Legal Eagle

Timely article given that we have recently worshipped rabbits, eggs, chocolate and resurrection from the dead.

Science is as fundamental to the education of children as learning to speak, read, write and of course perform basic maths. Basic scientific concepts such as you described regarding the various states of H2O and the reasons are easily understood at an early age. And vital, why should any child believe that thunder is caused by deities in the sky?

We should never underestimate the learning ability of children - they are sponges for knowledge as the Jesuits all too knowingly observed; "give me a child until s/he is seven and I will give you the adult (sic)".

Personal history: I was reading about Darwin, thanks to my parents, (neither of whom were scientists but noted my interest) at age 6 - they bought a child's illustrated version of the "Origin of the Species" and that foundation ensured I breezed through biology and botany at school and beyond. This foundation also enhanced my ability to question and not to accept blatant statements at face value.

I have no issue teaching about religion and mythology, in fact I believe an understanding of religion is imperative in the development of children's understanding of sociology, however science needs to be placed rightfully alongside the basic three "R"s as described in my second paragraph.

The "creation" Museum aint faith. It is pig-headed no nothing ignorance.
It is even recognized as such by most Christians.

I agree with most of what is said in this article and was dismayed at the proposed mixing the empirical science of the West with traditional accounts as if they have the same epistemological basis. Inclusiveness is not a good criterion for producing a science curriculum. Western science is unique and is the basis for the success of all our technologies. It is therefore mere political correctness to include understandings of nature that are not based on the empirical method.

However, underlying the article is the assumption that if it is not science, that is, if it is not testable, then it is not true. This produces a dualism between science and faith that cannot be sustained. As usual this error is the result of an exclusively scientific education, as the author admits, and the complete ignorance of how Christian theology functions. There is no abandonment of reason, otherwise nothing intelligible could be said. Indeed, the medieval theologians were obsessed with reason. Of course they did not have the description of how the natural world worked and were not limited by its constraints. Contemporary theologians do have this description and theological discourse must take it into account. Faith and reason must go hand in hand.

The problem with the attitude that only science is true is that by far the vast ranged of human experience is excluded from consideration. While we may understand how the material world works we are at a loss as to how we live our lives. This is deeper than any ethical commitment that we might think is a good thing, but it about our deepest identity as human beings. The fact that the content of faith may not be examined in a laboratory does not mean that it is not true in its way. It does describe a reality, the reality of the human “being unto death.” The problem that has arisen between faith and science is when it appears that faith has a deficient understanding of how the world works. Of course it has! It is a product of pre-scientific culture.

Peter Sellick

Good article - the proposal to include non-scientific explanations of natural phenomena in school science may be well-intentioned, but it is deeply flawed. Such worldviews belong in philosophy or comparative religion classes.

Mind you, that's exactly where any faith or theologically based perspective belongs - including that of Christianity - for epistemological and ontological reasons.

"However, underlying the article is the assumption that if it is not science, that is, if it is not testable, then it is not true. This produces a dualism between science and faith that cannot be sustained. As usual this error is the result of an exclusively scientific education, as the author admits, and the complete ignorance of how Christian theology functions. There is no abandonment of reason, otherwise nothing intelligible could be said. Indeed, the medieval theologians were obsessed with reason. Of course they did not have the description of how the natural world worked and were not limited by its constraints. Contemporary theologians do have this description and theological discourse must take it into account. Faith and reason must go hand in hand."

How badly does this comment err - shall I count the ways?

Nah - there are too many errors in Peter Sellick's comment to enumerate in 14 lines of iambic pentameter. Rhyme was never my metier and I don't want to debase a very fine sonnet. I shall merely note the first error in that paragraph - the opening sentence, which misrepresents Leagle Eagle's (LE) argument completely. LE's point is that if it ain't science then it doesn't belong in the science class. Her atheism is immaterial to the matter at hand - what should be taught in science classes? Um, science of course.

That initial error is compounded with irrelevances, an unsupported inference that LE is ignorant of Christian theology and then the insinuation that as the recipient of a defective education, deficient in religious instruction, LE is necessarily deficient in reason. All of these rather offensive sentiments are cloaked with a veneer of civility which is just a little bit too thin for my taste.

I'll be back later in the day to see how the cats and pigeons are getting along.

"The problem with the attitude that only science is true..." is not what I took from the article.

I thought the point about 'science' is that a fact is a fact until it is moved aside with a new fact....it is never actually 'true', just 'the best explanation to date'.

Faith is 'always correct'.

That's why Christians ignore the origins of Easter and Christmas and insist on pretending that these age old festivals existed well before Jesus dropped by.

Theologians play games with words, and are not interested in any form of 'truth' at all, just in shoring up whatever it is they believe in, that is, have 'faith' in.

How's this as far as the value of faith goes, "It is a product of pre-scientific culture"?

