which one can possess knowledge. Rather, they are areas of mere personal taste (indeed, you can see this view beautifully portrayed in Kevin’s own comments..more on that later). If you want students to grow in character–which would cure some of the apathy and “dripiness” we see in the classroom–character must be seen and taught as an area of knowledge, something more than an area of arbitrary personal taste.
Notice that Kevin really doesn’t argue that that would violate the Separation of Church and State–he just assumes it. His argument boils down to “yea right,” followed by a good bit of setting fire to straw men.
How, exactly, is advocating that morality and character be taught as areas of knowledge mean that I want the Christian version of morality to be taught? The “character as knowledge” view I espoused is held to by many of the world’s religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, many strands of Hinduism, Mormonism, JW’s, etc), including some ancient philosophers who were not explicitly religious (but were theistic…I include Aristotle in this group).
Just because a school teaches a moral view that a certain religion comports with does not mean the school violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. If that were the case, then when an individual teacher teaches that murder is wrong (which Christianity teaches–see Ten Commandments, The), that would be a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Also: how, exactly, is my “character as knowledge” view relevantly like what Muslims are doing in regards to Sharia Law in Europe? I don’t see any comparison, and Kevin needs to do more than simply imply there’s a connection. Right now, it just looks like he’s trying to emotionally badger my view by associating it in some vague way with evil and wicked ideologies, kinda like playing the ‘ol Hitler Card.
Third, notice that he doesn’t refute or rebut my claim that public schools are not truly neutral in their ideology. I argued that public schools, by and large, assume a naturalistic worldview, and this is not neutral when it comes to morality and ethics. Such a stance is not even possible. There is no neutral moral ground. Teaching that morality is a matter of personal choice is not neutrality: it’s relativism, which is a particular view about morality/reality, etc. Rather than attack that argument, Kevin attacked something different: Christians. He said that Christians don’t want neutrality. Even if true, you can’t refute a view by attacking something else.
Next: are we to think that the faux “neutrality” offered by naturalism is actually a good thing? So…things like honesty, truth-telling, chastity, humility, goodness, perseverance, etc are just “my personal morals?” Those things aren’t really right/good, and cheating, stealing, hooking up, lying, etc aren’t really wrong/bad…it’s just “my particular ethics,” right? It’s all just a big smorgasboard, and one person’s choice isn’t any better than the next.
Do we really want students believing that the decision to be honest or cheat is just a matter of personal taste, and you really can’t know whether its really right to be honest?
Even if teaching that one can possess moral knowledge amounts to teaching the “Christian view of morality,” so what! I take it that’s a good thing for Christianity. So much for naturalism.
Moving on:
A school that teaches that “the moon may or may not consist of cheese – we need to teach both sides” is not being “neutral,” it’s lending undue credit to stupidity, and burdening the truth with doubt.
This is not what I’m advocating (also note the heavy negative imagery he uses again, without argument). When it comes to morality, I don’t think we should teach “both” sides and let students decide. “We’re gonna have a discussion on cheating, and we’re gonna give both sides. Some say that cheating is ok, but others disagree. In the end, it’s up to you to decide for yourself.” That’s a logical consequence of naturalism, which relegates everything outside the hard sciences to the realm of emotion and mere personal, private belief.
The responsibility of teaching ethics, morals, and religion is with parents. Primary education is for imparting knowledge and thinking skills. It’s for teaching things society agrees on, things we can see empirically, that we have a consensus about. There is no wide societal consensus that your personal religious and moral values are the correct ones to be taught to all children. I doubt very highly that we are going to overhaul the whole concept of the public school system to include teachings of your particular ethics.
Notice that Kevin simply assumes, without argument, the naturalistic view I pointed to. Schools should teach and impart knowledge. Where can we find knowledge? We find knowledge with things we can see empirically and where there is consensus. There is no empirical evidence and consensus available in the area of morals and ethics, so schools shouldn’t be teaching about those things. All I’m talking about is my “personal” views.
If being honest, persevering, humble, etc are merely my “personal” views, then perhaps my “personal” views should be taught.
