August 5, 2009 by Lynn
From my broken record collection:
Omit the word “homeschooling” from your searches – unless you’re actually *looking* for christian “worldview” propaganda masquerading as “curriculum.”
Instead, go where teachers go. For ideas, lesson outlines, links, etc.
Top 100 Web Sites for Teachers
100 Best Blogs for Teachers of the Future
My links
As an atheist – and former Christian homeschooling parent – I blog (mostly) about the social-political aspects of religious fundamentalism, especially as it impacts the education and socialization of children.
 | sarah on Enlighten me in 140 characters… |
 | Jean-Pierre on Tearing up at Wife Swap |
 | Lynn on Tearing up at Wife Swap |
 | Deja on Tearing up at Wife Swap |
| Lynn on Cain, The Reluctant Leade… |
 | Miss Roxie on Cain, The Reluctant Leade… |
| Lynn on A Boatload of Nonsense from ou… |
 | michelle on A Boatload of Nonsense from ou… |
That’s really true.
Though, I am happy to report that Sonlight is still #1 on a Google search for “christian homeschool curriculum” because that is what we are.
Though, I would argue that we are much more than just “christian ‘worldview’ propaganda”… in fact, in my ways, we’re not “Christian enough” for some worldviews [smile].
~Luke
I stand corrected. I just googled “christian worldview propaganda” and it’s my blog – not yours – that shows up :)
And, when it comes to frequent ranting on the topic, I am #1 :) I have learned to read Christian curriculum descriptions like, “You’ll see an even stronger foundation in the Christian worldview along with a fair discussion of all sides of scientific issues,” and know what that means. Although this post wasn’t about Sonlight – and I am not familiar with the manner in which Sonlight’s “stronger foundation in Christian worldview” is reflected in science coursework – I am curious about your choice of words:
Sorry, “a fair discussion of all sides of scientific issues” sounds like propaganda to me.
Kudos for standing up to CHEC YECs though. (Oooh, a “CHEC YEC.” Catchy, yes?)
~Lynn
Oops. I just re-read “I would argue that we are much more than just “christian ‘worldview’ propaganda.” Reading it the first time, I assumed that you were saying that Sonlight is *not* propaganda; but, you said that it’s “more than” propaganda? I’m not sure what that means.
Luke,
By the way, in your article about Sonlight, you said,
Now, I’m wondering if the “revamping” was done in response to the CHEC affair. Please, say it ain’t so, Luke! Don’t make me revoke my kudos :O
Read the post, grinned, read the comments, one by one, am now laughing out loud. You so totally rock, woman! :)
Luke. to be straight up with you (no flowery southern manners talk) my frustrating non-conversation at your Sonlight blog with your other commenter Ken, has finally persuaded me that we cannot possibly know what you mean by positioning your product so moderately and reasonably (or at least in words that to ME say that very clearly) — because in the next breath or paragraph or comment, you will say the bible is the One Truth all history and fact etc, then in the NEXT sentence say that beating people soundly is for their own good and what Jesus would do, although you of course, are so moderately open-minded and undecided on whether that means ACTUALLY beating them or not . . .and whether you would do it if it did.
Sorry but I’ve had enough Tower of Babel.
Home education curriculum is easy to evaluate for thinking skills imo. Is it a Christian curriculum that teaches children to believe in the bible as incontrovertible fact (history and science and even the inevitability of human predestination a la Sarah Palin Pentecostalism) or alternately — can’t have both! — teaches them to believe in and develop their own good minds’ ability to learn and understand and apply more about the world than the ancients knew?
That seems to be the only straight answer required for any Thinking Parent to know all the rest, without parsing any marketing PR. And the rest can just pray for God to open the right window or door or whatever it is Palin Babels on about . . .
Hi, Ute :) Sometimes, stuff just unravels by itself around here.
JJ,
Ironic that the thread to which you refer is about William Lane Craig, considered a brilliant and articulate defender of the Christian faith. (Did you know that the “historicity of the Resurrection” has been proven because the Bible says that there were eye witnesses? Impressive logic, eh?) “Doctor” Craig apologizes for Christianity by using big words, complete sentences, and debate language to impress the impressionable; at the end of the day, however, all he can offer is non-conversation (aka Babel) like this: “The fundamental way in which we know Christianity is true is through the objective inner witness of God’s Holy Spirit.” Not that one need rely on faith, mind you…
Wow, I’ve got a lot of catch up on this morning .
I will try to get to all of your comments and concerns, but if I miss one, I’m sorry. Let me know and I’ll try again .
1. ” ‘[A] fair discussion of all sides of scientific issues’ sounds like propaganda to me.”
And I argue that that is precisely why you read my comment about Sonlight being “much more than just ‘christian “worldview” propaganda” as you did. You see the works of Creationists (Christians in general?) as nothing more than propaganda. My words for “much more than” were in reference to the incredible scope of Sonlight–that we go far beyond what you see as “propaganda” (which is the logical definition of any education with which you do not agree). Hence, my use of your word “propaganda”… though I would not define what Sonlight offers as such. I was merely attempting not to quibble about your choice of words, because your position makes perfect sense for where you are.
On the other hand, Sonlight does honestly attempt to entertain the questions raised by the other side because Sonlight is far more interested in education than indoctrination. Thus, we bring up issues that make some Christians very uncomfortable (like CHEC, for example).
2. Well, in some ways our “revamping” was done in response to CHEC… but not to be more like them [smile]. Rather, we wanted to make our position stronger, update for the latest information available, and give our customers the best education currently possible. So, no: It ain’t so. I don’t think you need to worry about revoking the kudos [smile].
3. JJ, I can take it straight. I’m a big boy (even if I do often feel like I’m 12). Though, due to my position as a public blogger, I sometimes can’t give it quite as straight as even I would like. These are the times when I wish we could talk face to face and work all this out. Of course, as I mentioned in this post, my “moderate positioning” has frustrated even those who know me best [grin].
a) “…you will say the bible is the One Truth all history and fact etc, then in the NEXT sentence say that beating people soundly is for their own good and what Jesus would do….”
I do believe the Bible is the Truth, though I don’t think I’ve ever claimed it to be “all history and fact etc” (which is preposterous since the Bible is only so long, and John even wrote that the world does not likely have space for all the books that could be written about what Christ did)… and that is why I am so careful not to say that when Jesus goes into the temple and makes and whip and drives people out that He was thus condoning corporal punishment. I can’t say that because that’s not what the Bible says. But that passage does clearly show that sometimes drastic action is the proper response to things that are not right. And I am careful not to show my hand, to borrow the colloquialism [smile], on this issue because it would be far too easily to lump me–incorrectly–with people with whom I strongly disagree. But that is a side issue entirely–but no less frustrating for either of us [smile].
The Bible is correct, and Truth, but we must be very careful about how we apply that assertion. Which I try to do.
b) “Is [Sonlight] a Christian curriculum that teaches children to believe in the bible as incontrovertible fact … or alternately — can’t have both! — teaches them to believe in and develop their own good minds’ ability to learn and understand and apply more about the world than the ancients knew?”
…eh… a little of both, but more accurately: Neither.
[i] Sonlight provides tools for parents to teach their children from a Christian basis. Sonlight focuses on educating–not indoctrinating–which is why it includes books that hold ideas that are contrary to what our customer base accepts, and then includes plenty of notes and other resources to weigh and consider the positions. Naturally, we have a Christian bent, but we do try to encourage research, thought, and consideration of the other sides so as to make your conclusion based on the best information available and not just “because we told you so.”
And this is how much of my Bible training was as well–even on into Christian university: The Bible is Truth… but is it always fact? No. Not because the Bible is wrong, but because it holds many different types of literature. Should the poetry be read the same as the letters? Should the history be read the same as the prophecy? No! And that is why Sonlight has often left the questions open for more study.
And here is the rub: If we say, “This is how it is!” then we are branded as a “propaganda machine.” If we say, “here is one side and here is the other” then we are branded as “not straight enough” and “inconsistent.” It is a delicate balance–because it would be far too easy to slip off either way–but we strive to strike that balance.
[ii] On the other hand, I would argue that it is not a good idea to teach our children “to believe in …. their own good minds’ ability” as the way to get to all truth and facts. (But I do agree that we should train children to develop their minds! See point [i] above [smile]) Logic can only get you so far. The limitations of logic are due to our own finite nature. Logic, with all information, knowledge and wisdom, will get us to Truth and far beyond the ancients. And, by “standing on the shoulders of giants” we can hope to build on what the ancients have written. Our mind’s ability is severely limited by our biases and preconceptions–not to mention the education we have received.
[iii] So, we want to educate with the goal of arriving at Truth while encouraging children (and adults) to develop their hearts and minds.
Whew… I think I got to it all.
Thanks for pushing me! I like that you both challenge me and don’t just let me get away with sloppy writing [smile]. Hopefully, it is helping me think and communicate more clearly.
~Luke
Oops. Looks like I used the wrong code for my [smile] and [laughing] emotes at the start of the post. Sorry! I really enjoyed your responses and wanted to make sure that you knew my post above was not made in frustration. I really enjoyed composing my response!
So, all those extra spaces before the periods at the start there were me smiling. Sorry for any confusion that may have caused.
~Luke
Why I keep thinking we agree on the important things, Luke, is that you’ll use a sentence like this:
“The Bible is Truth… but is it always fact? No.”
I come at it from the same place! And I think we’re understanding each other. Power of story has more truth than literal fact imo. But then as I say, you lose me in the next breath where you seem to circle back around and say that all the literal facts are true too, when they cannot be so in any meaning of the word “fact” that I can understand.
JJ, I’m not sure what you mean by a stories truth being more true than a literal fact (both of those would be, in fact, true [smile]). But, yes, the truths contained in a story are often more powerful than a simple fact (which merely is and so does not have application).
And now you’ve lost me: How/when is a literal fact not true? When would that happen?
Perhaps we’re not using precise enough language.
Facts–that are grounded in how things really are–are always accurate. For instance, there could be a statement of fact that “the earth is 6 thousand (or a 6 billion) years old” that is not, in fact, based in reality and is thus inaccurate. So facts can be accurate.
Statements and ideas can be true: accurate, morally right, properly expressed, profitable for application to life; or false: inaccurate, morally wrong, poorly expressed, and not good to apply to your life.
The Bible is True. But when Revelation talks about a Dragon standing on the edge of the sea, is that speaking of a fact? Likely not.
I think we do agree on important things, but my impression is that we do have a slightly–possibly even significantly–different worldviews… which means we agree, but don’t [laughing]. Hence, the propensity for confusion.
~Luke
Let’s see — Harry Potter? Great truth without “fact” and that’s a fact. Or maybe Shakespeare, say Richard the Third which we’re doing in my house this summer and in which all the historical facts are manipulated for effect, or the Merchant of Venice in which ignorant stereotypes of Jews based on the playwright never having met a Jew or having been to Italy, nevertheless conveyed great human truth and just wanting something exotic to use as a literary device. . .
Conversely, literal facts lie all the time! Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics, for example.
My career was in public education policy, including legislative work, and the literal facts were used as true lies ALL the time. It’s made me jaded and cynical, I’m afraid.
Luke:
Hi Luke,
Specifically, which books and resources from “other sides” do you provide? Maybe I’m familiar with some of them! :D
What “other side” is there to science?
Nance
Luke:
Why is it “likely not”? Actually, John never once said that he’s *not* speaking literally of what is to come. I believe him ;) So do Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye.
Revelation 13:1
And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
I’ve even seen a picture of it, Luke.
And since we’re speaking plainly in this thread, the reason I care whether other parents’ Christian curricula teaches children to accept and rely upon reality or insanity, is what Rachel Maddow just called “fact-less partisan outrage and corporate opportunism” — after what reality-redeemed right-wing evangelical political schemer Frank Shaeffer just called out on her show as “anti-American” and anti-democratic” incitement to violence like the Brownshirts, meant to lead to political assassination.