Indeed...it is, and it may be an interesting diversion to ponder, 'what's it all about' but the 'faith' view refuses to consider that 'it' might not be 'about' anything at all.

Perhaps there is no 'purpose' to life at all?

And, gazing around the world, driven by the 'deeply religious' political hum-buggers, and the business and religious/faith leaders we all suffer under, it is not hard to come to the conclusion that they are all scammers of the first order, dragging the deaf, blind and mute by their nose rings in a pointless pursuit of power (other than possessing that power), through human abuse, arms trading, war, and 'organised crime', better known as 'globalisation' and capitalism.

Our schools are ill-equipped to educate anyone, preferring only to further promote the hegemonic thinking that keeps our world spinning.

As far as teaching science goes, it is purely optional in Qld because Ed Qld is really an extension of the Christian churches, allowing ID and Creationism to be taught instead of science.

Christian churches assist with curriculum writing of the QSA, the people charged by Bligh to write the State's school curriculum.

And of course, Ed Qld is not a secular public educator and has not been for the last 100 years.

So, why would anyone expect 'science' to be taught in our schools here?

Ooops.... "That's why Christians ignore the origins of Easter and Christmas and insist on pretending that these age old festivals existed well before Jesus dropped by."

Perhaps that should really read "That's why Christians ignore the origins of Easter and Christmas and insist on IGNORING that these age old festivals existed well before Jesus dropped by".

Sorry.

Spot-on, TBC, more or less.

Sells,

You write: 'The problem with the attitude that only science is true is that by far the vast range of human experience is excluded from consideration.'

Edison tried two thousand ways to invent a filament for a light - all but one worked. Should our schools teach about that other 'vast range of human experience', the other 1,999 experiences ?

On the relativist notion that there are many truths, etc.:

* Was the Catholic Church's 'truth' that the sun (and all the planets) orbited around the earth, true from the third century (or whenever) until 1824, when they acknowledged Copernicus/Galileo's findings, whereupon the Sun and the planets ceased orbiting around the earth ?

* And was it true, as Galileo demonstrated, that, as from about 1542 (or whenever Copernicus claimed) the earth and all the planets began to orbit around the Sun ?

* Meanwhile, in Burma, the Earth is actually flat, resting on the back of six or eight elephants, who in turn stand on the back of a giant turtle - of course, when you step out of Burma, the earth ceases to be in that form.

Of course, there are many BELIEFS, not many knowledges, or many truths. And even scientists would agree that 'knowedge' is conditional on not being falsified, yet. However, there are many INTERPRETATIONS of reality, of knowledge, of truth. But when anyone throws their assertions or propositions (metaphysics) into the public ring for assessment (epistemology), they have to submit them to testability, and therefore to criticism; then they have to be prepared for ridicule, and even to have their most deeply-held beliefs challenged, and even overturned.

All humans deserve equal respect; all people are entitled to privately hold all manner of beliefs and opinions. But when they put those opinions up to be more generally accepted, or as knowledge or science, as testable (and falsifiable) propositions, then they risk their demolition. The arena of testable science is a bear-pit, a pitiless cauldron for the destruction of fondly-held prejudices

In this day and age the entire human world is now ruled by the point of view of scientific materialism.

Scientific materialism has deprived humankind of all profundity of view--relative to the nature and significance of the conditional universe, and relative to the Reality of the Divine.

Scientific materialism is a global cultural program or meme, which has so effectively supported the ego-s motive to achieve a perfectly independent state of "self-sufficiency" that, as a result, the human collective has brought itself to the point of global destruction and universal despair.

And of course conventional exoteric religion cannot counter this state of affairs.

Indeed this state of affairs is the inevitable historical outcome of christian-ISM itself as a would be world conquering, power and control seeking, meme.

Sells,

<<I agree with most of what is said in this article and was dismayed at the proposed mixing the empirical science of the West with traditional accounts as if they have the same epistemological basis.>>

Theological questions such as the existence of God cannot be separated from science no matter how hard “sophisticated” Christians like yourself want to claim that they are two different forms of knowledge.

If God exists, then God manifests in reality, and anything that manifests in reality is demonstrable, measurable and verifiable.

It's that simple.

Of course, there are many arguments from transcendence here that some use to get around this very basic fact that we can know with the day-to-day practical knowledge that we acquire, but let’s face it, if your God is a transcendent super-natural being, then we have no way of distinguishing between your God and something that doesn’t exist.

So-called “sophisticated” Christians like to claim that the Big Bang and evolution were the methods used by their God to create life and all that we see, but how then can one possibly know the difference?

<<Faith and reason must go hand in hand.>>

In fact, ‘faith’ is the very opposite of ‘reason’ because - in the context of religion - faith means to believe in something for no good reason, and if there is no good reason for believing in something, then the reasons can only be bad.