There is more consensus in the area of morality than Kevin admits, but that’s neither here nor there. I need not harp on that to make my point. Like I’ve said above, this is not neutral–his is a particular view about morality, and it’s especially pernicious when it comes to us producing students who have good character. We can talk about certain vices, like cheating, but everything else we teach undercuts that. If morality as a whole is a personal taste thing, the same goes for cheating–it’s not really wrong. This just makes any anti-cheating statements the moral equivalent of anti-broccolli statements. Why worry about it, then?
Any worldview that privatizes ethics and morality into the arena of feeling and emotion is not a worldview worthy of assent. A moment’s reflection will tell you that we can have moral knowledge. To choose an obvious example: torturing babies for fun is wrong, and yes, you can know this. Just because you can’t analyze this statement empirically doesn’t mean you can’t know it. As philosopher William Craig has said, if someone were to walk in and suggest rape is ok, we wouldn’t reflect on that morality tolerantly; we’d suggest he get help fast.
Incidentally, you’ll see the term “Naturalism” pejoratively thrown around a lot by UFO believers, astrologers, ghost hunters, crystal healers, theists, etc. – basically anybody who is really tired of people who keep reminding them about those pesky facts, “hard science,” the observable world, empiricism, etc. It’s an old tactic of those who preach departure from reality – if your opposition has facts and evidence on their side, give your opponent a name which implies that facts are just one [contested] viewpoint.
I don’t know why Kevin is making this point. Am I to believe that just because astrologers et al believe it and say it, that means it’s rubbish? Astrologers also believe that if you jump off a 20 story building, you’ll fall. Does that mean gravity is bogus?
Furthermore, he again just asserts naturalism without arguing for it. According to him, evidence, reality, and facts are synonymous with what you can detect empirically. He needs to give an argument for it.
In addition, it’s not like I’m just making up the term “naturalism” and applying it to those with which I disagree, as if it were a word with a heavy negative connotation. Naturalists themselves use the term to refer to their views. From the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy:
A sympathy with the view that ultimately nothing resists explanation by the methods characteristic of the natural sciences. A naturalist will be opposed, for example, to mind-body dualism, since it leaves the mental side of things outside the explanatory grasp of biology or physics; opposed to acceptance of numbers or concepts as real but non-physical denizens of the world; and opposed to accepting real moral duties and rights as absolute and self-standing facets of the natural order. The central problem for naturalism is to define what counts as a satisfactory accomodation between the preferred sciences and the elements that on the face of it have no place in them.
This dictionary, by the way, was not made by fundie reactionaries hell-bent on winning a word game, and it is not published by TBN. It is a standard dictionary of philosophy.
Coincidentally, Kevin has argued much the same in our other discussions. Whenever he encounters a term he’s unfamiliar with, he tends to accuse me of jerry-rigging the discussion and inventing my own terminology, despite the fact that the words I’ve used and views I refer to aren’t idiosyncretic at all. They all have a long history to them, and when I reference them it’s far from arbitrary. More charity would be nice. I’ve done my homework, and I need more than a dismissal. At least ask me for clarification before accusing me of ill dealings. The accusations are starting to bug me.
He goes on:
“Destruction/Protection of the Family” is a cute and oft-used euphemism for intolerance. For instance, let’s say that some people are born with a gender expression or sexual orientation that does not match yours. They aren’t hurting anybody – at most, they merely demand equal status as human beings – but they do make you a teensy bit uncomfortable. Unfortunately, it’s not considered acceptable to use epithets or stone them anymore, so you propose the idiotic and insulting notion that they are “destroying families.”
Nice…I love the smell of red herrings and straw men in the morning.
The destruction of the family started long before the current battle around same-sex marriage, so I don’t hold the two to be one and the same. I do think that same-sex marriage will further erode the institution of the family (more here), but that is an argument that’s not central to what I’m saying here. Things like no-fault divorce are what I have in mind here. Basically, if a boy grows up without a father (and vice versa for girls), his development and growth as a person will most likely be severely stunted. This has tremendous consequences in our public schools. The data on this is as plain as the nose on your face. That doesn’t mean that every boy without a father will grow up to be a thug, but it does mean that he’ll have obstacles to overcome.
