Confanity says that my assertion that there is no education apart from religion is easily disproven. I beg to differ. The quote:




math, language arts, history, science, and all the other necessary fundamentals of a comprehensive education are by their very nature “apart from” religion



And how do you prove that statement?



To me, it is easily disproven. All history changes when seen in light of a different god. The Crusades may have been an abomination or a sad and highly exaggerated mistake, depending on which worldview you embrace. Hitler’s Germany was either an atrocity or it didn’t really happen—both views are taught.



Even geography changes. For instance, Muslim textbooks show a country called Palestine (which is actually the country of Israel.) To them, Israel doesn’t exist, because their god says it should not. Current events are also variable, according to which source you choose to believe.



Evolution is taught as science, but really it’s nothing more than religion. There is a great deal of evidence that disproves it, and none that proves it. In order to believe that all things gradually grew from primordial ooze, you must have faith, just as you must have faith to believe that God created everything.



Language arts must be taught using words, and the words must say something. What literature you choose to expose the child to will influence their choices and their view of the world, thus their religion.



The way I see it, the only subject that may possibly be taught without reference to religion is math. If you really think you were taught all these things in a vacuum, you need to get out of your bubble and explore the other viewpoints. Just because something is in a textbook does NOT mean it is Truth.


We must choose which worldview we will embrace, and that inevitably leads to indoctrinating our children with it, whether we want to or not. As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD! Joshua 24:15

Advertisements

About dayuntoday

I'm a wonderer. I spend a lot of time mulling, pondering, and cogitating. This is just a place to park some of those thoughts.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to

  1. ShineOn1983 says:

    Good grief there are some strange posts on your site!! LOL
    How could anyone ever argue for public school? The sin and immorality there…why would you care to expose your child to that!! Why force them to have to be subjected to that everyday?

  2. Confanity says:

    Apparently you missed what I said following the block of text you’ve quoted: “anything other than the teaching of fact… is *editorialization*, …if it were religious in nature, it would be *indoctrination* instead.” Your mention of the Holocaust and Israel issues raise the possibility of a fourth option: falsehood.History is, at heart, a matter of what happened and what we think about it. The latter, of course, is open to interpretation, but the former cannot be changed by the viewer’s religion, and with the latter, any comprehensive education will give multiple views, thus making for an essentially areligious context. Teaching that the Holocaust didn’t happen or that Israel never existed, of course, is simple falsehood, which has even less place in education than the teacher’s opinion.I offer as a perfect example of proper social-science education, and a shining refutation of your assertion that all education must be biased, my AP European History teacher in high school. He would present an issue and let us discuss it, gleefully switching sides in an argument to point out something that we weren’t taking into consideration or raising a point that had been raised in the real-world debate.Similarly, any educational program worth its salt will provide a wide range of reading experiences when teaching language arts. Furthermore, it’s pretty simple to provide a reading list that doesn’t include religious themes. You might argue that this teaches a worldview without religion… but that’s absurd. Does a course of reading that doens’t mention puppies teach a worldview in which puppies don’t exist? Does 99% of literature teach us that people never ever use the restroom?You really fall down on evolution… all the more reason for me to fear your children’s home-schooling. -_- You say that “There is a great deal of evidence that disproves it, and none that proves it.” Setting aside for the moment that science doesn’t allow for absolute proof, merely overwhelming support for an idea, I can show you a vast body of scientific work supporting evolution, including experiments where closed environments simulating the surface of the earth three billion years ago produced organic compounds from simple ammonia, water, and other base ingredients. My “faith” in evolution requires nothing more than the veracity of my own senses and my belief that hundreds of thousands of biologists across history are not engaged in a collosal conspiracy. As for your supposed body of “evidence that disproves it…” I have seen none of this. I have seen things currently unexplained, and things that adjust our understanding of how evolution works, but this isn’t exactly refutation.On the other hand, “intelligent design” fails to explain genetic diseases, the human tailbone and appendix, the horrors of inbreeding, the color change of the peppered moth, the clumsiness of the junebug, and why our DNA is so very similar to that of chimpanzees. While these gaps don’t strictly disprove it, they do show ID’s inferiority to evolution as a theory capable of explaining the world.”Just because something is in a textbook does NOT mean it is Truth.” -Well, of course. It simply means it’s our current best understanding of things. But just because something’s in the the mangled mistranslations of Torah that Christians use, doens’t mean it’s literal truth, either. After all, it was an English translation that rendered “wild ox” as “unicorn,” and those don’t exactly exist, now do they?”We must choose which worldview we will embrace, and that inevitably leads to indoctrinating our children with it, whether we want to or not.”-This has no bearing on good education. As I said above, editorialization and indoctrination have no part in good education. Good education, above all, equips people to think for themselves.