JJ,
Your problem is that you see their works as nothing more than propaganda, which is the logical definition of any idea with which you do not agree. Propaganda is relative, in the eye of the beholder. It’s nothing to be embarrassed about, however; your position makes perfect sense for where you are.
That said, I find that I’m becoming increasingly open to the idea of installing the Ten Commandments – the Ninth in particular – in public places. It’s a shame that right-wing idealogues don’t read Bibles [sigh] :(
Lynn, how would you position yourself relative to Frank Shaeffer?
You know my last comment (about “propaganda”) was tongue-in-cheek, right? Plucked (almost) word-for-word from Luke’s scolding of me – and my bad habit of equating creationism with propaganda :(
Schaeffer:
I don’t know enough to comment about the role of lobbyists in this matter, but I do understand what Schaeffer is saying about evangelical mobs at the ready. Afterall, we’d have marriage equality in California if evangelical leaders like Rick Warren hadn’t snapped his fingers to mobilize his mob. All those Sunday messages to the flock about the virtue of unthinking obedience weren’t wasted.
The link to Christian curriculum is an excellent and pertinent point. I’m sure that I’ve alienated plenty of secular homeschoolers making those links myself.
Uh-oh. Curiosity got the best of me (the Snake made me do it) and I just went to the Sonlight site to check out the promised “books that hold ideas that are contrary to what our customer base accepts” and the “plenty of notes and other resources to weigh and consider the positions.” I recognize most of them. As I suspected,.. well, take a look for yourself.
Unlocking the Mystery of Life (DVD)
Icons of Evolution (DVD)
The Case for a Creator (Lee Strobel)
Darwin’s Black Box (Michael Behe)
Of Pandas and People (of “cdesign proponentsists” infamy)
Reason, Science, & Faith (couldn’t find a link)
And, three books for young children:
Dry Bones and Other Fossils
A Christian father (a professional paleontologist) teaches his family about fossils from a creationist perspective.
Evolution: The Grand Experiment
A critical examination of the viability of Darwin’s theory based on recent scientific knowledge.
The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible
What happened to the dinosaurs? Astonishing historical and geological information ignored by pro-evolutionary scientists.
I suppose I could launch into serious snark at this point, but I’m not in the mood. To be perfectly honest, I feel like crying for these poor, betrayed children.
And never mind science, what about the other S word (socialization) in Christian homeschool curricula? We know the words used to prescribe learning in any curriculum — much less the words used to market the words in the curriculum! — don’t equate to what’s actually learned by children put through it, as John Taylor Gatto explains in the Hidden Curriculum.
Preparation for modern civic life is more important than any particular set of facts and skills in any academic area.
Which makes this year’s tea party and town meeting thuggery look like hidden lessons well-learned from a couple of generations of Hidden Christian Curriculum:
“Luke’s scolding of me – and my bad habit of equating creationism with propaganda :(”
********
And yet, even though he goes to such great pains to kindly inform you and correct you, you still persist in your own views. Sigh. . . what a waste of perfectly patronizing paternalism. :)
Nance
Nance:
lol – yeah, it was a little patronizing, but I’m much harder on Luke than he is on me. I can take it though; I figure he can, too… though I must be annoying as hell. :)
(There you go. A pefect example. I know that he has linked this post and his readers are visiting, yet I go and spell out words like hell (oops I did it again) instead of trying to disguise it by replacing the L’s with asterisks… Oy. How annoying.)
Actually, I like Luke. I see him as a good guy who has been totally immersed in this stuff all his life. The level of disruption that a change of heart would have in one’s life at this point would be very painful. Not trying to sound patronizing myself, but I get it.
…okay, reading over your comments, I don’t think I have much to respond to… but I could be missing something that you’d like my take on, so let me know [smile].
You “caught” me, Lynn [laughing]. Sonlight does not carry any books–that I can think of–that demonstrate strong evidence for evolution. However, many science titles we carry (especially those by Usborne) contain lots of positive references to evolution that easily rival what I got in my public high school science classes. Granted, these titles do little more than use “propaganda” [snicker; sorry, thought it was too good to pass up] by merely treating evolution-as-basis/origin-for-life as fact with very little science to back it up (exactly as I got in public high school). And Sonlight, naturally, brings up “the other side to science” with the scientific research that calls evolution into question (which, I would argue, means I’ve been better educated about this subject than if I had merely been “indoctrinated” by the public school system [smile]). If you are looking for strong pro-evolution materials, you will need to look beyond Sonlight’s catalog, but that does not mean we do not address the tension. And my dad has spent considerable time reading books on all sides of this issue, and I do what I can to learn from his significant study (as well as what I find out here on the blogosphere). I have been immersed in this stuff for a long time, and continue to do my best to learn and not just take one side or another. …as all good lovers of learning should, even if it is painful [smile].
My comment about the definition of “propaganda” was not meant to be scolding at all. I’m sorry if it came across that way. I try not to scold people [smile].
As for frustrating? Not really. I am often frustrated that I can’t communicate more clearly or that what I wrote was so easily misread. But you, Lynn? No. I enjoy your blog and your comments… which is why I keep coming back for more [smile].
~Luke
Luke, science isn’t a side above which is some greater rational human objectivity, judging and balancing science with its opposite — anti-science? — to get a more enlightened mix. There certainly are sides within science on various controversies and there is good science and worse science and junk science etc, but there is no “other side to science” unless we want to think of arguing against the scientific method as valid, as a side.
(I don’t think the dominionist-creationist-ID camp does this btw; to the contrary they seem bent on out-sciencing science at its own game! Now if they were just praying for scientists to have their heads divinely softened and for science to cease interfering with their depiction of their world, that would be an opposite side to science.)
This is why evolution education can only consist of scientific inquiry, no matter what issues arise within it. Denying the science of evolution is science and claiming faith is science intead, is just plain fraud and no kind of education at all.
Btw I think we too often miss the boat in the astroturf controversy over evolution curriculum. We should spend less time arguing the science of it, which few students, parents or even science teachers master to the level of being able to argue in the level of detail the Discovery Institute cranks out. We should spend more time arguing the education itself.
I feel about evolution education the same way I feel about requiring algebra. It’s a public marker representing a way of thinking and examining and grappling with difficult problems and variables. It’s not the evolution science or the algebraic math that is the point, but the ability to think and reason and have confidence in being able to solve real-world problems with real-world methods. (Wonder when the Discovery Institute will start in on algebra as a monstrous immoral lie too?)
JJ:
Standing ovation JJ! I’ve written so many (sloppy) posts warning against Christian science curriculum for this very reason. There’s just no way to keep up with the never-ending supply of deceptive material coming out of creationist, uh, thinktanks. For that reason, it’s very difficult to recognize it for what it is when it’s slipped into the coursework.
Exactly! It’s the “way of thinking and examining and grappling” that is the real target. At least, that’s my reading of the Wedge Strategy.
I can’t find Rebecca Keller’s (RS4K) illuminating essay on this topic, but I did pull an excerpt, way back when.
Her curriculum only covers “science” leaving the job of providing an “interpretative framework” up to mom, dad – and Ken Ham ;) It’s all quite clever, don’t you think?
That’s my reading of the Wedge Strategy too, and I see you even use their target word for it: materialism. That is what the authoritarian leaders are out to overcome worldwide.
I’ll be brief, Luke, as I assume that you have other ways to spend your mornings than here at my blog answering our challenges. Of course, no pressure to even adress these :)
No original scientific research has been done that calls evolution into question – as creation “scientists” have themselves admitted in public statements. (I can go find links for you, if you’d like.) They “hope” to do that, but they haven’t. So far, all they’ve done is sit at tables and pick apart the real work of real scientists.
[smiling] Yeah, I can see that you don’t provide “strong pro-evolution” materials. Worse, however, is that your pro-creationism materials “address the tension” by both misrepresenting scientific findings and maligning the integrity and professionalism of the overwhelming majority of scientists, in all fields, throughout the world, doing excellent work, that also happens to prove evolutionary theory.
I learned about it from Keller; before her, I thought the word had to do with shopping :)
“Actually, I like Luke.”
Of course you do. What’s not to like? He’s a good-looking guy, pleasant, polite and selling his little heart out.
Careful to maintain the calm (don’t excite the hysterical women) tone, he shucks and jives his way through a sales pitch that continues to offer the elusive “balance” to science.
So he’s just selling smoke and mirrors, few have the nerve to respond with statements like this: “Worse, however, is that your pro-creationism materials “address the tension” by both misrepresenting scientific findings and maligning the integrity and professionalism of the overwhelming majority of scientists, in all fields, throughout the world, doing excellent work, that also happens to prove evolutionary theory.” So he maligns another publisher, suggesting they shouldn’t assume evolution as fact, demonstrating a lack of understanding of the word “theory” as used in scientific discussions.
So what to these and a host of other efforts to undermine teaching science to children. He’s a nice guy.
Nance
“The level of disruption that a change of heart would have in one’s life at this point would be very painful.”
We live in hope. :)
Nance
Maybe this original post offers the example of thinking and decision-making all parents can relate to — the academic curriculum (and/or school program) selection process itself!
If we take that out of the (curriculum) box and play with it, we notice that even for evangelicals and fundamentalists, curriculum selection is secular like comparison shopping, to reach out to the larger community for information, review marketing materials and ask questions, identify and weigh the personal costs and benefits of different washing machines, water heaters or foods for the family. That is knowledge work, a largely secular process of human inquiry with practical real-world variables. Even if you pray for guidance too.
I played with this idea once, applying the academic inquiry process to “choosing religion.” ;-)
JJ,
Well, hopefully this thread has provided exposure to a new product for those doing a little “comparison shopping.” I doubt my blog – with the outlooks often expressed – is a stopping point for most who have dropped in.
This morning’s product highlight: Reading or viewing apologetics materials is not the same as educating yourself about “different sides” of issues. It’s not possible to understand “other sides,” in an authentic way, by having them explained to you, secondhand, by William Craig, Ken Ham – or your dad :)
Gotta run……. :)
JJ, I agree that there isn’t an “other side to science” …I was merely quoting in an attempt to keep things light [smile]. Granted, Lynn’s point that Creation “Scientists” have done no science is a strong reason to agree that Creationism/ID is nothing more than a faith statement picking “apart the real work of real scientists.”
Of course, I’ve watched the videos of the “real scientists” who demonstrate the “real work” that they have been doing, and have been less than impressed. But that’s me. I’m also less than impressed with the lack of major leaps or bounds made my IDers as well. Both sides seems really weak to me. Mostly because they both rely on underlying assumptions that they can’t seem to get beyond. And, my observation: Both sides misrepresent each other… which is most unfortunate. And, so, you’re right, Nance: That’s bad form on the end of the IDers/Creationists. Unfortunately, much like many other hotly divided topics in today’s world, I have trouble distinguishing fact from fiction from both camps. So I try to listen to the good people around me–like you-all and my dad, and other wise bloggers the world over–and hopefully get a synthesis of data instead of… …wait for it… “propaganda” [laughing] from either side.
And thus, I find that I get my best information secondhand. Straight from the tap is usually more than a little off. I prefer to pass it through the Brita filter a few times and see what makes it through [smile].
But you’re right: If I only listen to one side, and if my dad only listened to one side, then I would be completely inauthentic to claim to try to understand “other sides.” Since that is not what I do–and clearly not what my dad does–I still hold that I am more than open and attempting to be informed by all sides of this particular issue.
But, again, that’s me [smile].