Kevin faults me for wanting my “particular” view on morality and gender roles to be taught, but he fails to recognize that neutrality on those two counts are not possible. I suppose, rather than my “particular” views being taught, he would be entirely comfortable with his views being taught. In fact, seems like he just assumes that his views on morality and gender are truly tolerant, good, and open-minded. So enough of the moral grandstanding and preening. We’re both in the same boat. The real questions are: 1) is naturalism true? 2) will it allow for a robust character education? What is best for students?
Perhaps, in all his comments, he’s just talking about the Intelligent Design/Darwinian evolution controversy in public schools….should only Darwinian evolution be taught? If that’s what he’s arguing about, then that’s a post for another time…:)
See my other posts on education
If this post made you think, please consider subscribing to my RSS feed (RSS button at the top right in the sidebar).
I’d like to say upfront that I do respect Rich’s point of view, and (most of) the things he stands up for. He and I have a lot in common, and the nature of our dispute, in my opinion, rests mostly on the “how”, not the “what”. I think he’s well intentioned, just misguided (as he probably thinks of me.)
Having said that, I think that the strength of our present society rests in the marketplace of ideas – thoughts are presented, and are then challenged and refined; and in the end, the best ideas win out. We all benefit, as a society, from discussing things and hashing them out. And, whether or not we agree, we should give due credence to those who hold alternate viewpoints.
I believe this concept is what has made our current society great, and tenable. And so, here’s my response to this post.
I argue that the function of primary school (i.e., through high school) is to teach empirical knowledge. I’m not sure what Rich is going on about here regarding “personal taste”: I would argue that it is not the job of the educational institution to provide character growth. We live in a pluralistic society, and I’m sure that Rich would agree with me that he wouldn’t want his children being taught character and religious morals by Muslims or Buddhists any more than children of Muslims or Buddhists or Jews would like to be taught religious morals by him. As always, I stipulate that the job of teaching moral ethics, whether religious or not, lies with a child’s parents. That is their job, and nobody else’s. Period.
As Rich is seemingly wont to do, let us not conflate this with things like cheating and murder. Cheating in the classroom is a directly detrimental of the educational process, regardless of what your religion is. Murder is unlawful. These are not not up for debate. I’m talking about specific religious doctrines in the classroom.
Again, I reiterate that my view is only that teaching anything relating to any specific religious doctrine in the classroom would violate the establishment clause. I went to highschool in two different towns. Half of my high school years were spent in a school which was situated in a very liberal area. My public school had a Christian club, some of my friends and teachers were Christian, and nobody I knew ever got in a twist over any worldview being shoved down anybody’s throat, because we all respected each others’ opinions, and more importantly, we felt that education at that level is about thinking skills and empirical knowledge, not worldviews or metaphysics. In science class, everybody learns the scientific theories regarding abiogenesis and evolution – the observable, agreed-upon, unbiased facts and culmination of hundreds of years of study and knowledge – and my teachers never espoused any ideas about some kind of guiding force, or lack thereof, that may or may not be driving that process. If a Christian student wanted to believe that God intended for things to work in the ways we observed, and so they did, then there would be no conflict whatsoever. Philosophical musings about the deeper meanings behind such processes is way outside the scope of such classes. In the rare case where a student brought such an issue up, the teacher would be unfailingly overly diplomatic by pointing out that some people believed it, others didn’t. I never saw or even heard of a single case of a high school (or younger) student being prosecuted for talking about religious beliefs.
For the other half of my high school, I went to a tiny public school in rural Oregon, which was very conservative. Most of my teachers were Christian. Many of them had crosses or religious pictures in their classroom (in flagrant violation of school district policy.) My algebra teacher, Mr. Angoss, read from the Bible on occasion, and on more than one occasion, I heard him telling students that unless they lived a certain kind of life, they’d go to hell. He eventually was fired for a sexual scandal with one of his students, but only after years of religious proselytisation.
This kind of nonsense is what I would seek to eliminate.
This is what I am saying: religious groups trying to force their ideologies on a secular society are wrong. Christians who want to have prayer in classrooms, or who want to read from the bible, to their students, are wrong.
Again, do not conflate this with a teacher saying that cheating or murder is wrong. We’ve already covered this.
