A Great Idea
The think tank: Teach children to challenge religion
We present you with a radical idea. Then you tell us whether we're right or wrong
'Rational, thoughtful atheist," are three words that I tend to think go together, even though on reflection I know that's just not true. There are many intelligent, reflective religious believers in the world, as well as dim-witted, dogmatic atheists. That's why I can't agree with Marx when he wrote: "The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion." What matters more than whether we believe in God or gods is how critically we have reflected on these beliefs.
On this count, religious education fails us. Much of it is about presenting a range of myths and belief systems as a kind of metaphysical smorgasbord from which children can choose. But, like vegetarian sausage rolls at a buffet, the provision of alternatives to the dominant faith is largely token and not expected to be taken up by many. What's more, all are expected to eat up.
This way of teaching religion presents faith as a kind of fact of life which does not need to be justified or explained, merely described. You're taught what sacred texts say, but not to question their divine origins. You're taught what people of different faiths do, but it is considered disrespectful to question if they are right to do it.
Believers themselves are often resistant to the idea that religion should be challenged more, but if you do not believe that your most fundamental beliefs can stand up to the relatively superficial kind of rational scrutiny possible in compulsory education, that does not exactly express confidence in their robustness.
The kind of rational scrutiny I want to see brings in more of the history, philosophy and psychology of religion. The history is particularly important, for it is that which makes the human hand behind our myths of the divine abundantly clear. Christians, for instance, should know that there were numerous versions of the life of Christ purporting to be written by the apostles in circulation, and that what we now see as the New Testament didn't take shape until the Council of Rome in 382.
I cannot see how anyone could take a rational, critical look at the Bible and not conclude that even if it was the infallible word of God, so much had been added or subtracted in the translation that we would be fools to take it as such. I have much sympathy with Isaac Asimov, who claimed that: "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
Children should also understand about the psychology of religious belief: how humans have an instinct to see causes and purpose where there is none; and how we have a need to divide the world into in-groups and out-groups. The philosophy of religion should also be taught so they can understand why intuitively plausible ideas such as that the universe must have had a divine first cause or that morality vanishes without God are much weaker than they first appear.
You might well suspect that my agenda here is simply to weaken faith in the young and it would be disingenuous of me to pretend that I wouldn't see that as a desirable outcome. But I think a more rational study of religion will create more sensible religious believers as well as more atheists. The kind of faith that survives rational scrutiny is deep and almost always non-fundamentalist. It rejects simple-minded literal interpretations of sacred texts and creeds and is more tolerant of other beliefs.
The only kind of faith that would be threatened by this programme is the kind that is based on a mindless commitment to irrational absolutes which divide the world into the righteous and the damned, and which encourages the kind of dangerous certainty that leads people to do terrible things in the name of their God. A more rational approach to religious education is needed as much for the sake of humane religion as it is for humanist atheism.
Comments
Once again I sorta find myself thinking "Why is this such a revelation?" I've been brought up all my life with a baptist minister as my father and being taught that questioning and challenging my faith is one of the best things I can do. Most of the other ministers from the churches I've spent some time at have a relatively similar opinion.
Its an incredibly powerful thing to do as if you challenge something and don't stop until you find an answer that satisfies you, you either come out knowing the holes, flaws and miscrepencies of the idea or its backed up, confirmed and becomes more true to you than it was before. I'm sure everyone found out eventually that it wasn't always the best thing to just believe everything your older brother told you and that it might be a good idea to check/find out for yourself first before going along with him....
For me its strengthend my faith immensly while at the same time making me more cautious or cynical about many religious practises. But I do live in quite a different culture it seems.
Norm, I like 90 percent of what you have to say here, but on the issue of religion, you are just as intolerant as those you enjoy lambasting.
Let up, eh? We're not all stupid or nut jobs. Please just accept that no one has the definitive low-down on the nature of reality, and that we can agree to disagree.