~Luke
Uri Geller comes to mind. What shall we teach the children about bending spoons or anything else, with their own minds? When Authority insists they should or should not believe such an extraordinary claim, would we hope they will accept, resist, or just smile and shrug?
(Is there even any spoon? How would they begin to answer such a question without development of and confidence in their own powers of inquiry and reason?)
The Matrix:
Spoon boy: Do not try and bend the spoon. That’s impossible. Instead… only try to realize the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Spoon boy: There is no spoon.
Neo: There is no spoon?
Spoon boy: Then you’ll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.
“Unfortunately, much like many other hotly divided topics in today’s world, I have trouble distinguishing fact from fiction from both camps.”
Oh Luke. AS a professional educator that hurts my heart. That is SO sad on a human level, and terrible marketing on a commercial level for the curriculum with which you were educated.
Luke:
Then, why doesn’t Sonlight’s science curricula reflect his approach to learning? I don’t know your dad. I assume that you’re saying that your dad would have actually read, for instance, Carl Sagan; Or, would he have read William Craig paraphrasing Sagan out of context? If your dad did the former, great (that’s more than most Christians do); but Sonlight curricula relies heavily (almost exclusively) on the latter. Why feed Sonlight students pre-chewed, imitation food, instead of hearty, meat-and-potato meals. If they’re good enough for your dad, why aren’t they good enough for Sonlight students? Is the evidence so unconvincing that they must be shielded from the non-regurgitated “other side”?
for the record,
Science education that supports evolutionary theory has repeatedly passed through the “Brita filter” of peer review; in contrast, creation… wait for it… “scientists” have never submitted any substantive work for peer review ;)
JJ, I’m surprised. You have no trouble distinguishing fact from fiction in what people say?
Perhaps I am not that well educated. It could easy be (as I would be unable to tell if I had or hadn’t, since, “the more we know the more we know we don’t know”). But in my experience at examining both sides of an issue, there is so much disinformation–and mostly just lobbing stones at the other, rather than asserting a position–not to mention the strong bias and vested interest in being “right,” that I have no trouble saying that I have trouble distinguishing truth from lies when people present their side (for instance: The vax debate–both sides are far too near it to be fully trusted, but where else do we go for information).
That is why I try to remain humble and listen.
I don’t pretend to know everything.
But I do believe I’ve got a fairly good handle on truth, despite not being able to fully trust any particular side. So, I’m not sure why your heart hurts so much for me. But I am not a professional educator… merely a life-long learner [smile].
Lynn, I believe Sonlight’s educational philosophy does support this approach. However, with limited time and resources–and with a full expectation that there is much more information out there–we introduce topics and encourage you to run with them.
I’m not sure if my dad has read Carl Sagan, but does constantly go back to the source. He is a fantastic researcher and is interested in learning everything [smile]. If you’d like to read his thoughts, check out his blog: http://johnscorner.blogspot.com/
~Luke
One more generation of young people who grow up believing there’s only debate and sides with independent inquiry and no reality apart from disinformation, should just about finish us all off. And I don’t mean America. I mean humans.
Sides with NO independent inquiry, sigh . . .
Luke, I think you have been very well educated. To hold a particular view of the world and to sell it. Which is one way to go. But it isn’t humility. No matter how nicely you state things.
It’s a pitch to urge others to buy your products.
I can’t imagine making a living spreading half-truths and lies. But that’s what you do when you sell your curriculum.
If you didn’t sincerely believe in whatever your slice of Christianity holds to be truth, it would be reprehensible. As it is, it’s sad.
But you and your family have a good thing going. Goodness knows, there are enough people who swallow what you are selling. Who don’t know how to, or don’t want to, distinguish fact from fiction.
Here’s part of what I think about when I am trying to figure out if someone is feeding me a line or has something factual to say.
I ask for more information. More reading. I ask questions. I ask how things work. How their idea compares with other ideas. What facts do they offer? What data?
When this sort of inquiry leads to consistent information, reading that confirms the idea offered, fits with other known quantities, I think of that as a good idea, a fact-based idea.
Especially convincing is a change. If the original idea has been modified in the face of new evidence, that looks more like science to me, the way science should work.
If, after several layers, I am handed the justification that I need “faith” in order to see the idea as true, I know that I have been misled. I know that the “truth” that someone has tried to peddle is just their religion.
Or their political line or preference in medical care for their children or favorite breakfast cereal. Nothing I can rely on as fact or helpful in the real world where I make decisions.
Nance
How WOULD a biblically literalist Christian curriculum be put together and marketed if one applied all the “truths” it teaches children, to the product too? Hmmm — would children be wearing sandals and hoofing it from fishing spot to spot and talking with strangers they meet, instead of learning the academic basics at home and doing their chores, for example?
Luke,
From today’s new blog post, “Smoke and Mirrors,” on the topic of our conversation:
The KJV translation of 1Cor 13:12 (that you linked to the idea of “seeing dimly”) reads “For now we see through a glass, darkly;”
Of course, the NIV translation reads, “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror;”
Sorry, couldn’t resist ;)
Help me interpret the bible-speak on Luke’s blog, please.
I will see all things when I am dead (well, probably not me because I am not saved but other people) and now I need to be nicer (charitable)?
Close? No?
As for me, Luke, I try to speak plainly. I do not accuse you personally of deceiving people on purpose in order to sell your curriculum.
I say that the curriculum, and its underlying belief system, is false and you are spreading those falsehoods by selling it but that you, personally, seem to sincerely believe. And that because you were carefully taught.
We only know what we are taught, what we can learn. If we are only exposed to certain ideas and carefully sheltered from others, is it our fault if we go out into the world unprepared, misinformed?
When does it start being our own responsibility to question and change? Is everyone capable of that change? Or would that be too painful, as Lynn suggests?
Nance
Practically speaking, it probably would be too painful. Not a time to be changing jobs if you are a young man with a new family.
Nance
“I do not accuse you personally of deceiving people on purpose in order to sell your curriculum.”
************
Thinking this would be clearer if it said “knowingly deceiving.”
Is that clearer?
Not that you don’t know that people disagree with you. But that you are not trying to be deceptive.
I trust.
Nance
A couple of curiosity questions from an outsider…
Essentially Sonlight is offering Christian parents a pre-packaged curriculum of materials that reflect much of what these Christian parents probably would have chosen for their kids themselves. So, I’m wondering why it’s being suggested here that Luke is essentially blurring truth in order to sell a product. Or is this an accusation you are leveling at the atheist-homeschool material camps too?
@boremetotears – what materials do you use to teach your kids the creationist / Christian evangelical worldview? do you present the Christian worldview in the same manner in which you write this blog?
@JJ – what is your basis for knowing what is truth? and how does that apply to moral issues? “doing their chores”, to use your example? is this a good thing? why?
@Nance – the “have faith” aspect of Christianity is essentially about relationships. Which is reflected in our everday relationships all the time. All the evidence in the world will not confirm with 100% sureity that a husband will be faithful to his wife / or a mother will always love her children – by your measurement, every wife should bail out of the marriage and every child should cut ties. That’s a pretty hopeless situation to find oneself in. Even the purely “scientific” proofs for both the bible’s claims and atheist’s claims leave one having to take the final step of faith. I’m with you on examining the evidence thoroughly. But reacting against the final “step of faith” seems akin to rendering oneself incapacitated.
It seems to me that one person’s truth is another’s propoganda in this discussion – the only difference is in how it is being handled.
JJ ramble ahead (I need a graphic road sign for this!) –
Lynn offers a true example of an adult who found her way through the smoke and mirrors of Rick Warren’s Saddleback life curriculum.
As an adult in my 20s and 30s, I had to find my way through the smoke and mirrors of professional secular education. I was once a real True Believer.
So let’s talk about MEeeeee-ee . . :D
What’s young and stupid? What’s old enough to know better?
What worked for me was:
a) actually becoming a parent myself, and
b) deciding to educate myself about learning (cognitive psychology) outside the standard curriculum — until I realized “School” wasn’t really very good at it.
Without kids, what would I know worth knowing?:
So I didn’t lose faith in learning but I became a knowledgeable, intentionally constructive critic of School. Maybe similar to Lynn studying apologetics and realizing that “Church” and “Religion” as institutions don’t reflect real truth and goodness? So while she personally has values as a good person, she’s become a knowledgeable critic of those who claim to have cornered that market.
Thinking we’re thinking is what’s wrong and maybe my own intellectual epiphany when having kids humbled my own fiction that I knew much of anything! I love books but no book fact or fiction or even classic through the ages, taught me as they have done.
There’s no perfect protection for our kids but better thinking would help.
If my own experience (of living several lives and truly learning through each, rather than just one linear aging and hardening process) is any indication, Luke may be just at the right age and stage to start looking for the little exit lights over the doors that lead to the real world, from backstage in the dark. Find the blacked out doors and you *can* learn about other human realities, and you can always get back into the theatre too. You *can* know more than fact and more than one fiction, more than one passion, certainly parent more than one child more than one way — and integrate it all into Greater Truth without betraying yourself or any of what you learn.
Like any real education it’s never easy (one barks one’s shins on set pieces and backdrops in the process and gets shushed and told to stand still, that the show onstage is what we live for, so all one’s friends and family on the tech crew will earnestly want to keep you with them doing what you’ve been bred for and assigned.)
First off, let me start by apologizing. Last night, as I felt that I needed to put in another word here before I blogged about. I feel that it is only right to start at the source and then make commentary.
However, I was more than a little bothered and was more sarcastic than I should have been. And I’m sorry for that. Especially you, JJ. I should have been more direct and accurate in my comment, rather than taking jabs back.
Please forgive me.
Interesting that you say that I’m one of a generation that believes “only debate and sides with [no] independent inquiry and no reality apart from disinformation” …because I do believe in absolute truth, and reality, and right and wrong. However, getting to that in hotly debated topics can be difficult–take this health care bill, for example–because it is so stinking hard to get data from these people! And so we end out with not much more than haze and fog, even with reality checks straight from the source. So, in many cases, independent inquiry is difficult at best…
Nance, being educated and working to share that with others (selling it) has little or nothing to do with humility. At least, with my definition and understanding of humility: A state or heart/mind where one accurately acknowledges strengths and weaknesses. Please clarify what you mean by your statement: “I think you have been very well educated… But it isn’t humility.” I am confused by it. Thanks!
Working from your model –which I think is a very good one, by the by; it’s just really hard to get people to give you straight information that is trustworthy, especially in light of counter information that is also suspect… and so I find in many cases, I have yet to find a single incident of “consistent information” but plenty of reading that confirms the ideas offered by both sides and fits with other known data– I would love to see what data you have for the “half-truths” Sonlight sells.
Granted, Sonlight has yet to change it’s stance–even as we do tweak things in an attempt to ever be more accurate–there has been change to Christian assumptions in the past, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens again in the future (even in the near future). Looking at history, there was strong political reason for the Church to hold that the earth was the center of the universe. Which is simply false, and Christianity has overcome that political issue and moved on.
My hope is that a similar solidifying movement will happen with this current YEC, OEC, Theistic Evolutionary, Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism thingy we have going on right now. But I assure you that my dad, especially, continues to spend time on this as it progresses. We have already shown ourselves to be outside several different group’s “acceptable” stances, and I think we are comfortable there.
Lynn, I totally missed what you were trying to say by showing both the KJV and NIV and that my word choice was different. I looked at both–and the context of the passage–and see nothing humorous/applicable to this conversation. What am I missing? Because you saw something…
As for the Bible-speak, that was for me, not you. I was admitting, freely, to how I don’t see everything now, and so I must be “charitable” (loving). If you’d like to apply the same to your life, that’s would be great [smile]. But I was talking to me and people like me who don’t feel completely in the know.