Primary schools are not supposed to be teaching a “worldview.” They are teaching the accumulation of knowledge, passed down by many generations and centuries of accumulated scientific study. The accumulations of facts, known as the scientific consensus, is totally neutral to “worldviews”. It doesn’t assume that there is or is not a God. For instance, those who study or follow abiogenesis, or origin of life (the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter) don’t generally consider it to be incompatible with the idea of a supreme being; i.e., there’s nothing in the theories which exclude the idea, but neither do they prove such an idea.
This perspective does not “attack Christians,” unless those Christians are attempting to subvert the aforementioned concept of the scientific process.
There are plenty of Christians who have their Christian worldview, and it’s completely in-line with what the general scientific consensus is regarding the nature of the universe.
In other words, if you listen to what the best minds of the day are saying about how the universe / galaxy / solar system / planet / animals / humans got this way, and your interpretation of it is that it’s God’s design, then that’s perfectly fine – with me, with the scientific community, with just about anybody. This discussion extends beyond the scope of the understanding of scientists. They are not concerned with the “why”, they are concerned with the “how”.
On the other hand, if you believe that the bible is literally true, and you think, like Ken Ham, that the world was literally created 6000 years ago, in 6 days, then I am going to laugh at you, and we have nothing further to discuss – because you totally reject the evidence of the world around you.
However, I totally reject that the concept of morality, “right and wrong”, ethics, etc. belongs exclusively in the arena of religion. The idea that morals and ethics arose from religion is completely unsubstantiated – it’s very easily proven that those concepts arose in human culture long before religion. Those are human values, not religious ones.
You would call me a “naturalist,” but I still strongly believe that cheating, lying, and hurting my fellow humans is wrong. Not because it offends a deity, but because it offends my sense of values that come from a naturalistic viewpoint – which sees the destruction that this sort of behaviour causes in society.
Nobody is seriously arguing for that. Straw man.
It has nothing to do with Christianity, or religion in general.
Haha, wow. You really need to look up the word “allegory”. I wasn’t talking about cheating. Cheating is wrong. I was talking about creationism. On the subject of creationism, it is not the role of schools to “teach both sides” of the scientific vs creationism / intelligent design debate. There is a specific scientific consensus regarding this.
Of course. We’re in agreement on that.
Were you totally high when you typed that paragraph? Because you totally missed the boat on my point. Astrologers don’t believe that you can jump off of buildings. They believe that if you were born when planets were in a certain alignment, then you have certain personality characteristics (which is a totally unfounded belief), just like Christians believe that if you follow a certain set of rules, after you die, your spirit is going to this other realm called Heaven (another totally unfounded belief.) These are faith-based beliefs.
The similarity between the two beliefs is that they both regard scientific rationalism as this external “worldview” called “naturalism” which is, according to them, a viable alternative to what we experience when we look at the world with a logical perspective.
You’re a little backwards there. There is this thing called science, which is the culmination of thousands of years of research into the way the universe operates, which you call “naturalism”.
This “naturalism” is responsible for all of the technology you see around you. It’s responsible for the computer that you’re reading this message on, and on all of the networks which has carried this message to you. If you’ve ever been to the doctor, it’s responsible for the medicine you’ve taken. It’s responsible for the structures that your house is built upon, and the reason why your car starts when you put the key in the ignition.
Any departure from this “naturalism” is something that you have to explain, if you are attempting to make anybody think that there is more to our reality than what can be proved with this “naturalism” that you deride so heavily.
Exactly. It is, originally, the correct way to describe the universe. It is sometimes used pejoratively as a way to attack this worldview. The impetus is on you to prove it wrong. Do so, if you can.
Yeah, you tried to use the term “Natural law” to describe something, which, according to you, I should not “not take cues from a general dictionary”. Uh huh.. good one. I’m the one redefining things?
Okay – that’s your opinion. Don’t force it on me and my friends, unless you have good cause. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t have one. I fail to see how same-sex marriage “erodes the the institution of the family.”
Prove it. Give me some data on that.
