Desipis,
Again, I have to agree with most of what you say. I am also aware that yours was not such an exceptional experience with the way the RC Church was handling its mission before Vatican II. No doubt, Vatican II was a necessity, the question is only whether some people in their resentment of the past are not in danger of advocating the “throwing out the (2000 years old) baby with the dirty water“.

Through centuries the Church was spreading not only what you call “idealogical dogmatic views” (and worse) but for many people it also served as a psychological haven. My grandmother, who had hard times during WWI, spoke a lot about her priest, how he helped her, and it was clear to me that what she was getting in the confessional was something that today we would call psychotherapeutic counselling. However, gradually the pastoral practice became so much divorced from the psychological needs of a modern individual that Vatican II became an absolute necessity. Today the priest can at best be a counsellor-amateur, and he is, or should be, aware of his limitations. I was always wondering why the newsletter of my Melbourne parish contained advertisements for Catholic tradesmen but none for Catholic professional counsellors.

What you describe as your childhood experience is certainly not something the Church should be proud of, though I sometimes try to understand it through the following parable: A “ thinking and bright child” (or technically unsophiscated adult) might ask questions about how his TV set is functioning, going beyond what is in the users‘ manual. The answer, “you first have to learn about Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism“ would not be very helpfull, and the technician or salesperson probably does not know much about Maxwell’s equations anyhow. Only the good teacher, who should have a better knowledge of physics than the salesperson, can try to bring his knowledge down to the child‘s level, which, however depends on his age, education, inquisitivness etc. so it is not an easy task. (ctd)

Sells

Iguess it depends what you expect maths todo foryou.Mathematics provides a language,abstract concepts and procedures for manipulating symbols.Its about transforming and matching patterns.Inits pure form its goal is not directed towards explaining thisor that phenomenon.It isa self-extending language whose sole purpose isto explore the imaginary world ofall possible patterns.Its the Glass Bead Game.
Biological systems,however complex they mightbe,exhibit certain patterns that fall within the range ofall possible patterns.A biologist with a very small repertoire of mathematical patterns at his/her disposal can hardly be expected to make the connections.The curious thing about many biological systems that are underpinned by hugely complex mechanisms is that they often exhibit simple regularities at the'macro'level of observable phenomenon.Life would not be possible if not for this stange quirk of complexity.Consider the phenomenal complexity of the human genome.DNA is complex enough.The incredible interaction of'genes'so-called which determine the mix of proteins that can/are produced in every cell produces a picture of'unimaginable complexity'and yet at the level of observable phenomena there are many simple regularities such as having two eyes,four limbs,five senses and so on.This meta-pattern of simple,regular patterns emerging'over the top of'immense complexity is now on the mathematicians radar.
A typical biologists question is"How can I predict the behaviour of a certain biological system".If the mathematical answer to this is you cant because the calculation requires infinite knowledge or infinite calculation time then,on the face of it you have a system that is not amenable to mathematical study.But,in fact,you may have proved that predictability is not a property of the system and your question actually is answered.
What story the mathematician can tell you is very much dependent on the questions youare asking.If the explanation of Divine justice begins with the mathematical study of quanta then I grant you that enterprise is doomed.But observe thesimple regularities ofthe business.Divine justice is summarised very simply inthe story ofthe one truly human man.Hereis mathematics inits most elegant form.The complexity is completely stripped away,achild can understand it.The culmination of the whole of creation,inall its complexity,is rendered comprehensible to all.Not predictable,not amenable to manipulation but comprehensible.
What was your question again?

(ctd) When you have to explain not “how to make the best of your TV” but “how to live your Christian life” this is even harder. So many teachers chose, and some still choose, the shortcut “just follow the instructions, and do not ask questions about things you cannot, and do not have to, understand“. Of course, this is a simplification, but I hope you understand what I mean.

Since Dawkins it has become fashionable to call RE “religious indoctrination”.

I have to confess that I was also indoctrinated, not only into a Christian outlook but also to three languages (that I allegedly spoke at the age of five), into counting apples and bunnies before I have developed any knowledge or critical thinking about mathematics, languages, religion etc. However, I am grateful to my parents and the school for having given me these skills at an early age when one is not yet critical, but easily learns new “propensities”.