As for overcoming “carefully taught” ideas… I hope I can take the “pain” [smile]. In fact, while it is often hard to admit you are wrong, I find truth–even if it is 180 degrees from what I used to believe–far more freeing and enjoyable. There have been several of those already in my life, and I’m thrilled to be where I am. The disquieting places are the ones that are still uncertain, unclear, and not yet hashed out. Those are the places where I feel the most pain… which often drives me to find the truth behind it.
As for my job at Sonlight, that is not what is holding me to any particular set of ideas. Not at all. ButI am very thankful for my current position which has allowed me to continue in the adoption process and hopefully grow my family. Still waiting, however.
“I do not accuse you of knowingly deceiving people on purpose in order to sell your curriculum.”
I think that is clearer and makes me feel much better, actually. Thank you!
~Luke
Luke, I knew I probably would sound patronizing (matronizing? — why don’t we have that word, hmmm) and I usually work hard to avoid that in such conversations, but I predict much ahead in both thinking and feeling that will rock your world, and so it seemed important to me to say it honestly anyway.
Yeah, that probably sounds patronizing too. But hey, there ought to be SOME reward (besides wearing purple with red) for being so old!
Curious,
I don’t have a lot of time to blog today but, very briefly, I’ll reply that your question to me is based on the incorrect (and dishonest) presumption that there’s a “controversy” that needs to be addressed “fairly” and, as JJ just mentioned, I cut the strings to that meme years ago.
Responding to “Curious” – I see thinking and knowledge work as love and life and breath, not as a list of rights and wrongs or a side to take. I am an unabashed thinker and lover of books, ideas, and the human mind. My educational hero the brilliant and internationally renowned cognitive scientist and educational psychologist Dr. Howard (Jewish by family heritage) who once wrote a scholarly book called The Disciplined Mind articulating his fascinatingly broad public K-12 curriculum built on three broad themes that define and uplift humankind: truth, beauty and goodness.
I don’t give a damn about chores.
Sigh, edit before publishing at your peril because it might replace rather than insert. His name is of course Dr. Howard GARDNER.
Curious — A couple of curiosity questions from an outsider…
Essentially Sonlight is offering Christian parents a pre-packaged curriculum of materials that reflect much of what these Christian parents probably would have chosen for their kids themselves. So, I’m wondering why it’s being suggested here that Luke is essentially blurring truth in order to sell a product. Or is this an accusation you are leveling at the atheist-homeschool material camps too?
*******
Hi Curious — Nance here —
Creationism is not true and Luke’s curric pushes that view as it excludes evolution and other reality-based science.
As I tried to explain, perhaps clumsily (I’ll read further to see if Luke got my meaning), I trust that Luke sincerely believes in the stuff his curric contains. But that doesn’t make that content true.
If I were posting on a blog and someone visited it pushing their atheist-homeschool material — is there such a thing? — and it was full of strange notions and magical thinking, I would speak up. I’ve never seen anything like that, though.
***************
Curious — @Nance – the “have faith” aspect of Christianity is essentially about relationships.
**********
Me — Relationships, husbands and wives, etc. — that’s what you have “faith” in? Your religion is not about a god of some kind or magical events or promises of a better life after death for certain behaviors here? I wonder what religion that is.
My “faith” in my husband is supported daily. My confidence in his abilities and willingness to give his all for his family is based on 17 years of marriage and the 13 years we lived together before that. He’s a good guy. The only thing I feel hopeless about is not being able to pay his hospital bills (he cut his hand recently and had to have surgery). Based on 30 years of evidence, I don’t feel it is any “leap” to continue to expect him to be a good man.
******************
Curious — Even the purely “scientific” proofs for both the bible’s claims and atheist’s claims leave one having to take the final step of faith.
***********
Me — Which proofs of which bible claims are you talking about?
Nance
Well, that too but I was wondering which ATHEIST claims s/he meant!
Luke: However, getting to that in hotly debated topics can be difficult–take this health care bill, for example–because it is so stinking hard to get data from these people! And so we end out with not much more than haze and fog, even with reality checks straight from the source. So, in many cases, independent inquiry is difficult at best…
***********
Me: Difficult but not impossible. And what is the alternative? Throwing our hands up? In prayer or in surrender?
*************
Luke: Please clarify what you mean by your statement: “I think you have been very well educated… But it isn’t humility.” I am confused by it. Thanks!
********
Me: We are each quoting partially here but what I meant was that being a salesman is not an act of humility. A humble man would not push his worldview on others. As sweetly as you do it, that is what you are doing. And being confident and believing what you do probably makes you a darned good salesman. Good for you. But a claim of humility rings false to me.
***********
Luke: We have already shown ourselves to be outside several different group’s “acceptable” stances, and I think we are comfortable there.
***********
Me: So you’re the rebels in your circle? :) Luke, I’m an atheist. So asking me to comment on one statement in your curric is missing my point. The fundamental beliefs that undergird your religious curric, whether or not they are completely in step with other members of your church, are false. You believe in a particular god and work from there. Whether there are 10 or 2,000,000 angels dancing on the head of a pin is irrelevant to me.
***************
Luke: I was admitting, freely, to how I don’t see everything now, and so I must be “charitable” (loving).
***********
Me: This is a lovely sentiment and strikes me as being truly humble. When applied to yourself. How this acknowledgement fits with selling a curriculum like Sonlight eludes me. Wouldn’t it be better to wait until you know more before selling things to other families to teach their children that you are not sure about? Or is it only in the next life that you believe you will “see everything?”
Well, enough for tonight. Good luck to you, Luke, in continuing to sort things out. It’s not easy but, as you note, it is worth it.
Nance
I’ve just been reading over comments and noticed something I missed the first time through:
Curious: “…is this an accusation you are leveling at the atheist-homeschool material camps too?”
Anybody remember atheist camp? :)
Ooh, ooh — disproving magic unicorns and crop circles as great sport for thinking campers?
No, I see this was before that. Roasted kitten pies then, hey, wouldn’t these be perfect for Audrey’s Shameless Joy dog training curriculum?
Or here’s a thought, what say we all chip in and send Curious over to Dale’s for parenting beyond belief camp this year?
Indoctrinating Kids Shows Distrust of Reason
All sport aside, here’s real science and philosophy about how thinking parents — of any and/or no religious tradition — can best approach curriculum selection for ethical, enlightened education rather than authoritarian indoctrination and mind-closing. (It was the last comment in the above-linked post.)
here’s an evolutionary behaviorist and marketing professor blogging in Psychology Today about religion as consumerism and marketing behavior. He argues that the “brand loyalty” of religion is so effective because it’s intergenerationally inflicted on kids we protect as too young for all other consumer-message bombardment:
Finally, here is Dale’s take on the practical downside of selling even nonreligious parental answers to kids’ unthinking lizard brains as automatically correct:
“matronizing” [smile] I’ve always wondered why we can’t be “gruntled” when it is so easy to be disgruntled [laughing].
Nance,
As someone who pushes for life long learning, I hope I would never suggest throwing our hands up and tossing in the towel. But, with so little real information, so much back and forth, and so many differing positions based on data, I do acknowledge my own lack of clarity.
Not to say that I do not believe my position is correct, but that it could easily need modification (as has happened with one very significant area of my thinking since high school). For some areas, I take more time to study. In the case of evolution–where I do not see a pressing need to “get it right, or else!”–I am happy to let those smarter and more informed than I hash it out, and hope to learn from the “winner” in the end [smile]. Until then, I will continue to try to align my thinking with truth as much as possible, and remain open to thinking the wrong thing.
And, yes: Salesmenship is different from humility… mostly because they are two very different things [smile]. Being a salesmen–or a spokesperson, or an advocate, or a media relations specialist [laughing]–is about doing a task: Presenting the positives, the benefits, and the qualities of what you believe will help others to them so they are aware of the option. Being humble is an attitude.
I agree that it is bad to be “pushy”–and a horrible marketing idea. But offering information and demonstrating how something could benefit another is not pushy. And I don’t think I’ve been pushy (but please let me know if you’ve seen or see any examples of this, as it would really help me become better at serving people).
But to claim that a humble person would not let others know about his worldview? I don’t know what makes you think that. But that is probably because I do not know your definition of humility. Suffice it to say, my definition of humility absolutely allows for saying things to others [smile].
“I’m an atheist. So asking me to comment on one statement in your curric is missing my point.”
Ah, I do believe I did miss your point. And, as a Christian, all I can say is that I believe we are spreading truth. You disagree. And that is where we’re going to have to leave that [smile].
“How this acknowledgement fits with selling a curriculum like Sonlight eludes me.”
The statement about myself doesn’t have much to do with selling curriculum. If we were to wait until all of us have come to know all truth, we wouldn’t have anything to teach our children. Thus, we educate given the best information we have, and teach children to continue their learning for the rest of their lives. Educate, not indoctrinate.
One last little personal note: I find it interesting that the comment of “oh, Luke, we know this is painful” or “we know this is really hard for you to change your mind” keeps coming up. Thus far in my life, while coming to see reality despite some errant views from the church has been a long and often confusing/frustrating process, it has never been painful or emotionally troubling. I find it freeing and exciting and extremely hopeful! That’s how it’s been for one major area of my life, at least. And that area is of far more importance and personal application than speciation or the age of the earth. …just something bumping around in my mind as I’ve been reading your thoughts. Not sure what it means, but I felt like sharing [smile].
~Luke
While Luke was commenting here, I was commenting there. :)
Here’s what I just said. Maybe it will help others as it does me, to clarify some of the cognitive dissonance (which is painful for me at least, dunno about anyone else!)
****
These comments are helpful, honestly, to understanding. That thread isn’t about Sonlight as Christian curriculum but evaluating it for secular homeschoolers focused on “reason” and “inquiry” rather than bible education per se.
I agree with Mary Grace that it’s surely a losing battle to market religious Truth as secular academics to perfectly ordinary American parents predestined not to get it (thus for damnation? wow, then I’ve still got a lot to learn about Sonlight-esque hidden curriculum!)
And “my little sheltered mind” as Becky so aptly puts it, seems to confirm the concern we were discussing, that such curriculum *is* sheltering despite its academics, to the point it isn’t comprehensive preparation for real life anywhere but within the bosom of that shelter’s believer community.
Finally, if Sonlight users aren’t choosers but chosen, if its use is results from the Holy Spirit as the Convincer of Hearts, then I see no room for home education customers who instead research, compare and then make rational decisions for their own children, with their own capable minds.
Luke, I think you and I are back to the Tower of Babel again. It can’t be reconciled. You have an impossible job.
August 13, 2009 8:17 AM
[...] America. Today I’m reposting it because it fits the political — and educational, see Lynn’s current conversation! — climate more than [...]
I’ll bite — what’s the one major area, Luke?
Nance
Yep — that’s where it all falls apart, Luke — see the quote below. You believe, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, and therefore you believe you know the truth and are entitled, if not obligated, to teach it to your own children and other children.
But you are teaching and selling a bundle of falsehoods. Which is against some commandment or other. . .
But until you reach outside of your worldview and see what the rest of the thinking world sees, no matter how well-mannered you have been taught to be, you will still be wrong. And doing a disservice to your children and the children of others and the world you leave behind.
Nance
Luke: Ah, I do believe I did miss your point. And, as a Christian, all I can say is that I believe we are spreading truth. You disagree. And that is where we’re going to have to leave that [smile].
“How this acknowledgement fits with selling a curriculum like Sonlight eludes me.”
The statement about myself doesn’t have much to do with selling curriculum. If we were to wait until all of us have come to know all truth, we wouldn’t have anything to teach our children. Thus, we educate given the best information we have, and teach children to continue their learning for the rest of their lives. Educate, not indoctrinate.
JJ:
[laughing] – Yes, what a waste of time these conversations are for us as we’re hopelessly “predestined” for Lies and Damnation. :( Maybe we should just redirect our “little sheltered minds” to other, lower pursuits [sigh]. How about a game of cards. Anyone?