  3. samcgarber says:

    “Good education, above all, equips people to think for themselves.” – C
    A good home education can do that quite nicely. 🙂

  4. homefire says:

    Confanity, you obviously have more time than I do!  I have only addressed the first paragraph of your previous comment, and now you throw a bunch more stuff at me! 
    So many things to debate–so little time. :spinning:  Much as I would like to sit here all day and write back to you, I can’t.  But I’m working on it.  🙂  A little at a time.
    Sounds like you had a wonderful history teacher!  But, just for the record, you contradict yourself.  You said that “anything other than the teaching of fact… is *editorialization*”  But your teacher would “present an issue and let us discuss it, gleefully switching sides in an argument to point out something.”   This was a great way to show you that history is interpretive.  He was showing you that different viewpoints make a huge difference in how you see history, that history is more than facts.  Maybe you will agree with me that this interpretation, this editorialization, is vital to education.  That is what teaches a child to THINK, which is what education is all about.  “Facts” can be obtained readily, and they often contradict each other.  What a child needs to learn is how to sort and interpret those facts–how to think!
    Another area you should reconsider–you said that textbooks show “our current best understanding of things.”  However, you also said that the textbooks I mentioned contained falsehood.  Can both those statements be true?
    Another small point along that line:  Why are Haeckel’s embryo pictures (which show the human embryo evolving through “fish” and “pig” stages) still being used in textbooks, even though they were proven fraudulent years ago?  That is NOT our best understanding of things.
    Which of course brings us to evolution, which is the foundation of our entire disagreement. You mentioned the “mangled mistranslations of Torah” that we use.  Does your Torah not say, at the beginning of Bereshit, “And there was evening and there was morning, one day” ? And again, “And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.”  “…a third day.” etc?  Emphasis mine, of course, but do those words mean nothing to you?
    I have so much more to say about that.  I believe I will make it another post.

  5. Confanity says:

    Ironically, this is going to have to be brief and incomplete.”Confanity, you obviously have more time than I do!”-I suspect that I write faster.”He was showing you that different viewpoints make a huge difference in how you see history, that history is more than facts. Maybe you will agree with me that this interpretation, this editorialization, is vital to education.”-I disagree. Education’s duty is to tell us what opinions people have had, to give us the context in which they were formed and what followed after, and to equip us to deal with such issues as they arise in the future. How you can conclude that education thus must teach us to be unobjective is beyond me. I consider, rather, that the goal of good education is to use these examples to show us why and how to be as objective as possible. And even if this is the point on which we disagree, learning to analyze opinions is still an essentially areligious activity. Thus, history clearly can be divorced from religion.”However, you also said that the textbooks I mentioned contained falsehood”-I don’t consider history and geography as studied by the core Moslem world, or any area in which *religion* or politics control what is taught, to be good education. I’m thinking, rather, of the common textbook found in schools in free societies where *education*, rather than propaganda, inform their writing. My statement stands on the grounds that not all textbooks are identical.”Another small point along that line:”-Assuming your assertion is even true rather than another comforting myth circulated among fundamentalist Christian groups, and with a nod to the peppered-moth-photo issue, I’m going to point out that even if one set of photos is inadmissable, that hardly brings the whole edifice of evolution tumbling down. Newton’s laws of gravity were proven incorrect by Einstein as well, yet gravity continues to exist, and Newton’s work is still useful to learn when studying physics. And thankfully, my own textbooks were untroubled by any photo-based controversies, so I have no fear of any infection magically creeping from the photos into the text and somehow making it less true.Let’s put it this way. If I tell you the correct time and date, and show you a picture of a scene from the Renaissance, does that make the reported time and date wrong?”but do those words mean nothing to you?”-Torah means a great deal to me, but I don’t feel that this requires me to believe that every word of it is literally true. If I receive the important messages, then the parceling is free to be couched in something other than hard facts. You may also want to examine the Biblical description of the structure of the world, and compare it to the fact that astronauts and airplanes do not actually tear through a firmament into a body of water hidden above the sky, that below the earth is molten rock rather than a continuous ocean, that the Earth is round and orbits the sun, etc. Why must the creation of the world be any more literal than its structure? If you can pick and choose, then I certainly can too, and I’m going to choose a worldview that actually makes sense.

  6. homefire says:

    Torah means a great deal to me, but I don’t feel that this requires me to believe that every word of it is literally true.
    So do you believe it is the word of God or not? If so, then it must all be true. If not, then why believe any of it?  And why would it mean anything to you?
    If I receive the important messages, then the parceling is free to be couched in something other than hard facts.
    Good cop-out. That definitely leaves you free to pick and choose as you wish. What do you think *I* am picking and choosing, just out of curiosity?
    You may also want to examine the Biblical description of the structure of the world, and compare it to the fact that astronauts and airplanes do not actually tear through a firmament into a body of water hidden above the sky, that below the earth is molten rock rather than a continuous ocean, that the Earth is round and orbits the sun, etc.
    Can you tell me exactly what scriptures you’re referring to? Where does it describe our world in a way that is not accurate?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s