Ken,
I think what you mean is that I'm disrespectful of religion. There is a difference between tolerance and respect and I think it unfortunate when people conflate the two. Can you point to anything I've ever said that would lead you to believe I'm not tolerant of religion. If there is an intolerance it is a conversational intolerance. The sort of intolerance Sam Harris has noted. If someone says that they believe Elvis is still alive, I don't give any credence to the view. Likewise if someone says they believe in virgin birth I'm similarly incredulous. If there is intolerance it is intolerance to irrationality whether religious or not.
norm, i'm not an athiest, though i've been one at different times in my life, and have been deeply involved in the arguments pro and con. just wanted to let you know that i appreciated your comments here, as someone else whose devoted considerable thought to the matter. well done.
I'm reminded of the post of the interview with Sam Harris in which he argues that faith should be held to the same intillectual scrutiney that we hold everything else. I think that a lot of children are raised not to question faith. I think even more children are brought up to not confront faith. Today, faith seems to occupy a place where it is untouchable. It needs to be treated just like everything else.
p.s. i like the one vegi item in the buffett analogy.
Go to this link and hear a brilliant talk on religious education:
http://tedblog.typepad.com/tedblog/2006/07/dandennetton_.html
I feel conflicted. On one hand, he's absolutely right.
However, there's something he says that flies in the face of human psychology.
It's been my experence that when people experence certain crisis: anomie, isolation, confusion, or an existential or whatever you want to call it, and that's exactly why they look to religion. Religion "describes" the universe. Sure, it's mostly mythical. However, there's a basic, psychological, human need that delves into the irrational. Who are you to take that away from people?
It's time we all agreed to disagree. I think that maybe teaching tolerance is a better course of action--as opposed to some draconian measures to ensure religious establishments teach rationality. And, that brings up another aspect, which is how similar this "programme" is to teaching Intelligent design in schools. Schools are for rational. Churches are for the illogical, but necessary.
I want to emphasize I'm not lookin got enforce the statis quo. I would teach my child the importance of all the things he noted: such as the historical aspects of the Bible. However, if he or she weren't ready to accept it as myth or at least metaphors, then I wouldn't tear down this belief.
So much religious dogma... so little spirituality
What sort of biblical history would you be teaching to your children? That Noah lived to be 800 some years old, that he built what is possibly the largest vessel even conceivable out of wood that withstood the immeasurable rains that would flood the entire earth? Or that every single faith before the onset of Christianity was simply a traversal back in time by Satan himself to tempt people into sin?
I'm just curious.
No one is suggesting requiring religious establishments to teach rationality. We're talking about in public education.
As an addendum, Jerry, thank you for that great link to the TED talks - I very much enjoyed it and will be picking up both of Mr. Dennett's books in the very near future.
The thing I find interesting when comparing atheist vs religious is they will usually agree on the fundamental concepts of how to treat each other which is laid out in religion. Where they begin to differ is on extreme interpretations or unimportant details.
When it comes to education and preparing people to be productive in society there is no benefits in teaching people not to question what they are taught.
I prefer to use philosophies and humanists thoughts to critique religion as they don't promise to deliver beyond providing basic guidelines on how to lead one's life.
So I'm fine with the idea of questioning and re-evaluating the nature, way of dissemination and practise of religious beliefs.
I do not see any reason why the religious people at this blog are intimidated by this... unless there's a lot of skeletons in your religion's closet.
But if you believe that your faith is true, then you should have nothing to worry about.
You should even be thankful that non-believers are taking an interest in finding out more about your faith.
As a possible concession to the religious-minded people here, I do have this point to make.
Much of the strengths of religion lies in the value of taking things at face value.
Doubts and questions about religion may thus create worries, disset and divisions among people who can't trust the things that they used to trust unthinkingly.
This does break down the bonds of trust and understanding that used to unite people under the flag of religion.
Things break apart because the centre cannot hold.
To illustrate this, there's a good movie called: Pleasantville
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleasantville_(film)
Marco said: Churches are for the illogical, but necessary.
I'm not convinced of the necessity of anything that goes on in churches. People look to the church in time of trauma or other hardships. I don't, and find other ways to deal with my emotions. I think people are taught to turn to the church instead of things that are real and unbiased.