Is that like the line my gentle southern dad used to use to get the guests go home FROM a nice game of cards? “Come my dear, let us retire so these lovely people who have been so kind to join us this evening, can make their goodbyes. . .”
This has been a frustrating thread, hasn’t it?
I have a family member who lives very close to a small community lake. Sometimes, when he’s outside relaxing on his deck, he’ll glance out over the water and see girls rocking and tipping their boats. “Help, help, we’re drowning!” Then, really cute lifeguard dudes drop everything to dash out and “save” them [wink, wink]. Of course, the girls are not really drowning, but only pretending to drown in order to get the boys to play along.
The Christian aplogetics “critical analysis” or “controversy” memes are played the same way. The products highlighted on the Sonlight site – and linked by me above – are all terrific examples of this dishonesty. By feigning good will, these publishers and authors appeal to yours, hoping to lure you out to their tipped boats.
If you’re interested in finding the “products highlighted on the Sonlight site,” they are also sold at Ken Ham’s, Answers in Genesis.
AIG Statement of Faith:
So, you’ll know if the information that you’re “critically” evaluating is false if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Helpful, yes? I don’t know why a curriculum company that claims to encourage “education–not indoctrination – would choose to carry these products, but they do.
Lynn, if you know — since the Pope has his own evolutionist on staff (or whatever they call it) why isn’t THAT considered the “other side” for Christian purposes, when presenting pro- and anti-evolution science in Christian curriculum is the goal?
JJ,
I was wondering about this, too, as Luke referred to “other sides” (plural) at least once that I remember (and, I’m too lazy, at this stage, to go back and check).
The Sonlight recommended science resources are all products published by rabid ;) young earth creationists — with the exception of one book,
Reason, Science, & Faith, written for adults and considered a tedious read by at least one reviewer. Apparently the RSF authors are OECs (old earth creationists), like Vatican scientists. I’ve just about reached my saturation point with respect to this topic, but do you suppose that they may serve a purpose in providing a token dissenting voice, similar to the Usborne authors who “do little more than use propaganda”? It does appear that the bulk of resources recommended are published by YECs whose materials do little more than attempt to dismantle incompatible opinions (aka other sides). Who knows. I guess it’s up to actual Sonlight customers to ask those kinds of questions… (odd that we had only one come defend the curriculum).
Now, will someone kindly inform the Fun House ride operator to let me out of here? :S
Nance, I’m working on a book with my best friend on that one very subject! Thanks for asking [smile]. You can read the first draft’s Introduction (which I still really like), here. Granted, our audience is Christian young men who grew up in the church buying everything they were told about lust… so it may not resonate with you very well. But for us–and hopefully those who read it–it was (and will be) world changing!
…okay, I read slowly. So, maybe I’ll try to find it in audio form. But I’m always up for a challenge, and I’m mildly interested enough in this subject to go for it [smile]. So: What one book would the three of you recommend that I start with? And, please, don’t say Dawkins’ Blind Watchmaker… I took the time to read 150 pages of that 300 page book, and since he had yet to offer any evidence of any kind (except for his computer program which demonstrated virtually nothing, and Perry Marshal’s does a better job of demonstrating evolution’s approach–I think) I stopped reading. So, I’m looking for one, really good, kick-the-butt-of-anyone-who-does-not-see-the-tremendous-evidence-for-this-theory*, book.
Put your heads together, give me the best educational resource you’ve got, and I’ll go for it. I’ll even try to have an “open mind” [smile]. Granted, I may come out the other side still shrugging because I’ve got my doubts, but at least I’ll finally see what “all the evidence” really is rather than just “hearing about it secondhand.”
Again: Your homework assignment is to come up with 1 (one) book you all agree is the one to go with. I’ve got four other books waiting for me to finish, but I’ll try to get through this one quickly for you.
And as for AiG… well… yeah. And, yeah. And I’ve read the rebuttals, and then the rebuttals of the rebuttals–I was unable to find the rebuttal to the rebuttal of the rebuttal–to at least one of those books, and, at least from where I’m sitting, I think the jury is still out. Perhaps the book you’re going to suggest will change that! [smile]
~Luke
*Theory, of course, along the lines of the theory of gravity and not like the theory that Bush was behind 9/11.
Luke, you and I have the most intriguing cross-posts. I was just recommending the Pulitzer-Prize winning novel (fiction with Truth!) The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay by Michael Chabon in Lynn’s other thread. As a devout young man learning about life yourself, this is my choice for you PERSONALLY.
But in another conversation just now with experienced diverse moms about curriculum, the one book I just now recommended to them all and would urge, urge, urge you to read in your PROFESSIONAL capacity, is Howard Gardner’s The Disciplined Mind. Here’s a reader review from “The Library Thing”:
You’re not asking us to swim out to your boat, are you, Luke? :)
Coincidentally, I was trying to read those same posts (from your dad’s site) last night and kept getting “stack overflow error messages” that froze my computer each time. It’s happening again this morning (do you suppose Ham is up to (more) no good?). Maybe it’s a glitch on my end, but I’ve been unable to get a better sense of Sonlight’s relationship with AIG. From what I was able to read, however, I owe your dad some kudos for standing up to the Big Kahuna himself on the Spurgeon matter. Of course, I’d like to see others in the creationism industry receive similar scrutiny :)
Let me toss you a flotation device, nonetheless :)
Luke, I didn’t know that you have a personal blog, too. I see that you’re taking on the Genie Scott book and blogging about it there. I don’t know how you got ahold of it so quickly, but I respect your initiative and resolve. By the way, I didn’t suggest it thinking you’d be led to swap positions; it’s just one of the more clearly-written and comprehensive books on the topic.
Note: The author can be spunky, at times. Try reading her while sipping a relaxing blend of tea. Otherwise she may begin to madden you as much as we do :)
Neither tea not sympathy can help, I fear, unless one is reading with the muscular depth of Gardner’s “educated mind” as described by the reviewer above: “one that can intelligently assess ideas at a level beyond initial impressions and patterns. “
Btw all — I just came across a Catholic mom’s free home curriculum philosophy (with video) based on the same core resources we’ve loved as secular unschoolers! No evolution required. ;-)
The Lazy Mom’s Homeschool Curricula
Good thinking, JJ :) I suppose if one approaches any book on a dare, you’ll see little more than “barn full” of facts to dispute.
But the spiritual man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of Naturalism: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are rationally discerned.
1 Corinthians 2:14 (BoreMeToTears Version)
My long-winded attempt to put some ideas together for secular curriculum evaluation (that can work for Christian families too, depending on how they define “education”: Home education curriculum that swings both ways is more fun
Just spent 20 minutes perusing Sonlight site and therefore I find it difficult to take Luke at his word.
The “time line” that they sell for $5.99 a piece starts at “Creation” (huh? – really – I suppose I’m just incredibly naive but are you telling me that people are REALLY teaching their kids that the world was ‘created’ 6 thousand years ago? really?)….meanwhile I just had dinner with my 15 yo son (public school International Bacc student) and we discussed major and minor themes of “Guns Germs & Steel” by Diamond (one of the 5 books he needed to read this summer)…which is, I suppose, my snarky way of saying that Sonlight is NOT selling something I would call a “curriculum”. They are selling an indoctrination system. (Okay – all education is to some extent indoctination? fine…but lets at least start with the facts, jack!)
Another sample from their “History 420″ page:
“Expose the first president who approved unconstitutional conduct to achieve a goal that he believed was best for the country.
Sorrow as they discover how presidents and politicians have chipped away at the Constitution for over 100 years.
Understand (contrary to journalists and politicians) that the United States of America is not a democracy.
Discover how historical events of the past 200 years have altered America’s understanding of the Constitution.
Learn how socialism quietly entered and quickly entrenched itself into our American system.
Uncover a simple plan to restore constitutional government. ”
and we wonder at the disturbing displays of pure stupidity playing out at the town-hall meetings?
On another note; I’m not a homeschooler…but I consider myself (and my husband) to be our son’s primary educators…so while I honestly wouldn’t want to homeschool (there is no ‘politically correct’ way to say this – but compared to my profession, it just sounds boring to me and I don’t mean that disrespectfully); I’ve just added Gardner’s “The Disciplined Mind” to our book list and hope to read it in the next couple of weeks – thanks.
good site.
jc
From Favorite Daughter re: real understanding of how to think about evolution –
Huh? When did I ask about lusting Christian young men and Christian porn? Damn. Go away for a day and miss all the excitement! :)
Nance
“Nance Confer
I’ll bite — what’s the one major area, Luke?
Nance”
That’s when you asked, Nance [smile].
Lynn, I’m serious when I say I’m up for a challenge [smile]. I found it–well, most of it–online. I’m waiting for the ILL hard copy to come in the next “3 or so weeks” [ugh].
As for maddening me? I highly doubt it. Well… I will get mad if she, as Niles did in the Foreword, spouts of “facts” that are actually just plain horribly bad science. But I’ve heard she’s good–and I like spunky people [smile]–so I’ve got high hopes, not that this will help me “switch sides” but that it will educate me and help me speak even more accurately about this topic.
~Luke
Jennifer, I really liked “Guns, Germs and Steel”… but I completely missed how talking about that book negates Sonlight’s status as a curriculum provider. Sorry, I wasn’t able to follow the joke.
~Luke
I still say it’s not about evolution or any subject’s “facts” — just as the town hall meetings haven’t been about health care facts or open civic debate.
What I keep coming back to, as Jennifer just did, is Lynn’s original issue of how parents and citizens can honestly evaluate whether an idea, product or service is secular or based on non-rational evangelical dogma, to what extent and with what potential effect — so that we individually and in our Constitutionally secular collective wisdom, can decide every matter large and small for our own families and communities accordingly.
Otherwise we intellectuals and “realists” will in fact be living in fantasyland, while the the self-proclaimed believers in the supernatural will literally take over the real world. One thing I do believe in, is IRONY! ;-)
So while Luke is waiting for that evolution book, here’s a much more personal and familiar example of how hard this is to do these days, not just with curriculum but in every aspect of secular civic life from sports and eating out to taxes and voting. I just reread this post and fine discussion, and it’s more honest from all POVs and better food for civic education than “evolution” imo:
“What should we call Christ as a kick in the head?”
Lynn:
Agreed!! Further – I love how you sum in one elegant paragraph. I suppose, at least for me – its easier said (and read) then done – something I need to work on.
Jennifer
Dale’s latest is right on point:
Gosh, this started out as such a wholesome thread. Now, we have Luke’s new book about Christian young men and lust and Dale’s thoughts about what lays “between Thou shalt not and Whatever makes your weenie wiggle.” We’ll leave it to JJ to weave it all together for us :)
“Nance Confer
I’ll bite — what’s the one major area, Luke?
Nance”
That’s when you asked, Nance [smile].
**************
What? Are you trying to waste time or am I just missing the big moment when something I said changed your mind?
Nance
I see now, Lynn. It’s a waste of time. Sooner or later you have to stop allowing yourself to be abused. Thanks for the lesson/reminder.
Nance
Nance,
IMO, Creationism, Christian curriculum and Sonlight in particular were not served well in this discussion, which was linked and, as a result, viewed by many people who have never been exposed to the actual counter-arguments to what they’ve been taught. Who knows… maybe someone other than Luke picked up the Genie Scott book,… or learned about the Wedge Strategy and DI-speak, or checked out Dale’s work… IOW, not a waste, from my perspective :)
I’ve been thinking like Lynn, Nance. Not a waste at all.