In Queensland the problem is wider than just a confusing of Science with Chritianity. In subject syllabi it is stated that 'all knowledge' is in some way culturally based. So even ideas that are inherent in nature itself are not to be seen as valid in all places and at all times. Examples are the exponential function and pi. That sort of baloney oozes from Boards of Study. The Science National Curriculum has all the signs of being made by a committee of Boards from across the nation. The Maths one looks as though there have been actual Mathematicians involved!

Excellent article. Good discussion. Thankyou everybody; it is nice to know that there still is intelligent life out there.

Children should be aware of our cultural heritage but should be free from any kind of indoctrination except for the minimum necessary to live as free citizens in a democratic society. They should be aware of the Aboriginal, Christian and other mythologies which have shaped our cultural heritage, but they should be taught these with an appreciation of the cultural context in which they arose and not as anything they must subscribe to. Scientific concepts should be introduced as early as possible.

When introduced in 1875, the Queensland Education Act guaranteed a free and secular education for every child. A controversial referendum in 1910 allowed ministers of religion to conduct religious instruction and bible lessons. Every incidence of the word secular was removed from the Act. During the succeeding 100 years this amendment has resulted in religion (particularly Christianity) being given a privileged position within our public education system. I want to see the dignity and worth of every child upheld regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or system of belief. The public education system should protect our children's right to freedom of or from religion!

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 from 8:30 AM to 10:30 AM there will be a
demonstration at the gates of Parliament House asking that our parliament restore secular education.

Speakers at the protest will include Dr Max Wallace, Director of The
Australian National Secular Association and Humanist Society of Queensland President, Maria Proctor.

For more information visit "Let's Get Secular Back in the QLD Education Act"
on You Tube

The protest favours inclusive school committees, a public education system
that is free, secular and welcome to all and seeks to end 100 years of
religious privilege in Queensland.

It is most unlikely that any scientist worthy of the name would build an argument of any sort on the basis of a reporter's interpretation of a curriculum, as published in a newspaper which could hardly be described as "disinterested" in the political arena.

One useful exercise in science classes would be to call in a Western engineer, a Christian theologian and an Aboriginal medicine man, give them each a pile of wood and some fasteners, and tell them they need to get a horse across a creek. I'm sure the results would tell the children all they needed to know about the relative efficacy of these conflicting worldviews.

The cultural relativism that a number of people have referred to stems from the way the sociology of knowledge is presented in many education courses. Writers like Berger argue that all knowledge is a social construct when student teachers take that as received wisdom then clearly they will be comfortable with a curriculum that places myth and science on an equal footing.
The other problem the author has ignored in her discussion is the fact that many teachers are scientifically illiterate. I have run many inservice programmes for primary school teachers where I needed to teach them basic scientific concepts; I doubt if we have the human resources to do a great deal about improving the quality of teaching.
this raises the question: has the curriculum been designed with the competence of teachers in mind or the needs of students?

Baygon,

Of course knowledge is a social construct, a painfully slow, trial-and-error, socially-constructed and -fought-over, body of propositions which have been tested and not found to be false, a process going back more than ten thousand years - innovations have spread across what Philip Curtin called the 'Afro-Eurasian intercommunicating zone', diffusing and/or being modified slowly, or not at all, ever since the Neolithic Revolution: before then, life and culture was, let's face it, pretty stagnant, and 'knowledge' was pretty thin on the ground.

A multitude of people have been testing ideas and propositions over that time and billions and billions of failures and successes have built up a world-wide, generally-accepted, body of knowledge - always with the proviso that other propositions could be made, tested and found to be better (i.e. able to explain more of that mysterious thing called reality). I don't think that we can set all of this effort aside or that it can be devalued by calling it 'a social construct'. Of course it is, and we should celebrate humanity's amazing achievement.

That is what should be being taught in schools, not slipping myths and opinions into the curriculum under the guise of 'equal time'.

Joe Lane

I acknowledge the success of scientific method as a way of explaining and improvising upon phenomena as we perceive it, and I recoil from the institutional religious explanation of "reality". I also back secular education 100% for its salubrious formativity---as a pseudo-objective (aspirationally objective?) take on phenomena.
But I also reject science as an ontology.
What will Legal Eagle offer his children in terms of "meaning" in their lives? Will he just explain, "sorry chaps but there ain't no such animal"? Or will he encourage them to be captivated by the sheer clockwork majesty of the universe, and the Saganesque wonder that they're here at all---so long as they don't deviate from doctrine! The "doctrine" that if you can't subject the thing to scientific method, it ain't worth subjectivising.
Or will he encourage them to use that stupendous human faculty that allows us to range far afield in search of a universe of poignancy?
It's all very well for the geeks, those privileged few, to find fulfilment (not to mention vulgarities like vocation, prestige and livelihood) in the natural world, and "the method" (hallowed be thy name), just as it's ok for a painter, a wood-carver or a stone-mason to find affinity in the medium, but it's not ok to impose a rubric on the masses (or our children) as though it was holy writ.
The human is twofold (at least), corporeally bovine but insatiably spectral-speculative-transcendent of the everyday.
The "scientific world-view" is an oxymoronic Mr Magoo. It is in fact an ontology, but a sorely impoverished, and impoverishing, one.

david f... a point of detail if you do not mind.... "A controversial referendum in 1910 allowed ministers of religion to conduct religious instruction and bible lessons."

