What is the Cure for Religious Illiteracy?

JP- very true. My friends (professors and others that I've discussed the subject with) say that they have no problem with, and would even endorse classes like that- just not as science courses. I'd like to see some more education on the Bible as well- because something Sue and I have observed- that a few years ago people would immediately be able to answer simple, fundamental questions about the Bible- but younger people today couldn't tell you, for instance, which part of the Bible Isaiah belongs in, or that the saying "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is also in the scriptures.

Even people professing to be Christian sometimes don't know these things. I also think classes on Biblical history (TRUE, DOCUMENTED history, not the nonsense such as I've heard come from fundamentalists) would be a major asset for the churches. Knowing how the Bible came to be (and the history, archaeology, and so on connected with it) would help to keep some of the false doctrines from taking hold.

One of the things that started me on the road of freedom from fundamentalism was learning about how the New Testament came to be- and that it wasn't written and compiled right after Teyose returned to Heaven.

(And that "Jesus" (Yeshua) didn't speak English!) [GRIN!]

Thanks for the helpful response to Prothero. I've been blogging about his proposals and have the book on order. When I ask my HS Jr. son about how religion is handled in his classes he says it doesn't figure much. When I tried to ask his biology teacher about evolution, she kind of steered away from the conversation. I guess talking with a pastor about evolution might make you a bit skittish. My sense is that public schools really would rather avoid religion, in part because most teachers likely don't know very much (understandable). The question in response to Prothero is where do we find the kind of qualified teachers we'd need?

The problem the proposal for objective classes in world religions or the Bible is that both subjects are inherently not objective. Any attempt to integrate these subjects into a curriculum must deal with that fact - those attempting it must take a clear stand up front and stick to it. Sticking to it means being ready to withstand a barraging from all sides: left, right, and center. I don't blame teachers for not wanting to put themselves in that position.

In many ways, these are subjects that I think are much better taught within the context of a religious education, i.e. Sunday school, confirmation classes, Hebrew school, etc. These settings are much more easily able to embrace their own subjectivity, and won't get bogged down trying to establish an unobtainable "objective" starting point.

The same is true with the evolution issue in public schools. I doubt that a lack of knowledge of religion is a major reason for silence, rather a deep and profound desire not to put themselves in the crosshairs. A lot could be gained if science classes accepted that "pure" science is not objective, but just as subjective a stance as Biblical fundamentalism. I'm not advocating teaching ID or creationism in public schools, rather that proponents of evolution are flawed in claiming that their stance is objective.

DID YOU SEE THIS?!
(Might be slightly ff topic but I had to post to this site somewhere)

Article on CNN today about taking back the faith from religious right:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/04/martin.jesus/index.html

John, the scientific method is an attempt to get around subjectivity.

Yes, there is some inherent subjectivity in everything- it's part of existence. But to deny the testing- retesting- and testing again that goes into scientific inquiry is to deny reality. Your argument is one that I've actually encountered from dominionists/fundamentalists/creationists, and the people I encountered argued that since there was subjectivity in science, it was biased and error prone. Yet they drive cars and fly in airplanes and get upset when something breaks down. It comes from a lack of understanding of scientific thought.

People can reduce their subjectivity to a point where it is not an issue (although I'd quickly admit that sometimes that doesn't happen)- and that is what our goal should be. I believe that a professor that knows their own biases can work to reduce these biases- and this is also part of modern scientific thought. The elimination of bias and error.

For instance, I have a bias against the Muslim religion. I know it- it's based upon experiences and observations. I fight against that bias because although the Muslim people I often see and experience tend towards trying to vilify Jews, put down women, and quite literally silence any discourse about their religion (unless it is always positive), at the same time I do read about Muslims who are dedicated to religious pluralism, equality, and freedom of expression. So I know that my experience has been stereotypical and not the full reality.

Could I teach about that religion? Yes, and I believe that I could reduce my bias to a minimum- as well as treat Christianity the same way. The first step is to be aware of the bias- and try to see beyond it. (I'd also have to spend a lot of time studying about it because there are large sections of the Koran that I haven't read- but the sections I HAVE tend to give me a splitting headache and I find much in them that I have problems with.) Honestly- although I am confident that I could teach such a class (after a bit of experience, I might add), at the same time I have little interest in doing so, and really don't have the time to familiarize myself with the small details that a teacher should be aware of.

However, I think the first class in such a setting would be a discussion of bias and ethnocentrism. I would try to be honest about where I'm coming from- and also make it clear that we need to respect each other, even if we disagree with their point of view.

The big point in teaching is to get people to think for themselves, and explore the reality they face.
Another part of it is trying to get people to see beyond their own cultural filters and to see the Other in a new light.

One more point about subjectivity- it too is a part of reality and can provide an important insight into reality. This too can be a part of science, and a valid part!

I should add that I do not have an interest in teaching classes like that because my interests are in other topics- archaeology, linguistic anthropology, and cultural anthropology, for instance.