More like a free but valuable education seminar for the asking. :)
But I do think we need another four comments after this one, because I’m betting Lynn hasn’t broken 100 with one post before?
re: breaking 100
Yes, who knew that a post about curriculum would ever outshine past conversations about “domestic discipline.” ;)
Hi Jennifer,
Wow. I didn’t look as far as the history curriculum. I agree. Teaching children that time started at so-called Creation and that “Constitutional government” has been swiped from the God-fearing (by secular liberals, no doubt) is, without question, propaganda. Just as Fred Phelps makes room for Rick Warren, programs like Heart of Wisdom, for example, make room for Sonlight; but, at the end of the day, who has more influence: the “extremist” with a small following or the “moderate” with a large customer base?
Funny, Sonlight wasn’t even on my radar until it was defended against accusations I never made.
Now, it’s on my radar.
Hey, maybe now that Texas will be requiring bible instruction in its public schools, Sonlight will be the Board’s chosen provider and secular homeschoolers can go back to being irrelevant to its marketing?
Besides I’ll be sending any discretionary “education” money here this year, not to a curriculum company.
Young Son btw, just finished reading the closest thing we have to curriculum here, a real book. :) It’s by math professor/author John Allen Paulos, called “IRRELIGION: a mathematician explains why the arguments for god just don’t add up.”
So the other night he comes bouncing in hooting, book in hand, to read aloud in an incredulous and very loud voice, that under article 19 of the Arkansas Constitution, atheists are not allowed to hold any public office! Not only that, if you “deny the being of a god” you aren’t even permitted to testify in court.
(And who among doesn’t deny the being of one god or another, hmmm?) This is clearly against the public interest if not downright perverse — accepting “the being of all gods” surely would make your testimony useless as factual truth in court?
Well, good news for Young Son. Tell him that I clearly remember (from my Christian worldview training days) that “atheists worship themselves as gods,” so they clearly meet the criterion for testifying in court!
re: Texas Bible Curriculum
Speaking of rich irony…
Check out the NCBCS (National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public School) website for the founder’s (Lord-directed) vision for the curriculum:
Also, if you have a chance, glance over a past post about the NCBCS board:
Who’s Writing Your Child’s Public School Bible Curriculum?
Texas Freedom Network does stellar work on fighting this uphill battle.
Well, I thought I remembered a post from you, Lynn, reminding us all that we were just caught up in the endless argument-shifting, time-wasting, illogical garbage that passes for decent conversation in some circles. Or something to that effect. :)
Maybe I just imagined you being the voice of reason as I tried to talk to someone who was just a user.
There’s value in people knowing about these things but they aren’t secrets. If anyone wanted to know about, say, the Wedge Strategy, there’s the Google. Etc. But willful ignorance will not admit of such things.
All of this is colored by my ability to tolerate BS, of course. Which is at a low point the past couple of days. Dealing with a lying, sack-of-shit drug addict will do that to you. But we get to love and care for a beautiful 3-year-old so what’s to complain.
And at least you broke 100 comments! :)
Nance
Lynn’s joke about domestic discipline wasn’t just a funny line but biting satire.
Here is the real hidden “god-fearing” curriculum, what they are teaching and why, with their bibles at home and at school:
The Red Bottoms of Red Staters: Corporal Punishment Contributes to Right-wing Paranoia:
JJ,
The “Red Bottoms” read was interesting. “Contempt for the vulnerable” is a good description of what I hear in the “anti-socialism” material that I read. :(
Also interesting is Michael Savage:
In another interview, following his usual rant against “turd-world immigration,” “left-wing pinko vermin in high places,” and the uppity women of the “she-ocracy,” he warns his readers, “Only a more savage nation can survive — not a more compassionate nation.”
Yes, it fits right in with the “Authoritarian Conservatism” a la John Dean that we’ve discussed before.
What I don’t get is, if the rest of us are any better off emotionally and intellectually, why don’t we finally GET this, and do something to deal with it or at least call it out instead of pretended that they aren’t psychologically damaged rather than “educated?”
Nance,
In my mind, this thread was never about changing Luke’s mind; rather it became a window into the upside-down world of apologetics. He arrived trying to make the case that “Sonlight focuses on educating–not indoctrinating.” Before long he had admitted that “Creationism/ID is nothing more than a faith statement picking “apart the real work of real scientists.” — and the specific titles promoted and sold by Sonlight “do little more than use “propaganda” by merely treating evolution-as-basis/origin-for-life as fact with very little science to back it up.” Ooops :? If Luke hoped to “use” us, it backfired.
Back at her blog, Curious said, “I love Sonlight! I love that I don’t have to figure it all out for myself.” Here, Luke (representing Sonlight) says, “I find that I get my best information secondhand.” Yikes. So, who’s doing the thinking for whom? The Wedge makes it clear that ID is “not about science” (their words) but recapturing the culture, yet its materials appear to flow virtually unquestioned directly to children.
I could go on… but, generally, there was a lot of scary stuff revealed in this thread that cannot be found in the usual places.
dear BMTT
I’ve not been commenting here due to life being too busy lately and me trying to prioritise a bit better (instead of being sucked into every internet discussion out there!) – even my poor blog has suffered! But I’ve been following the discussion because I find it interesting to know how other people with different views think and process their thoughts.
Then I noticed that you’d visited my blog and quoted me in support of your argument… and I’ve succombed to the temptation to say something again! :)
I’ve noticed a lot of “quoting” of Luke and others from you guys that is completely out of context, in order to support your view. That’s a shame. Your emphasis on truth in these discussions does your manipulation of others’ words to suit your argument much shame….
For example: my comment that I love Sonlight because I don’t have to figure it out for myself was in the context of having an instructor’s guide that lays out basic instruction in grammar appropriate for my child’s age – something I wouldn’t know without relying on someone else’s knowledge on the subject of English for 6 year olds. By no means was this a blanket statement that supports your suggestion that I let Sonlight think for me on all levels, most importantly that of God’s existance (which seems to be the focus point over here in this blog and hence the obvious conclusion one would draw reading your comment): http://www.hayesfamily.co.za/blog/?p=2107
At the end of the day, Sonlight IS indoctrinating (teaching doctrine – not brainwashing) – because it is educating from a specific world view. But it is not indoctrinating in the negative sense of the word – rigidly; without question; without a willingness to discuss other options: ie brainwashing.
I can’t imagine from this blog and your discussions on this post that you teach your kids anything other than what you believe. You and Nance and others have rapped Luke over the knuckles several times with ‘atheism is “the truth”‘ comments. So, do you hand over to your kids Spurgeon, McDowell, CS Lewis, Rico Tice, John Chapman and others and say, “kids, figure it out for yourselves?” At the end of the day, you, me, and Sonlight have to draw a line somewhere.
So, while you strongly hold to the “truth” of atheism, I suspect that you will naturally and understandably indoctrinate your kids on atheistic theology.
My biggest curiosity factor, however, is why do you care? So what if half the world believes that there is God, heaven and consequences for our actions? What benefit is there in converting others to atheism? What is the allure for someone like me to want to chuck up what the bible offers and take on an anti-God worldview? When we die, and our bodies rot as compost, does it matter to you whether those of us who believe in Heaven and Hell do nothing more than be human fertiliser?
“My biggest curiosity factor, however, is why do you care?”
Indeed.
Up-thread Lynn and I do talk about how the wonderful world we all live in together is threatened for all, when any indoctrinating power including if not especially patriarchal fundamentalism, gets power-hungry in public policy. Look at the history of the Catholic Church or modern-day middle eastern theocracy, or just turn on cable news in America to the current town halls.
The entire state of Texas is (unconstitutionally in my view) implementing by public policy a new curriculum to literally indoctrinate students in this armed and dangerous version of Christianity — yet you’re asking US instead of those elected public servants, why we should care what kids grow up believing? Do you seriously mean to claim that all curriculum and all education is just competing indoctrination anyway, so what does it matter??
If so, you answer your own question: THAT is why it matters. Because believing that lie spoils everything good, true and beautiful that is real and dehumanizes us all so we can devolve back into warring religious tribes.
Even if you can’t believe as I do, that the AR-15 semi-automatic assault weapons at a presidential event are part and parcel of irrational minds crippled by indoctrination in dysfunctional lies and that fundamental religions foster that social threat, you will hear more obvious evidence.
I did just this minute, typing this response:
At Rep. Barney Frank’s Dartmouth town hall on health care reform last night, a young woman took the mike demanding to know why he’s supporting the president’s “T-4″ Hitler/Nazi extermination program that treats certain lives as not worth living.
Frank is of course Jewish. (Also gay, which would have gotten him exterminated *twice* in Hitler’s Germany, I suppose.)
So Frank pokes fun at her monstrous ignorance by saying that in keeping with his “ethnic heritage” he’ll answer her question with another question: “On what planet do you spend most of your time?”
He then says “It’s a tribute to the First Amendment that this kind of vile, contemptible nonsense is so freely propagated” and that “trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table.”
Calling a Jewish public servant a Nazi as public debate.
Calling a black public servant a racist as public debate.
There’s two good reasons why I care, right there.
On a smaller scale, homeschooling families might consider that their own educational freedoms are most at risk when homeschooling is confused in the minds of politicians and the public with conservative warfare waged through Christian indoctrination, but as a public policy specialist in my former professional life, I care about a lot more than that.
Nance,
I’m sorry, I must have completely misunderstood your comment (which I quoted, and then you quoted, so I don’t feel the need to quote again [laughing]). I thought that you were asking what one major area of my thinking has changed.
And that area is the whole girls/lust issue that is hammered into the guys at church. So, despite endless “brainwashing” and even buying it hook, line and sinker for 2/3 of my life, I have come out on a different side.
I thought you were asking about that experience, which is why I linked to the introduction to our book (as it currently stands). I felt that giving you a flavor of where I’ve been would be nice.
I’m sorry it was not.
As for the other thoughts and comments, there was only one that I thought was directed enough at me and what I’ve said that warrants a response from me–but, as always, if I missed something, feel free to point it out:
“Luke (representing Sonlight) says, ‘I find that I get my best information secondhand.’ Yikes. So, who’s doing the thinking for whom?”
I would merely point out that information and thinking are two extremely different things. I do very little primary research myself–for instance, I’ve never conducted an evolutionary experiment–so instead read books written by people who do so. I also tend to not have the time to read everything on a particular subject, and so I enjoy listening to what others who are passionate about a subject have gleaned from their reading. Combining that with a healthy dose of the other side leaves me, I believe, with a fairly good grasp of what the hubbub is about… and based on that, I think about it.
I find it efficient and mostly accurate. And since I’m always willing to learn more, and keep my ears open, I’m not sure why this is “scary” … but perhaps I still just too ignorant [smile].
~Luke
[...] “Vile, Contemptible Lies” Is Bringing Down America 19 08 2009 (More from our epic examination of what conservative Christian curriculum really teaches, even when it claims to double as [...]
Luke: “Of course, I’ve watched the videos of the “real scientists” who demonstrate the “real work” that they have been doing, and have been less than impressed. But that’s me.”
And this Ph.D. scientist would say “Who cares if you’re impressed?” You don’t know enough to have an opinion worth considering. That’s not an insult, BTW. Most folks are ignorant about science. Almost all are ignorant about any particular aspect. My field is chromatography. I can opine somewhat intelligently about other aspects of analytical chemistry. I would never even consider expressing an opinion on the validity of some hypothesis in synthetic organic chemistry. I simply don’t know enough. And, I’d hazard, neither do you.
So you can see why I don’t care about whether or not any particular scientific work “impresses” you. You don’t know enough to know whether or not you should be impressed.
Exactly so. And why??
The curriculum which with he was “educated” can’t be held harmless.