Not quite... the whole point of the horror of the 1910 Ed Qld de-secularisation is that it was the 'school master', to use their wording, who gave, and still gives, the Bible lessons, originally from a book of selected readings, but now the the lowest rent version of the Bible available, the evangelists friend, the Good News Bible.

And worse than that, the Ed Qld minister see nothing wrong with that, and nor does Bligh. In fact, they both heartily endorse it all.

So, while Abbott is dreaming of forcing the Bible onto all students, Bligh and Wilson facilitate it now!

Such is life, up in the Deep Norf, here in the Smart State.

Squeers,

'The "doctrine" that if you can't subject the thing to scientific method, it ain't worth subjectivising.'

Do you have a better methodological apparatus ? To the extent that we all try to grasp, not just reality, but what the 'best of scientific method' has proposed so far, we all subjectivise our knowledge. What and how we understand science IS subjective, unavoidably.

And why go back centuries and talk about the 'clockwork majesty of the universe' ? What scientists would believe that these days, now that uncertainty and openness and the unfinished nature of all knowledge is more readily admitted ?

Joe

"One useful exercise in science classes would be to call in a Western engineer, a Christian theologian and an Aboriginal medicine man, give them each a pile of wood and some fasteners, and tell them they need to get a horse across a creek." (Jon J)

My money's on the Aboriginal "medicine" man to win the challenge. He's the least specialised of the three, hence the most likely to turn his attention to achieving a practical solution quickly.

He might even win by finding a convenient ford that everyone else had overlooked. Wouldn't that be an embarrassment to the engineer!

Joe Lane
Not sure if we disagree. The notion of knowledge as a social construct as proposed by some sociologists is a form of cultural relativism; it often uses Thomas Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as a confirmation that knowledge is a mere social construct and that there is no such thing as absolute truth. This then gets translated as a view that all explanations of the world are equally valid. This is both a distortion of Kuhn's arguments and leads to a position that myths are just as valid as the hypotheses developed in science.
If your understanding of a social construct is merely that science is a product of human reflection about the world in which we live then we do not disagree. If, however, you interpret social construct as meaning that all human insights about our world are equally valid then we do disagre

Baygon,

No, I agree with you, not all interpretations of reality are equal, or equally valid whatever that may mean. Firstly, if a proposition cannot be tested, then it cannot stand up as well as one which can. And if one proposition can be tested and not knocked down, or falsified, while another proposition fails the same test, then the first one is more 'valid'. Myths and religious beliefs fail at the first hurdle, and the Catholic (and many others') notion of a geocentric universe fails the second test, while Galileo's passes.

This is not to say that systems of myths are all childish and vapid - people have often shown genius in trying to understand the world as it impinges on them, with a very limited range of tools: their technology of knowledge may be little more than their senses and what may have been hard-earned empirical knowledge, passed down from more experienced people in their own group or diffusing from their neighbours. All humans are equal, but their creations, their understandings and their cultural practices, may not be (to the extent that one can talk about such equality), limited as they have been by their learning tools.

Paul, as if a 'western engineer' wouldn't have spied out the best point for a crossing from the outset ? My money's on the engineer, every time. Ritual and magic may not be as effective as basic applied physics in building bridges.

Joe

What an excellent article, LE, thanks for spreading some sanity! I smiled when you wrote about Thor- it reminded me of my grandmother, who used to joke whenever there was a thunderstorm, that Thor was having a party in the sky.

Of course, woo-woo does not belong in science class. I am shocked to read about science in QLD schools!
Unlike scientific thinking, religious thinking does not recognise, or is not interested in, the real relation between cause and effect.
No, the cause of events is entirely the influence of a god, who is also the inventor and creator of the universe.
The religious have a special relationship with their god- many believe that they are even able to influence their god by prayer, thereby believing that they somehow have magical control over the effects or consequences through their god.
This is a kind of thinking that is as far away from scientific thinking as one can imagine; it’s a total loss of reality.

I can imagine that the religious can be envious to see science and technology create so many great things in such a relatively short time frame, intelligently explain and demonstrate how they created all these things, repeat them on demand (no need for prayer) and even improve on things that their god created, (doing great things for humanity while paying tax) when the religious still have nothing to show for.
Me thinks that one reason why these religious ministers and 'educators' so desperately want to continue to dumb down science ed. is because they suffer from creation-envy.

Yes, science should be taught in all schools as a separate subject to religion.
However, even if religion is not a subject routinely taught in many schools, I believe that being taught about the many religions and Gods worshiped in our world will serve to enrich our children's knowledge of our history, ethics and morals.