Twenty years from now, everybody is going to look back on those with your viewpoint like we look back today on supporters of the KKK, as well-intentioned as they were, trying to defend the white race in the name of Jesus.
Yes, I want my values taught to children. Twenty years ago, I would have said that I want black and Asian children taught that they are equal humans. Today, I want children who are born gay or lesbian or bisexual to feel like they are equal to heterosexuals. Decades ago, it would be unthinkable to have textbooks with pictures of interracial married couples. Today, it’s same-sex married couples. This makes children who are born this way feel wrong and bad.
This must stop. I feel that people like you are causing irreparable harm to innocent children, and I see this as one of the most evil things that is possible on this earth. I don’t care what your religious values tell you; I am committed to seeing it end.
And it’s going to end, trust me.
Kevin,
One quick comment…I’ll get to your full response later (I’m quickly getting backed up in what I need to respond to, aren’t I?
)
You remarked, in response to my comments on the definition of naturalism:
“Yeah, you tried to use the term “Natural law” to describe something, which, according to you, I should not “not take cues from a general dictionary”. Uh huh.. good one. I’m the one redefining things?”
–I cited a definition from a dictionary of *philosophy,* which is definitely not a general dictionary. This is entirely consistent with my comments in our earlier discussions about not taking cues from a general dictionary when it comes to specific philosophical terminology. If I were to consult Webster or something, I would be in the wrong, but this I did not do.
At any rate, I didn’t even need to cite the phil. dictionary to make my point–>that the definition of naturalism I use isn’t a term invented to throw perjorative vibes on a point of view I disagree with. The word is pretty much understood by everyone on both sides of the philosophical equation to mean what I said it means.
You know, after re-reading your words, Kevin, we might be talking past each other. In the comment I quote above, when you said, “uh-huh. And I’m the one redefining things,” were you referring to my attempt to cite the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy to define Naturalism, or were you referring to something else? That’s what I think you are referring to (hence my response), but I need some clarification on that just to be sure.
Right, I wasn’t denying that the term “naturalism” is the proper word; that doesn’t mean it can’t be used pejoratively by people who don’t agree with it.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Stay tuned for the rest.
Will do.
Kevin,
There were several comments that you made that represent very interesting debates–what, exactly, is legal and factual to teach in the science classroom (e.g, what counts as “science” and what is merely “religion”), what, exactly, religious teachers are morally and legally allowed to do/say in the classroom (e.g, is having a religious poster or something like that illegal and/or wrong?), same-sex marriage, etc, etc…however, I think if I were to comment on them it would take us down some rabbit trails that would stretch this already stretched conversation. It would turn out to be a very unfocused conversation, so I’m gonna let those subjects fall by the wayside until another conversation, and I’m gonna focus my comments now on what I take to be the main subject–character and public schools (though I will give some data about the effect of fatherlessness on children, because you requested it).
First, I need to define naturalism so that we are both on the same page. Naturalism is not merely the practice of using reason, evidence, valuing scientific inquiry, or basing one’s beliefs on the “facts.” Theists and non-theists alike can do all that. Rather, Naturalism is the view that the physical world is all that exists. Carl Sagan put it nicely: the cosmos is all there is, was, or ever will be. There is nothing immaterial in existence. Anything like “consciousness” is either eliminated from reality or explained in terms of arising from physical constants (called “supervenience”). There are different ways of stating it, but that’s the bottom line with Naturalism.
Now, notice one thing: according to Naturalistic epistemology, the only things that count as knowledge are things that can be known via the five senses. Some Naturalists leave a bit of room for a priori knowledge, but its pretty thin soup. Mostly, they restrict knowledge to the hard sciences. So if something cannot be known through the hard sciences, it is put in another, non-knowledge category, like emotion or feeling or mere “belief.” (As an aside, a few Naturalists do try to retain objective moral facts by tethering them to physical facts, but I think they are woefully unsuccessful in their attempt)
Ethics and morality cannot be known by the hard sciences. Moral rules are not physical–you can’t bump into them in the night. Therefore, most Naturalists relegate them to one of those non-knowledge categories. According to them, moral rules are not objective facts at home in the furniture of the universe. They are subjective, or conventional (akin to made-up rules about eating salad with a fork as opposed to a spoon), or something else entirely, like survival instincts (this tack changes morality into something wholly non-normative). Naturalism eliminates morality from the realm of knowledge…there is no room for them in a Naturalistic epistemology.