Daryl, someone on our parent-directed education list today was indignant over health care “rationing” a la the rhetoric about Britain’s NHS, likening it to no seat belts in school buses. She was sure it must be because so few lives would be saved by the belts compared to the cost, that the evil governmnet was just refusing to spend the $40 million per kid’s life belts on buses would save. This wasn’t a stupid woman, just a sincerely ignorant one.
So, there’s the research on one side – then emotion-based arguments on the other? How highly unusual :O
Odd. You normally don’t get many “let’s raise taxes for more nanny govt” types on home-ed boards :O
Daryl:
Thanks for a perfect example of the integrity and intellectual honesty (of science professionals) that are regularly maligned by those who have neither.
Curious,
I’ll have to take your comments in chunks, as I don’t have a lot of time to blog today.
Briefy, this thread isn’t about denying “God’s existence” (he doesn’t, by the way); it’s about the dishonest claims of Christian apologists. Recall that Luke initiated this conversation. He volunteered that his curriculum encourages independent thinking by “educating – not indoctrinating” (if you have an issue with his choice of terms, take it up with him). Initially, he insisted that Sonlight provides materials that present “both sides”; later (after I inconveniently produced the actual list of resources), he conceded that maybe they don’t afterall. In reality, they are some of the most dishonest apologetics materials on the market. There is nothing “educational” about these materials; they exist only to disseminate talking points to the next generation. I do, however, tip my hat to Luke for admitting that these titles “do little more than use “propaganda” by merely treating evolution-as-basis/origin-for-life as fact with very little science to back it up” (though I don’t understand why he’d then be comfortable selling them, if it’s true). But, if I have taken his quote out of context in a way that has distorted its intended meaning, if he meant to say that he actually endorses these products sold by Sonlight, then I’ll apologize for the mistake – but keep my hat on.
By the way, the idea that atheism is a religion (or “theology”) is another talking point created for a larger purpose.
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” — Stephen Roberts
At least you didn’t say, “There are no atheists.”
Curious:
and
What, you don’t like my blog?? :)
Since you’ve asked twice now, I won’t leave you in suspense any longer. The answer is… Nope. I do not “hand over” my child to feng shui masters, astrology ancients, christian apologists, etc. and say, “kid, figure it out for yourself.” Where did you get the idea that I present supersticious beliefs systems as alternatives to rational thought? Fundamentalist puppetmasters are the ones making those claims, not me :)
Curious,
As for “why do we care?,” JJ did a good job in her response. If you need more, re-read the thread.
“Where did you get the idea that I present supersticious beliefs systems as alternatives to rational thought?”
LOL!
Nance
@BMTT:
Luke said in his initial comment: Though, I would argue that we are much more than just “christian ‘worldview’ propaganda”
At least he does not deny that Sonlight is overtly Christian. Read their catalogue and there is no doubt that it is teaching from a Christian worldview. They are not ashamed of that, nor do they try to word it otherwise.
Propoganda? Not so sure about that – if it were, then there are many literature titles that they probably wouldn’t include because they raise difficult questions; fly in the face of conservative Christian thinking; and instead, they would always always paint Christianity as the golden path of ease and perfection on this earth.
You’re bitterly writing off an entire curriculum because of segments (the sciences, it seems) that offend your worldview.
And yet… your absence of denial that you do indoctrinate your kids in an atheistic worldview suggests that you are indeed the pot calling the kettle black….
@JJ et al:
JJ said: “Because believing that lie spoils everything good, true and beautiful that is real and dehumanizes us all so we can devolve back into warring religious tribes.”
What is good, true and beautiful? Good? How do you measure good, JJ? I’ll bet your measurement of good is vastly different to Robert Mugabe’s measurement. So, who is right? And how do you measure that? When you take an ultimate authority out of the equation, “good” is exactly what the postmodernists say (or don’t say, after all we can’t define anything really, can we ;-) ) – it’s whatever you make it. Or … however you rationalise it.
Many other “rabid atheists” out there have come to rather dismal conclusions as a result of their beliefs. Plenty have committed suicide because their rationalisation led them to believe that life on earth is entirely pointless, so ‘why prolong the misery that is our messed up world?’
Atheists haven’t cornered the rationalisation market. But, to be honest, I’m not sure I’d even want to claim ‘rational thought’ as my ultimate standard of authority. Afterall, one man’s rational thought is another’s delusion….
At the end of the day, Christians know that they have to answer to one authority for their thoughts, words and deeds.
So while I agree that racist-calling, gun-toting nuts in your country (or any other) that call themselves Christians is not what you want steering government, I can’t blanket judge all of Christianity as something worth militantly fighting and writing against by the actions of those “Christians” who disregard the ultimate authority: God.
Just like I wouldn’t blanket judge all atheists as bitter, sardonic activists worth ignoring.
LOL – of course you wouldn’t. Atheists can’t be “bitter” because they don’t cling to guns and bibles! Check your script.
The correct stereotype to claim you wouldn’t use even as you evoke it, is something with horns and a swastika.
Curious does make a serious point:
“So, who is right? And how do you measure that? When you take an ultimate authority out of the equation, ‘good’ is exactly what the postmodernists say (or don’t say, after all we can’t define anything really, can we ;-) ) – it’s whatever you make it.”
Right. With or without believing in gods and supernatural forces to explain reality, it’s exactly what WE make it. If we create some ultimate authority to put into the equation, then that is whatever we make it too, and then claim it is. (That’s what is so seductive about the modern concept of a personal god who speaks directly in your ear and “leads” you to whatever decision you say it does.)
Btw — the president plays on your team as a Christian, and he hears y’all’s ultimate authority saying it is “good” and right and moral to better care for each other. And a clearly defined sin to bear false witness about a fellow Christian. So all humans (including ideological conservatives and strict constructionists of both bible and constitution) who believe in and submit to that ultimate authority had better get with his program or be damned, hadn’t they?
And we educators better sort out what to teach the kids to save the planet and the people, if not their souls. . .
But maybe C and her kind do not trust themselves — because they are such sinners and bound to do the wrong thing, completely incapable of judging right and wrong for themselves, blah blah blah — so they need that ultimate authority. If that’s what is holding them back from committing mayhem, maybe that outweighs the complete ignorance of how the world actually works. Somehow. . .
Of course, if they had a clue about the real world, they might have better control over their worst impulses. . .
But these folks have slid into the category of things I feel waste my time, use my good nature to further their ends (whether to sell something or hone their spiel or indulge themselves in one way or another). This category includes ranting Republicans and drug addicts.
Yes, this week’s lesson was how a drug addict can go back to drugs after seeming to recover and lie and steal and tell one changing story after another, all the while taking and relying on the trusting nature of others. They know they are lying. They have been caught enough times in one lie or half-truth or another and, yet, they persist with the next dupe or try a new line on an old one.
The truth is nothing in the face of the self-centered, self-serving goals of these individuals. These goals — as twisted and, ultimately, self-destructive as they are — outweigh any consideration for the truth, the trust that others give in spending time talking, the rights of others, etc.
No, C, I know you won’t get it. You will want to screech at me. I don’t care. You have used up any responsibility I have as a fellow human being to consider your opinion. Along with my drug addict relative and the ranting Rs at the local town hall this week — who were truly laughable!
Nance
Just checking back in and….wow. JJ – I really like how your brain works. BoremetoTears – love the Roberts quote – awesome!!
Curious said:
“…Sonlight IS indoctrinating (teaching doctrine – not brainwashing) – because it is educating from a specific world view. But it is not indoctrinating in the negative sense of the word – rigidly; without question; without a willingness to discuss other options: ie brainwashing.”
My response:
To what other “options” to science and history do you refer?
This is what KILLS me about the whole “argument”…its equivalent to saying “Instead of breathing oxygen I’m going to breath helium from now on…want to argue about it?”
My son has had about 4 years and two summer programs of “hard science” at this point (biology, anatomy, physics, chemistry, genetics etc) – - I cannot begin to imagine what his response would be if I enrolled him in a “Intelligent Design” class of some kind and led him to believe it was another “science” class. He’d probably think I needed to be remanded to a mental health unit…and he’d be right.
There are no options to facts. You may not like the facts; you may feel they threaten your world-view or belief structure….but that you are threatened by a fact does not give you the ability to create another option for it. You are required to breath the oxygen mixture our bodies have evolved to exploit if you want to live…if you don’t breath that mixture you will not live…there is no other option.
Curious said:
“I can’t imagine from this blog and your discussions on this post that you teach your kids anything other than what you believe…Spurgeon, McDowell, CS Lewis, Rico Tice, John Chapman and others and say, “kids, figure it out for yourselves?”….”
My response:
A. I don’t “believe” in evolution. It doesn’t require “belief”. Again, I don’t “believe” in my need for the oxygen mixture I am currently breathing…its a fact I live with as a species adapted to live in the Earth’s atmosphere.
B. My son can read anything he chooses to read…if I’ve done my job as an educator and mother, I’ve helped him learn basic principals…math, reading, science…and then given him the opportunity to use the basics as a platmform from which to “discover” the world from different angles: scientifically, artistically, historically, politically etc.
Yes, in many ways he will need to figure it out for himself.
Curious said:
“So, while you strongly hold to the “truth” of atheism, I suspect that you will naturally and understandably indoctrinate your kids on atheistic theology.”
My response:
What the hell is athiestic theology?
My ability to rationally acknowledge that there is absolutely no basis or evidence for a supernatural being is not a theology.
Indoctrination is defined at Wikipedia as:
“…the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned. As such it is used pejoratively. Instruction in the basic principles of science, in particular, can not properly be called indoctrination, in the sense that the fundamental principles of science call for critical self-evaluation and sceptical scrutiny of one’s own ideas.”
Based on this definition; I have not engaged in indoctrination.
Curious said:
“My biggest curiosity factor, however, is why do you care? So what if half the world believes that there is God, heaven and consequences for our actions? ”
My response:
Because around the world and in our own country there is a growing number of these groups who believe in various supernatural beings who, having subjugated themselves to various orthodoxies of ancestral tribal peoples of Mesopotamia, now believe they have a right to force others’ subjugation as well.
That is why I care.
You want to believe in bullshit and subjugate yourself to its orthodoxies you go right ahead and do so – you’ll get nothing from me my but my smirk.
You attempt to force that same subjugation on me, you’ve got yourself a fight.
jc
Jennifer:
LOL. Sounds like Christian Worldview in a nutshell :)
By the way, I love that your initials are “jc” :)
Now, please excuse me while I go kill myself since “life on earth is entirely pointless, so why prolong the misery that is our messed up world?” [rolling eyes]
Not to mention that patriarchal fundamentalism (not atheism) is the definer of life on earth being miserable, messed up, and something a believer is literally rewarded by escaping, through death. Strange to call that pro-life . . .
Hi Nance,
O/T: Have you read these books? One is written by the son; the other by the father. Some of what you’re saying reminds me of their stories.
Tweak: Growing Up on Methamphetamines – Nic Sheff’s unflinching chronicle of life as an addict.
Beautiful Boy – Nic’s story, but from the perspective of his father, David. Achingly honest, it chronicles the betrayal, pain, and terrifying question marks that haunt the loved ones of an addict.
JJ’s Collorary to Jennifer’s Breath of Life Axiom:
“You only have that oxygen to breathe by the Grace of God and our brave fighting troops in Eye-Rack, and by rights you’re just a sinning heathen who should be sucking down Hitler’s helium . . .”
Hey JC
Thanks for your long and interesting response. It’s such a pity we can’t all be in the same room talking this out in rational (LOL) conversation. Much of what you have said suggest misunderstanding of what I said and meant. It would be far better to deal with subjects like these in person where misunderstandings can be addressed immediately and tone of voice etc can better help one interpret meaning. But, sadly, we can’t – what with being on different continents and all! :)
I am running out the door in a few moments, but I just wanted to quickly respond to what I have time for at the moment (hopefully I will get a chance to respond to more here at a later stage, but judging the next few weeks, I don’t hold much hope) …
You said: “You want to believe in bullshit and subjugate yourself to its orthodoxies you go right ahead and do so – you’ll get nothing from me my but my smirk.