Surely having a sound knowledge of ethics and morality that many religious-based classes give will only add positively to the knowledge gained in science classes?

Many scientific discussions or debates, as well as in everyday life, can also include some references to the history provided by the Bible for instance.

I do agree however, that Creationism has no place in a modern science classroom. It can be mentioned in either a religious instruction class or a history class.

Suzeonline..."Surely having a sound knowledge of ethics and morality that many religious-based classes give will only add positively to the knowledge gained in science classes?"... surely this is something of a moot point is it not?

I have yet to see where the 'morality' of Christianity-at-work can be seen in the world of business or politics, or within the churches for that matter.

Where, for instance, can any morality of a Christian variety be found in our global economic system, or within the world of international relations as designed by our mealy-mouthed politicians?

And it is not at all clear, to me at least, that 'religion' is the source of any 'moral' behaviour in the first place.

In fact, the myth of God-and-the-Jesus-death hardly seems to be a 'moral' tale at all.

But you are right to suggest that children should be taught about the role of religion in shaping our world, but that is not the same as elevating it to some exalted position and then fibbing to children about its absolute centrality to existence, and 'meaning' as Sells was suggesting earlier.

I'm not sure why any professional teacher would dare to whisper anything about 'Creationism' in any class at all, unless it were to use this dodgy thinking to highlight how untruthful people can be when attempting to hide their true intent and force mumbo-jumbo onto young people.

Just the other day, I was told by a parent in Qld how his daughter asked about evolution in her science class. The teacher declined to 'go there' because 'some parents' might get upset with him talking about evolution, without giving 'the other view too'.

Balderdash, poppycock, stuff-and-nonsense... see how professional teachers are now self censoring to accommodate a total fabrication, Creationism?

I doubt this would happen in NSW, but I bet it does in Tassie and WA, both states that seem to prefer the backwoods banjo lifestyle to the 21st century.

Dear Blue Cross,

Thanks for the correction. Teachers should not be forced to be preachers

Dear AJ Philips,
Faith is the substance of things hoped for . My hope is in Jesus and the alledged truth of the bible as the inerrant word of God and intelligent design. Atheists hope is in Charles Darwin and a monkey of questionable intelligence. Without a change of heart you never see the possibilities . In the old King James translation the error of confusion over the modern usage of the word Easter instead of Passover is cleared up. Man is falliable and makes mistakes and if we want to argue about words you have to go to the oldest root to get the true meaning of words. I watched a show on T.V. last night about Mt Sinai of the 10 commandments in Exodus and it had all the signs described in the bible. Unrepentant man's aim is to disprove the word of God to justify his disobedience. I seek justification and forgivness in the finished work of the cross and see limitless posibilities. So is the glass half full or half empty.

Joe,
I'm unchastened. I acknowledged the success of "the method", and I applaud rational thinking, but I don't accept liberal rationalism as the end of history, or think it's an ontology humanity will ever warm to ("the method" too is equally indifferent to us).
Unfortunately I'll have to forestall my heretical utterances on this thread for now, as I'm snowed under, but I'll defend my position more asap.

Richie 10 wrote: Faith is the substance of things hoped for.

I hope for a quick, painless death when it comes. That is not faith.

He also wrote: Atheists hope is in Charles Darwin and a monkey of questionable intelligence.

An atheist does not believe in God. That does not mean an atheist accepts evolutionary theory. In fact I know one who doesn't.

He also wrote: Unrepentant man's aim is to disprove the word of God to justify his disobedience.

It is nonsense to talk of disobedience to a non-existent entity.

I am uncomfortable with your logic, suzeonline.

>>even if religion is not a subject routinely taught in many schools, I believe that being taught about the many religions and Gods worshiped in our world will serve to enrich our children's knowledge of our history, ethics and morals.<<

I fully agree with this statement. Religion has been one of the most significant cultural influences of the past thousand years, and should most definitely be addressed in the classroom.

The history can be reasonably factual. These are the beliefs of the Jewish people, the Christians, the Muslims etc.

However, when it comes to discussing the "ethics and morals" aspect, you are back in the realms of theory, rather than practice. It then moves into subjective territory, since discussing ethics and morals in the context of historical events such as the Crusades, or the Inquisition, would be tough to handle from a neutral viewpoint.

Which is why I am concerned about your next statement:

>>Surely having a sound knowledge of ethics and morality that many religious-based classes give will only add positively to the knowledge gained in science classes?<<

Once you move away from the purely historical, you immediately are mired in doctrine. Each doctrine is unique to its own religion, and therefore would be difficult to "teach" without preaching.

There is a need to teach ethics in schools. If we leave aside the problem of competent teachers then the idea of teaching ethics is not the same as teaching religion. The Philosophy for Children Programme has produced an ethics course that has been taught in some schools for close on to 20 years.
For those who want to know more about the philosophy for children programme you can look here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/children/

BAYGON wrote: There is a need to teach ethics in schools.