This is what I keep referring to….public education, like it or not, assumes a Naturalist epistemology. When it comes to things like morality, the message is clear: you can believe what you want, but don’t pretend that your moral views are objectively true and have anything to do with reality. We then go on to say that certain things are really wrong (like judging, “pushing one’s morality on another,” cheating, etc–our secular moral hobby-horses), but we miss the fact that our collective assumed epistemology in education completely undermines those statements.
BTW, this phenomena isn’t just restricted to public ed…its a facet of our Western secular culture at large…it’s just that public ed is an extension of our secular culture.
Ok, with that background, let me comment on your comments. Yours start with a >, mine with a –:
>I would argue that it is not the job of the educational institution to provide character growth. We live in a pluralistic society, and I’m sure that Rich would agree with me that he wouldn’t want his children being taught character and religious morals by Muslims or Buddhists any more than children of Muslims or Buddhists or Jews would like to be taught religious morals by him. As always, I stipulate that the job of teaching moral ethics, whether religious or not, lies with a child’s parents. That is their job, and nobody else’s.
–I realize you want to talk about teaching religious doctrine in public ed. We probably agree a lot on that score. You are correct when you insinuate that I wouldn’t want someone teaching Muslim religious doctrine to my kids in a public school.
However, that is not what I’m talking about. I am talking about *morality,* not *religious doctrine.* Though the two are related, they are different subjects. At points, you seem to conflate the two. Again, teaching that morality is an objective feature of the world and hence can be known is not specifically a Christian religious doctrine. Conservative and liberal adherents to a number of religions hold the same thing, so it cannot be said that such a notion violates the Establishment Clause. Teaching that one can know moral right from wrong and teaching that moral character that is an element of knowledge does not commit me to teaching any one specific religious doctrine.
There are specific moral views that I think should be taught (or at least *discussed* like there is an actual right/wrong on the issue. We can discuss certain moral debates like an answer can be known without resorting to mandating/teaching a certain point of view. Giving room for liberty of thought on a moral debate does not mean we must say, “it’s all opinion, so one’s opinion is just as good as the next.”), but again, these are not elements of specific religions–those of many or no religions adhere to them.
I do hold that a *theistic universe* is the best explanation and home for objective morality, but this is different from saying that morality comes from the Bible. For example, take “murder is objectively wrong.” This is taught in the Bible, but that’s not why it’s wrong. It is not wrong b.c its in the Bible; its in the Bible b.c its wrong. It is wrong because it violates the dignity of a human being with intrinsic worth. Human beings–persons–with intrinsic worth fit very nicely in a theistic world with a good personal God, but very unnaturally in an atheistic world. Why think humans have intrinsic worth (worth just b.c they are human, not b.c of any function/ability they possess) if they arose from a blind, amoral, purposeless process? Things like “dignity” and “intrinsic worth” are very queer (this was an actual term used by atheist J.L Mackie, one of the most famous atheist phil’s of the 20th century) in a Naturalistic universe.
>As Rich is seemingly wont to do, let us not conflate this with things like cheating and murder. Cheating in the classroom is a directly detrimental of the educational process, regardless of what your religion is. Murder is unlawful. These are not not up for debate. I’m talking about specific religious doctrines in the classroom.
–Refer to above discussion. I think we agree on specific religious doctrines in the classroom, but in all of my posts so far I’ve focused on something different.
Question: when you refer to cheating and murder, are you saying they are wrong because of their bad consequences and because they are already against the law? If that is not why they are wrong, why are they wrong on your view? Are they objectively, factually morally wrong, or just wrong *for you?*
If they are wrong b.c of their bad effects–what counts as a “bad effect?” More importantly, what about things that have no bad effects? If a peeping tom was outside watching your sister bathe (without her knowledge), would be be doing something wrong? It is hard to see what bad effect that action would have on others, including your sister (remember, she doesn’t know and isn’t being directly harmed), but most would still say it’s wrong.