Teaching children facts (or dogmas) without teaching them how to think about them can be compared to feeding a computer with data without giving it a program to run them on: raw data without a program are useless, but so is a computer program without input data. Educators (not only RE) in the past sinned on the side of “data without program” whereas today it is often the other way around: teaching children to think critically without giving them enough facts (which includes moral guidelines and dogmas i.e. symbolic facts) to think about.

You are right about the communists copying the organisational and other external structures from the Catholic Church. Lenin himself wrote somewhere that the final showdown will be between Communism and Catholicism. What I was objecting to was what I saw as you equating the two institutions: airplanes and birds have common external features, nevertheless the airplanes constructors did not (and could not) copy the biological functioning of the bird.

Sells (and others)
it is very interesting what you are saying about mathematics, unfortunately I have to wait 24 hours before I can offer my own modest contribution.

George,

I don't think I've been critical of the local parishes (or local priest). I think it was the centralised power structure of the church caused (as you put it) the pastoral practice to become divorced from the people's needs.

In reference to your TV example, I think a common, and quite reasonable response would include an "I don't know". Yet this seems to be something that is quite uncommon when discussing religion. Most people, seem quite unwilling to admit that there is something they don't know in matters of faith, presumably because this would weaken their ability to push their views on morality. They don't want to lose that power to control others.

The simple fact is that there is no absolute correct way to live a Christian life. It's all a matter of how one interprets the teachings of Jesus, or rather how one interprets the translations of the recordings of the re-tellings of the stories of the teachings of Jesus. The correct answer is "we don't really know". An organisation or person, no matter how well studied, having the arrogance to claim that their view is right to the exclusion of all others is just ridiculous.

I wasn't referring to RE classes when I said "indoctrinated"; they seemed reasonably based in history and ethics, although with strong faith based overtones. It was the masses, liturgies and sacraments that I object to. The meaning behind coercing a mere child into religious 'confirmation' is lost on me.

I do agree with you that there is and has been a lack of balance in the education system. There is the need to teach both reasoning and facts, and including the recognition that either one can be learnt through the other.

As for Communists vs Catholics: They are have centralised political structures based on a philosophy of improving society by imposing that philosophy on all aspects of life, through force if necessary, and have a history of appalling and devastating policies. Can you explain the fundamental difference between the two?

Just happens that I've always felt quite uncomfortable with people's need for worship and for that matter linear narratives. i.e. I cannot comprehend enlightened awareness as a narrative not simply because love is the essential feature of intrinsic motivation, but because love always maintains critical functions. Worship is a closed control system and always maladaptive, fragile, inhibited, stressed and a love free zone.

For so many people our human mind has this tendency to think with finite closed systems and impose this notion onto everything. The problem here is one of the deductive mindset where it tries to solve but makes things worse because it doesn’t comprehend that it's creating them, and the more it thinks, the more problems it creates. Certainly this worship is a pathway to disenchantment.

Isn't it much better to build up from some observed facts using induction .... where it is find and ye shall seek. Isn't this where true imagination is found as you comprehend infinity and infinite possibilities?

My question for Peter is if as a theologian and scientist you believed that a certain effect had no material cause, would you then ever be motivated or capable enough to find a cause and comprehend some enlightened awareness?

Waterboy.
I do follow your argument especially about mathematical patter. However I am not convinced that things like symmetry etc are of much used when you are trying to found out the mechanism by which, for example silencing RNA is incorporated into the mechanism of the cell so as to turn off the production of a particular protein. So much of molecular biology now is plain description so that means are found to make certain things happen that we want to happen. Thus the inductive method is tops. Trying to model such a system a priori is difficult because it contains unimaginable processes that will always escape the modeller. When I was at the University of Sussex there was a group that tried all sorts of mathematical descriptions of the simplest biological processes. They were generally figures of derision being seen to be ideologically driven.

George.
I like what you said about the change between data with no program and program with no data to describe educational practice particularly in RE. Hauerwas says that students cannot make up their own minds because they have no minds to make up. His aim is to teach them to first think like him, then they can go their own way. Another criticism of “the age of reason” there is only your own voice.