Dear BAYGON,

We cannot teach ethics in schools as that would involve the state in defining what ethical system a child should accept. That should no more be the business of the state than telling a child what religious belief or lack of belief to accept. The courses in philosophy equip a child with tools to make decisions regarding ethical questions. That is not the same as teaching ethics.

David F Your say "We cannot teach ethics in schools as that would involve the state in defining what ethical system a child should accept."
It is a common misconception to assume that the teaching of ethics implies proposing a particular ethical system.
The teaching of ethics (as used in the philosophy for children programme) uses the socratic method. For example the topic may deal with the issue of lying - is lying wrong? In my experience I find that students very quickly distinguish between different types of lies. In one class a student raised the issue of her mother who had been diagnosed with terminal cancer. She felt that it would have been better if they had lied to her so that she would not have been so worried. As you can imagine it lead to a far reaching discussion about our obligations and duties.
What you tend to find with ethics is that it is only at the edges that there are violent disagreements in the main there is an overwhelming consensus about the bulk of things that we encounter in our daily lives.
The role of ethics in schools is to give students the tools to think through issues that they face rather than to give them a particular ethical system.

Given the state of play in the Catholic Church these days, Baygon, one might ask what has religion got to do with ethics ? [Cheap shot]

Squeers,
There will probably never be an 'end of history'. I'm not sure what you mean by scientific methodology (or liberal rationalism) having an ontology, but sure, science or whatever is indifferent to how humans feel. Still, if you can find a better hole ......

Dear BAYGON,

Unfortunately, what is called religious education in the schools usually involves indoctrination in a particular religion rather than when I regard as genuine religious education which would give student information about various systems of belief without making any judgments.

I was once approached by a man asking me to sign a petition calling for education in ethics in New York State schools. I can't remember what group was sponsoring the petition, but I refused to sign since I thought that the petition was implicitly to rally support in teaching the petition sponsor's ethical views. I don't think I have any misconception about teaching of ethics. Unless explicitly stated otherwise most people would make a direct analogy between religious education as it is commonly understood.

I agree with what I think you are trying to do. However, I think the misconception lies in your understanding of what others take by your words.

Baygon... I have to agree with david f.

At least in some Ed Qld schools, instead of being fed the usual tripe in Religious Instruction (note the term does not denote 'education' at all) students can opt into a 'values' programme.

Without any truthful explanation to parents, who assume this is a 'neutral' values topic, it is in fact written by the Bahai's.

So, once again, ever more 'religion' is being imposed on Qld students with the full approval of Wilson and Bligh, and the aquiesence of the QTU and QCPCA who each pretends to have a policy supporting 'secular public schools, but in fact, both happily support the imposition of extreme versions of a twisted Christianity.

And I certainly have no desire to have any 'opposite' views put in schools.

Buranda State School, almost alone amongst Qld public schools, is trying to 'educate' students with a 'philosophy' basis to how the school runs.

Do google them.

Typically though, even though EQ is happy to show this place off, they refuse to promote such moves to the duller principals and backwoods schools that proliferate around the state.

Until the DG and Minister insist on all teachers following EQ policy, and instruct them to leave their dogma at the school gate, the religious fanatics will be coercing students with their toxic 'values' and 'ethics' drawn from the evangelical branches of Christian cults.

Joe, (rather than the appalling appellation "Loudmouth")
Dawkins and co are taking a political stance against religion; rightly, for the most part, because it has too much influence in society, to the detriment of more 'rounded' thinking ('rationalist' thinking is just as irresponsible as religion), apropos various debates; and that's all well and good. But where is the critique, from Dawkins and co, of capitalism, and its 'fundamentalist' laissez faire sponsorship of anything that generates money or maintains the system?
Science and its method, with no ideological hang-ups to hold it back, is happy to hang-out with any regime that offers funding, that facilitates 'progress' (towards what?). The 'method' is applied to all manner of discreet projects--the minutia, or technology, of life--and this is what absolves it of ultimate responsibility; it isn't concerned with the larger picture, only with what's 'on the slide', hence my Mr Magoo analogy. Yet via Dawkins and co, rationalism is setting itself up as an ontology--they're spreading the word--notwithstanding their profound myopia!
I was aghast upon reading the article for this thread--its sanctimonious complacency is breathtaking! Yet here I am a pariah. Faith (sorry, memes) is a powerful thing!
There is indeed a better hole, joe.

Davidf, your logic is impeccable (no flattery intended); ethics do inevitably conjure the dominant creed. Isn't it about time we developed a set of enlightened ethics, that governments (first), are obliged to exemplify? The US constitution for instance, which I'm fond of denouncing, is "one of the most inspirational pieces of empty rhetoric ever penned", to quote myself.
Full marks to Obama, though!

