Foyle, isn’t it interesting how we use that word “indoctrination” when describing a teaching process? It often simply means we don’t like what is being taught. When we approve of what is taught we call the process “education” or “empowerment” or something else. There is more to it of course, but we do need to be careful how we use these words.

Fencepost, yours is a very interesting perspective which could bear much fruit. I remember reading years ago Fritjof Capra’s The Tao of Physics and being completely absorbed in his linking of quantum theory with ancient Hindu and Buddhist mysticism. I know that since then a number of top scientists and mathematicians like Paul Davies have taken a similar approach to the notion of God, but haven’t had the time to read them.

Jon J., the imitation of Christ is not what Peter is advocating. It is not just an effort of will and intellect. He is saying that through the Eucharist we can be transformed almost without our knowing. It is not a process of cut-and-paste – picking recorded behaviours or words of Jesus and tacking them into our own personality. The transformation occurs, you might say, from the inside out. It occurs through participation, rather than detached thought and determination.

Nevertheless, I agree with you, Terra, that more is required if we are to make sound ethical judgements. Cultivating the virtues and studying natural law could well be part of a more complete response. Would you agree that including Philosophy in the National Curriculum for primary (and perhaps secondary) schools could be a useful step towards facilitating the development of moral reasoning? Having had a chance to trial such a program some years ago, I am sure it would go down well with the kids – given, of course, the professional development for teachers and adequate resources. They get quite passionately involved in the struggle to solve a problem through clear reasoning and communication, especially if it’s a moral dilemma. I believe there is some effort in Queensland to make Philosophy a regular component of primary schooling.

I am amused that the atheists/secularists/humanists have gotten so frothy around the mouth at this article. Perhaps this is because I attack the common understanding of morality and that is all the poor things have to sustain them in life!

Terra and crabsby.
I find the notion of natural law problematic. For this to be a concept at all one has to posit something called “nature” something that came late in the history of Christian theology. This produced the idea of the two book, nature and revelation that divides thought that was originally one. Certainly in the late 17th C there was much talk about the “light of Nature”, Newton’s laws of motion were thought to be the actual laws of God who language was mathematics. Many thought at the time that this was a far more dependable path to the mind of God and that moral precepts could be read off from nature. This produced Natural theology in which a providential God held the world in the palm of his hand. The Lisbon earthquake in 1755 showed that the world was not so constructed for our benefit and this realisation began to erode the idea of natural law until it was demolished by Darwin. Nature goes on without any reference to the good of mankind and any morality that can be read off from it is that of the survival of the fittest, hardly a gospel imperative.
When natural law arguments are included in ethics then the gospel automatically gets second best because the gospel is a scandal to all.

If God is the truth, (after Augustine, truth is not an attribute of God, but God is the truth) then this truth will conform to the way the grain of the universe runs. That does not mean that Newton’s laws of motion can be found in the gospel, but that these laws do not cancel the truth of the gospel.

Peter Sellick

Locke & Newton and Whiston % Newton were correspondents, regrading the gospels, especially regarding the Trinity. Newton saw 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:6 to be antitrinitarian. Ref: Correspondence 64 Ibid. iv. 164-5 (no. 1338 of 14 Nov. 1690), and viii. 1-2(no. 3287 of 15 May 1703)

Moreover, Newton was very shy on the topic of religion as to apply Nature against the gospels would have threated his tenure of the Lucian Chair.

Brewster would deny this case. Ref: Sir David Brewster, Memoirs of the Life, Writings and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton ( Edinburgh, 1855), ii. 340. Yet, Newton's personal memiors indicate, " 'for a long time . . . the faith subsisted without this text" [Newton]. Presumably, Newton is refering to the period Nicaua [325] or Constantinople [381]. Here, I think Newton's point was there were Christians before the Trinity, becomes doctrine.

"Goodness was considered a self-evident truth from which the goodness of God could be inferred." [Of Locke,in History of Science Society]...

Since this implied the criticism of revelation by reason and the substitution of individual enquiry for authority, the way was opened for a liberal Christianity which might ultimately supersede traditional beliefs. It is not surprising that the outcome of this movement should be a 'religion within the limits of reason' [Kant?]...

Religion is to be based upon morality: morality is part of the order of nature and based upon the laws of nature: the work of reason is the only sure foundation on which to build a living creed and save mankind from the domination of superstition." [Of Kant?] Ref:Sir Isaac Newton, 1727-1927: A Bicentenary Evaluation of His Work
Book by History Of Science Society, 1928

Crasby,
Indoctrinate means teach or imbue with a doctrine. Religious doctrines are not supported by testable evidence but instead are usually based on faith. Faith is a very poor basis for any strand of education and absolutely hopeless in science education. Providing any education that is not based on the best available evidence is child abuse.
I notice your mention of philosophy being proposed in education in Queensland. It has been in use in Buranda State School with excellent results and is in use in many locations around the world. Philosophy for Children should be in every school from aged six. It only requires about one hour of school time per week and can or even should even be part of the language and personal development curriculum. Behaviour would improve dramatically and the improvement in intellectual capabilities would be an excellent bonus. Please read Stephen Law on the subject. His book is The War for Children's Minds and there is an article by him in OLO archives.

Crasby and Foyle,

I would posit a religionist belief is as Polanyi might put it indewlling in the doctrine rather than being indoctinated. There is a subtle difference, where the indwelling influences tacit structures and interpretation, i.e., religious interpretation, is the the co-efficent of tacit indwelling and explicit knowledge.

Herein,

Superstition is a separate construct to belief. Peter Sellick might not be superstitious in the sense that a person kisses icons in the Orthodox Church. Presumably, Peter is does not believe in fairies and elves. Yet, a secular Irishman might believe in the Little People, as a positive heuristic. Both might be agnostics to UFOs.

The Eygptians, Jews, Christians and Humane Secularists all fell they know right from wrong, yet amongst this set, only the latter see morality for morality's sake, here, confined generally to three score years and ten [give or take] and then nothing. Morality is an end unto itself; morality is not a means [deeds] to an end.

Albeit, morality can achieved through empathy, justice and love, achieves positive ends.

Religionist or non-Religionist, we have a cognitive process at work. In the end, we a really looking the case of terminal death or belief in an after-life, based on altruistic regard or, promise of reward, respectively.

Correction:

NOT:

"Religionist or non-Religionist, we have a cognitive process at work. In the end, we a really looking the case of terminal death or belief in an after-life, based on altruistic regard or, promise of reward, respectively."

RATHER:

"Religionist or non-Religionist, we have a cognitive process at work. In the end, we a really looking the case of terminal death or belief in an after-life, based on on promise of reward Or, altruistic regard, respectively."

The humane secularist understands morality intrinctly, rather than as a response to a direction or a reward.

WOW,

I got that wrong, before.