It reminds me of a quote from Gregory Bateson, whose father (an eminent geneticist) read from the bible before dinner because he "didn't want to raise ignorant atheists".
Decarte wrote about questioning his assumptions (in his Discourse on Methods). I've always been disappointed that he chickened out when he decided to stop at faith in god.
If there's any writing that god has provided for "his children" to understand and learn from, it's the genetic code of all species on the earth, which continues to reflect the wonders of our little corner of the universe. I consider the bible, koran and other texts more as "dear john" letters from someone who's "left town".
Amen, brother.
Please search U-Tube for XTC - Dear God
Public education, huh? Well, that changes everything, then.
If you're going to teach it in school, then it might as well be forcilby taught in churches. Because when little Billy attends church on Sunday, he'll learn that the Bible is the word of God. And then, when Monday rolls around he hear how men wrote the Bible, he become utterly confused. Short story short, not knowing whom to believe, he chose one or the other and resent the other. Thus creating a gapping rip in the social fabric.
The "programme" stinks.
I hope not many people misread my poorly written statement. The history I would teach my child is the historical aspect talked about in the think tank's piece, or as Norm named it, A Great Idea
Better that little Billy be told one thing consistently and not have to actually think about it than that he become confused? I disagree, Marco. Regardless of what myth/lies a parent decides to teach a child outside of class, it's in society's interest that the kid get what factual information he/she can in school. And since religion evidently likes to seep in to every cranny and facet of public discourse, the kid should absolutely be given the facts on religion as understood by experts, who weigh actual evidence.
Confusion isn't the worst thing in the world. Misinformation is pretty bad though, and it deserves to be exposed.
Well, reality is confusing and always has been. Little Johnny will just have to deal with it and make up his own mind
Ill respect religion when it deserves respect.
Gina, what "experts" would those be? Divinity school graduates? Philosophers and/or historians of religion? Or is Richard Dawkins and his 'meme religion' the only expert you would admit into the classroom?
How about we just teach our children critical thinking skills and let them apply them where they may, without bashing people's beliefs at the taxpayer's expense.
Thanks for the response, Norm.
Actually, I've never seen much of a distinction between atheism and evangelism. Both perspectives almost always deny the validity of any belief system different than their own.
There is a difference between not having a personal belief in a transcendent power (by whatever name it can be called) and believing that no such power exists (and that therefore, those believing in such "nonsense" are deluded). The first is more properly identified as agnosticism, but the latter... I just don't think people respond well to being told they're foolish dupes.
I know I don't. I am a scientist who also believes in transcedence. Although I also often roll my eyes when I hear what passes for spiritual dialogue in this country, I simply cannot condemn the act of faith as misguided.
Putting atheism and evangelism on the same footing is an epistemelogical error. You cannot disprove the existence of any mythical creature; unicorns, fairies, Norse gods, Melniboneans, orcs, or the Flying Sphaghetti Monster could all exist somewhere. It is simply not possible to explore all possible locations, even on this planet, silmultaneously to prove that they don't exist. Such claims are inherently non-falsifiable. If no one hears the sound of a tree falling in the forest, does that mean that one must have fallen? We assume not until we have evidence to the contrary. This is the rational default position.
If you think that the failure to disprove the existence of something stands on equal footing with the failure to prove, you have been had. Go put on the dunce cap and sit in the corner for an hour, then learn your lesson and move on.
Devo co-founder Jerry Casale: "That was kind of our position statement. It was our mission statement saying, 'Hey look, humans are making up stories about why we're here and how we got here and who we are and what our importance is and it's all basically rubbish, it's absurd. You don't know what's going on, and that's OK. In fact, if you admit you don't know what's going on and you admit there are alternative explanations for things, then you're already better off, and there's a lot of things you won't do because you'd quit believing in ridiculous things that drive you to actions that cause more pain and suffering in the world.' It was kind of a Dada, self-effacing kind of statement, like, 'Look, we're all pinheads here on this planet together.'"
Post a comment