David F Blue Cross et al.
The description of what is happening in Queensland school is unethical; to teach a programme called ethics as a means of indoctrinating students with a particular set of values is unethical; it is not what ethicists do.
The same applies to religious indoctrination programmes that masquerade under the title of religious education.
I am more familiar with the situation in South Australia and indeed with the R.E. programmes that have been developed at years 11 and 12 level. Those certainly conform to David's definition of R.E.
The situation described by Blue Cross should not mean that we abandon attempts to teach ethics. Rather it implies that we need to be much more rigorous in weeding out programmes that are little more than an attempt to foist on students particular religious beliefs.
Ethics taught by properly trained teachers following a curriculum that is consistent with the principles of academic ethics is important. Perhaps this should be the subject of a substantive article rather than attempt to explore the implications within the limitations of the forum.

Thank you, Mr/Ms Squeers, I could say the same about yours too (oh, I get it, your real name is Nicholas, or even Nicola ?), and thanks for the compliment and for your helpful explanation.

I'm not sure if liberal rationalism (an ideology) can be equated with the scientific method (a methodology) but surely Dawkins' propositions should be subjected to the same heartless, brutal testing employed by anybody applying the full range of weaponry of the scientific method for falsifiability, as any other proposition. For the record, I think they would pass.

But as a bear of little brain, I think I dimly understand your reservations: science (or at least the scientific method) assesses propositions empirically, for some sort of conditional epistemological validity, while ethical principles are really in the realm of metaphysics, not epistemology, impossible or not easy to put to any empirical test, so can't be assessed using those methods, so the two tag-teams are not even in the same wrestling ring: one demands testability, the other doesn't - have I got that remotely right ?

Joe

Baygon.. Qld has never 'masquaraded'... RI has never been RE, it's just that people (teachers, parents, ministers-of the church and education- and journalists) have.

RI has always been RI-religious indoctrination.

It was called RI in 1910, and it is still called that 100 years later.

I am glad you think it is a poor job.

What do you now intend to do about it?

I accept that it is a good idea, in fact a 'national interest' idea as well as a 'global interest' idea to impart some form of ethical code to our children.

I also accept that this will be, and should be, a contested area, for ever.

Which is why no one 'religion' should ever get a grip on it, nor any political ideology, or cultural one.

That is a tall order, of course.

So who does it, and what is it?

I see the point Squeers alludes to. If our nations had an ethical basis, which they do not seem to, then we might be able to see 'ethics' in practice.

But such a dream is nowhere evident from our leaders.

And seems not to filter up from below either.

So, are there any 'ethics' to be found anywhere, in fact?

Or, is the very idea of ethics so contested and undermined that there are, really, none to be found anywhere?

I suspect there are not, beyond a few individuals.

But then, do others recognise them as ethical anyway?

I suspect, like that crass 'mission statement 'in pursuit of excellence', which is never found, never mind recognised as a real destination in the first place, that there are no 'ethics' on offer anyway.

Just 'points of view', which some dress up as dogma, and follow like a sheepdog follows sheep (and food).

But then, to be fair, what does that say of the followers of the leaders? Which covers most of us.

Thankfully the schools that believe in truth rather than pseudo science such as evolution will continue to grow. As many of the teachers know what crap the secular system tries to enforce they will be able to show clearly how 'scientist' twist or ignore observations to support their flawed theories. The harder the secularist tries to ignore the obvious (our Creator) the more stupid they look. The fruits of their dogmas will continue to be a win for the private sector.

Blue Cross, I don't know about schools in Queensland, but my daughter has just finished school here in the "..backwoods banjo lifestyle" country of W.A.

She went to a private co-educational Catholic high school. We are both skeptics and did not send our daughter there for religious reasons or for religious instruction as such.

We sent her there because it was only one of 2 schools available in our area, and the other school was not suitable for her.

She went to RE classes because they had to if you wanted to send them to this school. There were kids of all denominations at this school, as well as many with no religion at all.

Thus, these RE classes were based on living as a good person in the community. They were required to do good deeds for people in their community as part of their course.

They were taught about evolution extensively in science classes.
They were taught how to be thoughtful and understanding of all cultures and religions. That is what I wanted.

Like us, she remains a skeptic as far as a possible God goes, and is a very good, kind person that I am proud to say is my daughter.

I guess what I was trying to say in my post above was that we should use the good parts of some religious points, but leave the mad parts alone when educating our children.

Runner, science has brought far more good for our race than any religion ever has.

Suzeonline...please, no need to apologise to me, or anyone, for sending your child to a publicly subsidised faith school, rather than the 'private' school most people think they are.

That's your choice.

I note however, that you avoided the WA state school.

The RE you speak of may well be religious education, but that does not exist here in Ed Qld, only RI, which is a world away from RE.

Funnily enough though, a parent I know was advised to send his daughter to a Catholic school instead of an EQ one so she could get a 'secular education'.