John G.: " A lot could be gained if science classes accepted that "pure" science is not objective, but just as subjective a stance as Biblical fundamentalism."

Sorry, this is one of the most ignorant statements I can imagine. I wouldn't even expect Gary to say something so completely off the mark. Science is indeed objective, in large part, religious fundamentalism never is.

Our views of objectivity can be clouded by our judgement, but proper science is *not* subjective. The atomic mass of nitrogen will *always* be 14 whether you are a Hindu, an animist, a Muslim or a Christian. To pretend otherwise shows you know nothing of science. Gah!

Part of it is the post-modernist perspective- which has some validity, but it almost always gets taken too far (there are a lot of people that would disagree with me on this, but a lot that agree as well).

For instance, people have used the fact that observing something tends to affect that which is observed to be a major source of error. However, some of the people I've heard use this argument tend to overestimate the effects of observation. Again, it often can be compensated for.

BTW- Nitrogen also has isotopes, which have atomic masses which are not 14. For instance, the stable isotope Nitrogen 15 (which is sometimes measured in Bone Chemistry analysis).

Nitrogen 14 itself also has an atomic mass which is slightly higher than 14 (14.0030740048- I looked it up.) There is some uncertainty in this value.

A bit of a funny story about elements and isotopes...

There used to be a person at the church who used a fancy argument regarding the element Polonium and chart to show "why the world was less than 12,000 years old". I looked up the isotopes, and when he started pushing his nonsense on us again, I asked him which isotope (there are 12- with half lifes ranging from microseconds to just over 102 years). He got REALLY mad at me and started screaming (literally). I guess he thought since he'd been a missionary and a "bible teacher", it made him an expert in physics. I guess he didn't like me disproving his wonderful argument for creationism (which, based on the brochures he was handing out in the church, came from some organization).

The only sad thing is that the last time I was at church, he was still there and pushing the fundamentalist/creationist stuff every chance he could (but he did abandon the Polonium argument).

Ah, I wrote quickly and unclearly and am now being compared to Gary. I should try to refine my statements.

Science is objective in that it defines itself as objective. Accepting that science is objective is a subjective choice we make. When accepting the objectivity of science, one is choosing to privledge the scientific method over other methods of learning about the world. Is it bad to choose to accept scientific reasoning? No, of course not. I choose to accept it on a regular basis - everytime I apply the scientific method to a problem in my life, everytime I read an article about science or medicine, etc.

In the same way, choosing to teach a class about "pure" science is chosing not to teach from an objective prespective. You have subjectively chosen to reject any non-scientific approach to understanding the world. Again, it is not a bad choice; in fact, it is a very sound educational choice. But a sound choice isn't always an objective one.

In the context of education, Christian fundamentalists are subjectively choosing to privledge their own creation narrative. Including their perspective does not make a science class more objective.

There is nothing wrong with subjectively choosing to create classes that teach pure science. Learning the scientific method, learning to understand the world and universe from the most rationalistic perspective possible, etc. all have great educational value. But we need to recognize that we are making a subjective decision to teach from this perspective, and justify it as such.

Am I being way too post-modern about this? I don't think so, but I can understand that others might think so.

John G.:"Am I being way too post-modern about this? I don't think so, but I can understand that others might think so."

Yes, your point is absolute rubbish. Sorry about that.

There is a great deal of difference between *choosing* to believe that the atomic mass of nitrogen is 14 (or as Bob points out slightly more because of the presence of isotope 15 and some other fiddly bits about precision -- and of course even more accurately, the atomic mass is actually related to the mass of carbon in a ratio of approximately 7 to 6) and *choosing* to believe fundamentalist tenants of religion.

In the science case, people can set up tests and obtain results on which all can agree. If they don't agree, they can devise further tests until such time as they do. Yes, there can be statistical uncertainties, but in many cases these can be made vanishingly small.

In the fundamentalist, case the results of the tests vary depending on each person's perceived experience. Furthermore, some "truths" from fundamentalist religion can be proven to be crap (such as the age of the earth).

Of course there are things science can't figure out and shouldn't try.

Sorry about comparing you to Gary. I do realize that your posts aren't clouded by obsessive homophobia.

There is Science, the History of Science and then the History of the History of Science; unfortunately, our most scholastic students drop off as we go down this path, but we must dot every "i" and cross every "t" as we walk this path, given the terrible biases that students bring to class from illbegotten homes & churches [sic]. What is so tragic, to a teacher, is to look out and see the trauma on their faces as the false tenets of 'creationism' & a literal bible unshackle themselves; now, what supports do they possess as they depart armed with this 'new' data to face the hostilities that will be flung their way? Let's just hope that they're adequate for the individuals & assaults [literal & figurative] that will come their way.