If they are wrong b.c they are unlawful–things have been unlawful in the past that were clearly morally right–aiding and abetting a runaway slave, for instance.
My point: bad consequences and something being unlawful are neither necessary nor sufficient for saying something is morally wrong.
There is one thing related to religious doctrines that I think should be clarified, though: some religious doctrines arise from historical study. That is, they can be made reasonable/unreasonable, rational/irrational by referring to historical evidence (the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth is an example). While a history teacher might need to be mum on teaching, say, the substitutionary atonement view of Jesus’ crucifixion, he should not be mum on referring to *historical evidence* that confirms or disconfirms the historical event of the man named Jesus of Nazareth being crucified on a Roman cross. The latter is an historical event that can be verified or not (that is, evidence for the event can be offered), while the former is a theological extrapolation from the event.
The same goes for any other historical events referred to in other religions (Muhammad existing and fighting in certain military battles, for instance, or the Mormons migrating to Utah. Even the claim that Joseph Smith translated the B.O.M from an ancient language into English can be historically buttressed or disconfirmed.)
>Primary schools are not supposed to be teaching a “worldview.” They are teaching the accumulation of knowledge, passed down by many generations and centuries of accumulated scientific study. The accumulations of facts, known as the scientific consensus, is totally neutral to “worldviews”.
–You just reflected your own worldview in that last statement. What you count as knowledge–scientific consensus–reflects the Naturalist epistemology that I just layed out above. You count out other areas of study, like philosophy, history, and theology–as areas of knowledge. This is most definitely *not* neutral! This is Naturalist epistemology. That doesn’t mean you are wrong–you might be right; that is a different question entirely. My point is that there is no neutral ground here. A school or person *cannot* not assume a worldview. There is no “view from nowhere,” completely untethered from a worldview. This, of course, does not mean we can’t know anything–knowledge is still quite attainable even though worldview neutrality is not possible.
>However, I totally reject that the concept of morality, “right and wrong”, ethics, etc. belongs exclusively in the arena of religion. The idea that morals and ethics arose from religion is completely unsubstantiated – it’s very easily proven that those concepts arose in human culture long before religion. Those are human values, not religious ones.
–Again, I am not claiming that right and wrong is based on the Bible. The Bible might inform our moral knowledge in places, but that doesn’t mean that right and wrong totally comes from the Bible. I agree with you in part, though I phrase it differently. Humans have possessed moral knowledge before the Bible was assembled, and cultures that do not have the Bible possess moral knowledge (the Bible actually teaches this in Romans 1).
A good question to ask, then, is: what grounds this extra-biblical moral knowledge, ontologically-speaking? Are these moral rules ground in the character of a good, personal God (who would exist before the Bible was assembled) who then went on to bestow human beings with a conscience (so they could know such moral rules), or are these moral rules simply brute facts, ungrounded in the furniture of nature (a few Naturalists do go this route)? Or, are they something else entirely? For instance, are they not “facts” at all, but just the herd instinct that has helped us survive, or social conventions that help us get along? If they are either, do we have an obligation to obey such “rules”? In my mind, if morality is the herd instinct or social convention, it’s a bit of a stretch to call something “evil,” “wicked,” or “unjust.” “Not conducive to survival,” or maybe “not prudent/practical,” sure…its just hard to see how we could maintain the concept of moral obligation on such grounds.
>You would call me a “naturalist,” but I still strongly believe that cheating, lying, and hurting my fellow humans is wrong. Not because it offends a deity, but because it offends my sense of values that come from a naturalistic viewpoint – which sees the destruction that this sort of behaviour causes in society.
–What do you mean that it “offends your sense of values that come from a Naturalist viewpoint”? What would you say to someone who responded, “my sense of values tells me cheating is entirely ok”? or someone who said, “I don’t care about the destruction caused by society. It benefits me, so I’m gonna do it”? You might be able to say cheating is wrong *for you,* but how, on your view, can you say others are obligated to follow your rules?
ME: Do we really want students believing that the decision to be honest or cheat is just a matter of personal taste, and you really can’t know whether its really right to be honest?
YOU:> Nobody is seriously arguing for that. Straw man.