Amazing, even EQ managers know they are incapable of managing anything properly.

I am not sure that you should have to send your child to a publicly subsidised faith school to have your child educated though, that is the role, and responsibility, of the state.

suzie

'Runner, science has brought far more good for our race than any religion ever has.'

Science yes, pseudo science no. Jesus Christ Himself has done more good for people than all the scientist put together. You seem to like the fruit of faith based schools but deny the outcomes the secular humanist dogmas which flow from pseudo science. You would not even allow your daughter to attend one of these schools.

A (not)funny thing happened to a Baptist friend of mine the other day (yes, I've befriended some Baptists. More extraordinary yet, they've befriended me!).
This friend, along with her kids were tooling around to our place on push-bikes for a visit, when upon confronting a hill, up on pedals, one of them (a pedal) sheered off, and mum's leg pile-drove into the bitumen, breaking both bones below the knee. She sprawled and groaned in agony and finally settled in a position that seemed to requite her the least pain, her distraught kids arrayed in meditative consternation around her.
It was a lengthy vigil they kept together, along with a few bemused neighbours who strayed and straggled, startled, from their own noonday vigil around the tele.
After a quarter of an hour (an eternity in our world of the ever abbreviating news-grab) the ambulance arrived in suitable style (bells and whistles), and the compassion was laid on suitably thick (disingenuous but convincing).
As they were preparing to raise up my fallen friend, she was heard to utter: "I think the strap on my backpack [her only erstwhile comfort on the pavement] is pinching my shoulder"! But then, lo, she was heard to lament, in earthly tones: "No, it's a bloody green-ant!"
The Lord works in mysterious ways!
True story; not in Dostoyevsky's league, but instructive!

I wasn't apologizing for sending my child to a Catholic high school at all Blue Cross.

When you live in a small town with only two high schools (used by many nearby towns as well), and one is an overcrowded, under-resourced, run-down school (public school), while the other is a relatively new, well resourced school offering less pupils per class, pleasant new classrooms, and a much more effective discipline system, you send your child to the better school if you can!

Maybe the public schools in your area are better resourced than here Blue Cross? I pay taxes the same as anyone else and I don't begrudge my taxes going to both private and public schools.

suzeonline, just out of idle curiosity, what was the "more effective discipline system" you speak of, and why could it not be applied in state schools?
Davidf, I think I understand your concerns in abstract, but I'm not sure I see it in practice; unless ethics was taught as an 'exam subject', in which case one would be obliged to agree (or at least appear to agree) with whatever is taught.
I have noticed almost all my most successful academic friends express the same sentiment; "load of crap, but it was obvious what the examiner was looking for..."
Otherwise, I'm inclined to think comparative religious and ethical studies held by visiting proponents of various creeds... could well spell the timely death of religion, and offer thinking children the chance to analyse and define the ethical basis (if any); the 'lowest common denominator, if you will.

Dear Grim,

I am working on an article with another poster. I hope there will be a detailed answer to your question in it.

Hi Grim. The local public high school in our town has over 1500 pupils and all are housed in far to few overcrowded classrooms.
There aren't enough teachers, so they have many substitute teachers in place who don't really know the students.

Because of the large numbers of students, overcrowded classrooms, substitute teachers and lack of teachers, the school is known to have severe discipline and bullying problems.

My daughter has always been shy and needs direction to help her learn.
She would have been lost in that school.

She thrived in the 500 pupil smaller school that had smaller classroom numbers and plenty of permanent teachers.

Hi Peter,

You make a few valid points, including the distinction when the domains of mythos and techne. Nonetheless, you appear to limit science to the physical science. Alternatively, anthropology, forensic histology and pychology do study religions and morality: e.g., Lawrence Kolberg studied morility, wherein, I would put, Elohim might not stand with Jesus.

By Year Ten children would easily comprehend the "Multiplcation of Classes" (Piaget) relevant to understanding the Periodic Table. The problem might the Table, rather understanding the physics of atomic shells and valency, which are necessary complements.

In earlier threads, we have already covered the relationship between Mythos and Reason. Before the Enlightenment and Great Divergence, the Christian Church was quite successful in claiming ground ground fron science/reason into the realm of Mythos. Flat earths and universal floods etc... Maybe, in the era of The God of the gaps (still some gaps not explained by science), theologians have repositioned to place their realm of Mythos before(qedem) and behind (achron) the domain of science. Creationists aside, "Yes, evolution exits, but God pulls the levers". It is a cleveler response,really, because igorance is infinitely divisible; so, no matter what science comes up with religions can claim the puppeteer.

O.

Meanwhile, in Berkeley California, proponents of the religion of racialism seek to cut down on science classes because the high achievers are all Asians and Whites.
Presumably the money saved will be allocated to the real sciences, such as Studies of Black and Hispanic Disadvantage.

Peter: i.e, Peter Sells.