Ah, the good old Enlightenment. The one that displaced the Christian religion with the cult of "reason" and put religious life behind closed doors. It was the beginning of the break with the Christian legacy of the West; and look how well that has worked out with deism - self worship - philosophy and (anti) social sciences. Second Dark Ages here we come!

Social science, an Oxymoron.

ttbn & Hasbeen,

Spot-on !

The academic-backed social "experts" of no life experience who spruik their ignorance of anything sensible !

The writer in my opinion, brings a subjective view to the topics discussed. That being so, demeans the scientific view over so called morality. Which would seem to need spirituality to make said morality function.

In other words, needs be, based on some religious practise? Ignores the fact that religious practise comes with centuries of rape, murder and paedophilia. And blood-soaked sword wielding Bishops of the head of mass murdering armies.

Moral philosophy is purely personal and only requires we follow the example of the master not those who followed and self-appoint to speak for him.

If we look at creation and the big bang theory, we see that from nothing comes lots of nothing.

That in nature there are immutable laws that must be followed by science if they are to understand anything. And means for me there needed to be a foundational intelligence in the design of the universe, all life forms and inanimate matter.
Alan B.

Three references and associated websites which provide an Illuminated Understanding of the (seeming) never-ending conflict between old-style creator-God religiosity, and modern secular rationalism. And why old-style classical "education" is totally inadequate to deal with living in the quantum-world of the "21st century" in which everyone is now instantaneously inter-connected

http://www.beezone.com/beezones-main-stack/chap_1_the_new_reformation.html

http://www.dabase.org/up-1-2.htm

http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/parental_deity/index.html

And an essay which links/compares the statement Christ Is Risen to the Quantum Understanding signaled by the famous equation E=MC2

http://www.beezone.com/beezones-main-stack/christ_equals_emsquared.html

It is also interesting to note that the author of this essay claims that the kind of classical "education" that she promotes has been in existence for 2000 years.
Not so.
Modern "education" consists primarily of left-brained spirit-killing book learning. Never mind that up until the time of the invention of Gutenberg's movable type an thus the widespread availability of books (especially the Bible) only a teensy weensy minuscule fraction of human beings had any kind of such book-based "education". And even then wide-scale mass-"education" only came into existence in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Speaking of the intrinsic limits of left-brained learning Iain McGilchrist addresses this topic in his book The Master & His Emissary - The Left Brain and the Making of the Western World

Hmm

I think I agree with the author to a point. Empirical and scientific methods are never going to describe the full range of human values and experiences. But it varies a lot depending on which social science you are discussing. Empiricism has less of a role in politics than economics, for example.

The author asks, “Imagine an economic system that was forced to account for transcendentals such as purpose, goodness, truth and beauty in addition to material product”. In one sense, economics already does this, albeit from a narrow perspective of human subjectivity. The subjective theory of value says that a thing is worth what a person thinks it is worth – a Rembrandt painting is worth more than my mother’s water-coloured landscapes because someone (actually a lot of people), value it more highly.

But in another sense, I think she is making a category error. Economics doesn’t account for beauty for the same reason that criminology and demography don’t. They are distinct disciplines with their own purposes and processes, and contribute to the sum of human knowledge and wellbeing in different ways.

Where I think I would agree with the author is that some social scientists downplay or refuse to acknowledge the subjective values and implicit priorities that guide their work. Jim Chalmers’ recent controversial speech on “values capitalism” was an attempt to grapple with that question (whether successful or not is another matter).

But it can also be true that criticism of empiricism and scientific approaches to social questions comes from people who don’t like the what the evidence shows. I well remember a lecturer who was convinced that poverty in the developing world was rising as a result of globalisation and free trade. When I pointed out that the overwhelming body of evidence pointed to the exact opposite – from the World Bank, United Nations, and pretty much every development economist on the planet - she told me to go away and find a source that agreed with her. There are no credible ones.

The author includes this revealing sentence: "I know how a child's heart leap in the classroom when I mention big ideas like purpose and meaning? You see it is personal but also grand, a reflection of God."

Big ideas are a reflection of God only to a religious believer. I suspect that the author laments the lack of the irrational presence of religion in public education. I along with many others feel education should not include religious indoctrination in the public schools. If a parent wishes that sort of education for a child there are religious schools for that purpose. There is a place for a study of comparative religion in public schools. Students should be aware of what people believe. There should be no place for religious indoctrination in the public schools. I am appalled by the presence of chaplains in the Australian public schools. Religion should not be the business of government and vice versa.

david f,
Spot-on !

Hi David f

I agree that state schools should teach children about religions not what to believe; I’d say the same of private schools without an explicit religious affiliation.

It may be different in your state, but here in WA, chaplains in state schools provide pastoral care, not religious instruction. According to the WA department education website, “chaplains may be of any faith or no faith” and must have suitable qualifications in pastoral care of children and youth.

Dear Rhian,

Scripture Union, a fundamentalist Christian group, provides chaplains for the WA public schools. They are supposed to provide pastoral care only in all public schools. If I had children of school age I wouldn't trust them.

WA isn't different from other Australian states in regards to the chaplaincy.

https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/how-your-taxes-ended-up-funding-religious-jobs-in-wa-s-public-schools-20220722-p5b3uh.html

Thanks David, that’s an interesting link.

My reading of it is that there is no requirement for chaplains to be religious, and no bar on people of any religion or none from becoming a chaplain. Only accredited organisations can supply chaplains, and two of the three school accredited organisations in WA are Christian, but there is nothing to prevent other organisations from applying for, and obtaining, accreditation. It could be simpler to remove the requirement for accrediting organisations and recruit chaplains direct, though the article points out that may give rise to conflicts of interest – chaplains need a degree of independence from the school hierarchy.

The article points to some problems with the funding model, and these probably have administrative fixes. However, the main issue seems to be that not many non-religious organisations want to become accredited, because it is not very lucrative. Religious organisations tend to have a commitment to pastoral care that makes them willing to undertake these roles (not just Christians – at university level there are also Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist chaplains). So while I agree with the sentiment (except the “firms”), I'm not sure we'll reach the end the article concludes with – “Maybe eventually there will be multiple firms sourcing the best possible people to help schools safeguard our children’s wellbeing.” .

Surely, the most important thing is what chaplains do, and don’t do. They are not allowed to proselytise, and must respect other people’s values, views and beliefs. They must be professionally qualified. Their role is pastoral care. If they do these things well, does it matter if they do them because they are religious?

If a person cannot live without religion, that means he has not yet learned to think logically.
The world at large has existed without religious ideas for a very long time.
Only a few humans with misbegotten principles feel the need to follow a path sustained by lies and half truths.
Which means that path has a shaky foundation, and must inevitably fail those who use it.

Dear Rhian,

Somebody wittier than I referring to chaplains provided by a fundy Christian group restricting themselves to pastoral care & not proselytizing.: "That's like sending in the clowns and expecting them not to be funny."

It's moral responsibility & care that has nearly all but been removed by the Woke !

Why is it that private and religious schools are growing and public schools per head of population are decreasing? Is it because public schools are now indoctrinating children in suspect World views? Views like Critical Race theory, gender dysphoria and White supremacy? These are the Public Schools understanding of World views that replace faith and hope and self-worth / personal discipline redundant.