–Actually, some do. They are called relativists, emotivists, subjectivists, amoralists, verificationalists. There are lots of philosophical viewpoints that agree with that above statement. Besides, relativism is alive and well in the college dorm room…witness the slogans like “that’s just your opinion,” “if you think its wrong, fine, don’t do it, but don’t push your morality on me.” Never mind that such slogans are completely contradictory–they arise from the notion that right and wrong are not matters of objective fact but instead are matters of personal, private taste.
The most important point, though, is that regardless of whether or not anyone actually says that morals are matters of personal tastes, my contention is that that is the logical consequence of some things they *do* say. If morality is not an objective feature of the world and is not an element of knowledge, connect the logical dots…that leads to the conclusion that flouting them is no more serious than eating salad with a spoon, or choosing chocolate cake over apple pie, or flouting the herd instinct.
ME: I don’t know why Kevin is making this point. Am I to believe that just because astrologers et al believe it and say it, that means it’s rubbish? Astrologers also believe that if you jump off a 20 story building, you’ll fall. Does that mean gravity is bogus?
YOU: > Were you totally high when you typed that paragraph?
–ahhh, perhaps. That was a bit of a typo. It should have read, “Astrologers also believe in gravity–that if you jump off a 20 story building, you will fall. Does that mean gravity is bogus?…” The point was that just because crazy people believe it, doesn’t make it wrong. Sure, astrologers believe some crazy things, but that doesn’t mean everything they believe is bogus.
>just like Christians believe that if you follow a certain set of rules, after you die, your spirit is going to this other realm called Heaven (another totally unfounded belief.) These are faith-based beliefs.
–You are trying to equate astrology with Christian beliefs…but Christianity can be historically verified/deverified, and evidence can be offered for its truth or falsehood….It’s validity depends upon historical foundations, which cannot be said of astrology. It’s not just “blind faith.”
–Plus, it is not true that the Bible teaches that if you follow certain rules you go to heaven when you die. Have you read the Bible? Where are you getting this? (I clarified this, hopefully sufficiently, in our personal emails back and forth.)
>This “naturalism” is responsible for all of the technology you see around you. It’s responsible for the computer that you’re reading this message on, and on all of the networks which has carried this message to you. If you’ve ever been to the doctor, it’s responsible for the medicine you’ve taken. It’s responsible for the structures that your house is built upon, and the reason why your car starts when you put the key in the ignition.
–How so? How have all those things been derived from Naturalism as I defined it above? They are derived from the scientific method of observation of the natural world, hypothesis, testing, confirmation/disconfirmation, etc, but this is not Naturalism, nor does it confirm Naturalism. What works are scientific hypothesis, and this is different from N-ism.
Besides, many scientists of the past have been theists (Galileo, Kepler, Bacon…Francis Collins, of the Human Genome Project, is a present day theist….I can come up with many others whose significant discoveries are most definitely not due to Naturalism) who studied the natural realm because they believed it to operate according to certain regularities which were the product of an intelligent designer. Modern science arose from theistic convictions.
The following paper by U Tx prof Robert Koons might be helpful:
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/science.pdf
>The impetus is on you to prove it (Naturalism) wrong. Do so, if you can
–Kevin, the burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim. I have made claims and so have a burden of proof to shoulder, but so have you, and it is quite unfair to think that I’m the only guy who has some ‘splainin to do. In the case of Naturalism, as I’ve already pointed out, it is not a default view–it makes claims about the nature of the reality, morality, what makes a human being, and what counts as knowledge. These are claims that must be substantiated, just like theistic claims about reality et al must be substantiated.
ME: Basically, if a boy grows up without a father (and vice versa for girls), his development and growth as a person will most likely be severely stunted.
YOU: > Prove it. Give me some data on that.
–First, some experience: come teach where I teach. The fatherless rate astronomical in the inner city–above 70% according to many studies. It is absolutely clear that most boys at my school have no clue what it means to be a man. Ya, ya, I know what they say about correlation not being causation, but in this case it’s a stretch to think the correlation is totally coincidental.
As far as data, check out these articles:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment050200c.html
http://www.childrensjustice.org/fatherlessness2.htm
That should get you started.