New Jersey has a fully blown 'holocaust' curriculum mandated for two years followed by a half year in high school that is quite successful. Teachers attend summer sessions beyond their initial training, & they experience few challenges to the objectivity they pursue. It's an important subject matter, not really Religion but partly so, more a matter of "culture" and "history." This component is a part of World Culture exposure yet a standalone item too. They are not at all timid about this, & objections [student or parents] are few & far between. NJ occupies the very top rung of academic success in the whole country for its schools, and this no doubt helps a lot, but I am convinced that their doing the groundwork and not approaching this half-cocked accounts for their ultimate success. It's an example to me for how World Religions can be taught as World Cultures and be very successful. But in this advent of the assendancy of the religious Right & their "mouthy" bravado chudzpah, it does not mean that we will be without complaints elsewhere throughout the country. "Just do it," and don't look back. I heard an NPR interview yesterday (Easter) with the 'writer' part of the Left Behind nonsense, who simply said to the objection of the interviewer, "I'm sorry for the offensiveness, but it's the 'truth'." This is the ignorance which we must supplant & be armed to the teeth for it. Remember that the long term will look back and laugh at the folly; meanwhile, that it not how it seems day by day. Maybe we must be as diplomatic as they are ignorant, or maybe we need confrontation just like they will instigate. Just go into the teaching aspect knowing that "it ain't gonna be no sunday school picnic!" However, in the meantime, picketing that new Museum of Creation [sic] in Northern Kentucky seems like a good informational venture.

"learning to understand the world and universe from the most rationalistic perspective possible, etc. all have great educational value. But we need to recognize that we are making a subjective decision to teach from this perspective, and justify it as such."

Very well put, also very post-modernist. And like I said, postmodernism has valid things to say as well, although I and many of my colleagues hold that it is taken too far (to the point of error).

Arden- very well put as well!!!!

What is troubling to me is when students go home and get attacked because of their new-found knowledge. Some of them leave Christ because of it- and I have a BIG problem with that. Equally wrong, some turn their back on the truth that they are learning and usually then go into a field where they don't have to face it (such as business, which I have a huge problem with because of all the abuses in today's society!) The blame lies at the feet of the fundamentalists and their ilk and not with science and teachers- because we teach what can be verified, and the fundies punish anyone who asks questions. They don't have the support to follow a path of TRUTH, which includes the fact that a literal interpretation of scriptures is NOT the truth.

Part of that truth is also we do not, and can not know everything- and that is something that is backed up by science and mathematics as well.

(Remember the Heisenburg uncertainty principle!)

Myself- when (hopefully) I start teaching classes, and the discussion turns to the scientific method and evolution- I may point people to Dr. Miller's book. It might help to provide a worldview that helps the students accept Christ while at the same time accepting and recognizing that evolution is also a fact.

The two are fully compatible. Students need to understand this. That, in fact, is one of the things many of the professors try to stress. That way, they have a much better chance of learning the truth without loosing their faith because of fundamentalist lies.

The worst sort of lie is one that has some untruth mixed in with truth- and these types are sometimes the hardest to fight.

As far as teaching religion- when this topic came up, I immediately thought of the different ways that religion can be examined- the social aspects, cultural, psychological, as well as the emic viewpoint (that of the practitioner). These can be taught from a reasonably neutral standpoint. Slightly harder to teach from such a standpoint, but still possible, is how these religions fit into the power structures in which they exist.

Hi Larry

Subjectivity/objectivity is a sticky epistemological issue. Young Earth Creationism and modern science have this in common: they draw conclusions from (what they consider to be) the existing data. They are both objective in that the data is available to everyone. The difference lies in what they consider to *be* data. The scientist cannot directly *see* the earth being billions of years old--she derives this conclusion from what she can see and from scientific theories about how radioactivity and such works.

But those theories have been tested, you might say. Sure and if the theory had conflicted with any part of the data, the theory would have been rejected. The fact that the theory has been so successful in so many areas is why it is accepted. I agree. But the thing is, no matter how many facts a theory *seems* to explain, if any single fact *contradicts* the theory, it's the theory that must be abandandoned. And that's exactly where the dispute lies--the creationist reasons properly that IF God says the universe was created in 6 literal days, this fact falsifies any theory that says different. A scientist who claims that the Bible must be false BECAUSE current scientific theories tell us the universe is older than in the biblical account presupposes that the (creationist's reading of) biblical claims ought not be counted as being part of the set of facts that theories have to fit. But the scientist who makes that kind of argument doesn't have an objective reason to justify excluding the biblical data--his is a subjective embracing of skepticism. Whether or not his position is correct, the position is ultimately a subjective one.

your friend
keith

There are only 3 things in life worth discussing.
They are religion, philosophy and politics.
However, if you want to get in a arguement just
bring up one of these topics. Teaching religion
in High School is bound to create controvery and
rancor.

I could see a couple of scenarios where this would be true.

One where religion is taught to proselytize people.

The other is where religion is taught from more of a neutral viewpoint, and religious groups want it to be taught to proselytize for their religion.

I believe that religion can be taught from a largely neutral viewpoint- but we all know that the fundies would fight against this.

At the same time, however, it is a good idea- it would help to stem some of the more hateful stuff that comes from the dominionists/fundamentalists and help the kids to see the bigger picture (and hopefully get them to be more tolerant!)