You attempt to force that same subjugation on me, you’ve got yourself a fight.”
Amen !! :) Or, I agree. Okay, so “my smirk” is more a case of incredulous and saddened head-shaking that you can build your life around the theory (never proven, mind you) that there is no God. Thankfully, I doubt we’ll fight, cos I’m not for forcing anything upon another person :) And, if you believe that Christians believe what the bible says, then you’ll know that it’s pretty pointless to expect belief in Christ as a result of forced subjugation! :)
I beg to differ on the “evolution doesn’t require belief”. Everything in this world requires belief. You believe that your next breath comes from the successful working of your body’s organs – perfectly timed and in perfect sequence. I believe that that sequence and timing is ordained by God.
This is fun :) I’d love to meet you ladies in person. Anyone of you coming to South Africa sometime soon?
Well, time has run out – I’m officially late for my evening meeting (lol – no, not a church meeting)! So I don’t have time to address Nance, suffice to say that I’m sad that my dialogue with you has caused such an outburst of anger. Sad too to read that you’ve been duped by a family member. Drug abuse does awful things to people and families – been there with two siblings. Thank God for his rescue.
Right – :)
Gotto dash!
Speaking of “patriarchal fundamentalism,” I’m reminded that Curious finds “gold” when she reads Debi Pearl, unlike many of us who find something completely different. Obviously, we’ll never find common ground with respect to any of these topics – especially as Curious isn’t even bothering to read our replies to her questions.
Our curiously-named visitor has goals which “— as twisted and, ultimately, self-destructive as they are — outweigh any consideration for the truth, the trust that others give in spending time talking, the rights of others, etc. “
Debi Pearl is curriculum though, isn’t it? — another example of a tragically destructive, dehumanizing curriculum for girls and young women that hurts us all by perpetuating a world view in which women are not only less important than the Invisible Hand they’re tuaght to believe in, but even less important than other humans, even less important that POTENTIAL human life.
A small reading group I’m in read both Tweak: Growing Up on Methamphetamines & Beautiful Boy…really opened my eyes to world you don’t get a look at unless forced to.
BoreMe & JJ…I don’t know who Debi Pearl is (I’ll have to check it out – I’ve not been very cognizant of this underworld of patriarchy that I assume Pearl belongs to, based on your comments); and I’m definitely not as “nice” as you guys; Curious actually comes across as a complete moron to me, yet you refrain from saying so.
…I just took time and effort to answer a post from Curious, very carefully reading and then answering her/his points and the response is ignorant drivel…so I’ll respond no more (to Curious) as she/he clearly does not warrant a response from me. I know this lack of a response and explanation thereto makes clear that I do harbour a certain prejudice against stupid people…and I accept that is a character flaw of mine.
Will spend some time this weekend digging into this “patriarchy” stuff. Freaky.
JC are my initials…so I’m perplexed by your comment…are initials unnecessary or inappropriate on your blog – because I can cease to use them.
jc
Can’t think of any resurrected gods who share those famous initials? ;-)
We have another homeschooling blog friend who started with the online name Not June Cleaver, so we call her NotJC and tease her in religious conversation where the original JC (and no, not june cleaver!) comes up.
Hi Jennifer,
Some Christians refer to Jesus Christ as simply “jc” :) They can do that because they share close “personal relationships” with him, you know ;)
Michael and Debi Pearl have a teaching “ministry” called To Train Up a Child sometimes abbreviated TTUAC, that tragically damages all that is good, true and beautiful in human families with whips, tree branches and lengths of plumbing supplies. It helped teach one young mom to beat her adopted four-year-old Sean Paddock to death (she had the classic follower mind of an obedient believer and desperately hoped she was “training him up” as the patriarchs told her the bible commands.)
In this particular reference, Lynn meant (I think) Debi Pearl’s special “How to Be a Helpmeet” submission bible for girls and women. Really, Lynn’s blog is salacious reading!
Jennifer and Nance can be the bad cops and Lynn and I will be the good cops, on Moron Patrol . . .
This isn’t fun, C. This is another load of sanctimonious crap from your side of the aisle. And, not that you will understand or admit that you understand, but your tiny personage does not have the influence on me that you might think. You are but another example of the idiocy we are all dealing with on many levels.
Nance
*************
Curious: “This is fun :) I’d love to meet you ladies in person. Anyone of you coming to South Africa sometime soon?
Well, time has run out – I’m officially late for my evening meeting (lol – no, not a church meeting)! So I don’t have time to address Nance, suffice to say that I’m sad that my dialogue with you has caused such an outburst of anger. Sad too to read that you’ve been duped by a family member. Drug abuse does awful things to people and families – been there with two siblings. Thank God for his rescue.”
Thanks for the book suggestions, Lynn. I’ll look for them on the next trip to the library.
Nance
Jennifer — The Pearl’s trash should come with large warning labels — “Read only if you have a strong stomach.” They advocate beatings of all kinds — from infants on up and all sorts of other base behavior. All with their god’s blessing, of course. So, you’ve been warned. :)
Nance
To quote Alice, this gets “curiouser and curiouser” – I really am perplexed as to what I’ve written that has triggered responses such as this one:
Nance: “This isn’t fun, C. This is another load of sanctimonious crap from your side of the aisle. And, not that you will understand or admit that you understand, but your tiny personage does not have the influence on me that you might think. You are but another example of the idiocy we are all dealing with on many levels.”
It really does bemuse me that you’ve drawn the conclusion that I’m attempting to have some kind of deep impact upon you. I came here through the Sonlight blog link – saw some interesting discussion worth contributing towards – and instead discovered that my questions have stirred quite an emotional hornet’s nest. How has this “moronic idiot with no clue of the real world” (to paraphrase y’all) to which you’ve been at great pains to dismiss, caused such an uproar of defensive outburst?
Curiouser and curiouser ;)
If you are indeed in South Africa, perhaps you are ignorant of what’s going on in the real world over here?
C, now you’re just being an asshole.
Nance
Daryl, someone on our parent-directed education list today was indignant over health care “rationing” a la the rhetoric about Britain’s NHS, likening it to no seat belts in school buses.
Yeah, this entire “rationing” argument makes me ill. It’s like these people all slept through Econ 101.
Odd. You normally don’t get many “let’s raise taxes for more nanny govt” types on home-ed boards :O
I used to be a libertarian. The last 8 years pushed me far to the left. This book was a godsend. :-)
Thanks for a perfect example of the integrity and intellectual honesty (of science professionals) that are regularly maligned by those who have neither.
I’m sincerely honored and humbled. Thanks. I’m a newbie here. Think I’ll be visiting often.
Thank you, Daryl. That was an important point that you made; I need to be more diligent in making it myself :)
I’ve seen the Chris Mooney book before, but I haven’t read it. Thanks for the reminder :) I’m still trying to figure out why conservatives – and religious conservatives, in particular – are so intent on debunking climate change, for instance.
Thanks again for your comments – and I look forward to hearing more from you :)
~Lynn
Jennifer:
You may want to keep a box of Kleenex handy :(
~Lynn
I’m still trying to figure out why conservatives – and religious conservatives, in particular – are so intent on debunking climate change, for instance.
For the regular old conservatives, that one’s easy. The GOP’s owners (i.e., big industry) believe that addressing global warming will cost them money. They’re generally opposed to pollution laws for the same reason. The GOPbots are really just too stupid to know how often they’re played by their owners and end up supporting policies that hurt them.
It’s exactly the same tale over and over gain. Big tax cuts for the rich? Trickle down. Universal health insurance? Death panels. Global warming? Biggest hoax in history.
Stockholm syndrome writ very large.
As for religious conservatives, you have to add in a toxic mixture of a too-literal reading of Revelation and the rather common (on the right) belief that the world is in god’s hands, that there’s some kind of grand plan about how it all ends, and nothing mankind can do will change it.
And conservative money is in bed with conservative religion, having sex and shooting up power. (Nance and I know a worldly homeschool parent economist studying how drugs turn this immoral power trip into an orgy of money and sex fronted by religion as social control.)
How do they run this “business?” Harm to human life. This is traditional all right. Age old. Timeless.
Power broker businessman” to Ingrid Bergman a half-century ago: “You may have observed, Mademoiselle, that in Casablanca, life is cheap.”
Big Oil and Gas pimp out our inner environment and rape our outer environment. Why? That’s where the money is — Willie Sutton’s answer may have been apocyphal like the bible, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t True! ;-)
This is the real human lust that Luke’s young Christian circle for example could be grappling to master — young people I know sure do — if the real world had been part of their real “education” all along, so that real human stories would be part of their public patriotism and advocacy and entrepreneurship (and private love life too) now. Without that though, they can’t see and understand how money and sex means power in all human experience INCLUDING IF NOT ESPECIALLY RELIGION, put it in real perspective and maybe even become real good guys, save their own souls.
For educated, pragmatic minds try getting through “We Are as Gods” by the author of Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto:
My agenda for America’s climate policy? I suppose it would be energy, agriculture, climate and urban policy. Throw in education, what the hell. . .
At a conference in Germany, Craig Venter was asked “Aren’t you playing God?”? His response: “We’re not playing.”
You have to flip it back, come on, guys. We’re playing God all the time. What else is new?
“We are as gods as we have to get good at it.”
Sorry, broken hypertext, fixed revision follows. Maybe Lynn can delete previous comment?
*****************
An even more blunt reason why fundamentalist indoctrination sold as “curriculum” matters to everyone — you may have observed that wherever patriarchal fundamentalism is charge, life IS cheap.
(hat tip Valerie Moon)
But what do the Pearls and purity balls (and the reproductive control freaks still in the majority of our highest court, and daring to call themselves moral and “pro-life”) claim is the divine plan? The exact opposite. Obey the Father Meme.
Mrs. C pointed Snook readers to a very earnest blog discussion among conservative homechool moms last week, American women poring over bible verse that told them women must stay home out of the work force to be breeders and helpmeets, so more men could have jobs and money and make the decisions.
To the point the sincerely began to believe it their duty to support a secular BAN on women working. In America. Terri Schiavo was only four years ago and John Roberts has a six-vote Catholic majority for the next power play against women and girls. If it’s not this law, it will be something worse.
Yep, we all need saving — not by patriarchy but from it.
re: Maybe Lynn can delete previous comment?
lol – yes, that was one lonnngg link :) Lydia of Purple would have been proud.
Thanks Daryl and JJ for all of the interesting insights, which I’m still reading. As it turns out, I’m hosting (hostessing?) a migraine today, so I haven’t read all the way through yet :/
Hi, Daryl! Nice to meet you.
You make a good point: You shouldn’t really care what impresses me or not… nor would I say that because I’m not impressed by something no one else should be impressed by it. And, I’ve freely admitted–in fact, that was kind of the point of my “unimpressed” comment in the first place–that I don’t know that much. My point was that, from what I have read–and I think I’ve read a fair bit of what is available to those of us who are not involved directly with the research into evolution–has yet to impress me with the data that is out there.
Granted, all of that–Dawkins, et al–may be horrible at presenting the data. But if after reading the leading spokespeople for evolution I come away shaking my head at the utter lack of information that points to evolution… well, then I’m still very skeptical.
Still ignorant?
Perhaps.
But I’m giving it my best shot. And now I’m working through Scott’s book recommended by Lynn… so I’m trying to find the data.
Trying.
And that’s the best this non Ph.D scientist can do [smile].
Lynn, I’ll just jump back to one of the points I think you’ve made twice now: I initiated this discussion by claiming Sonlight does more than indoctrinate. And, based on the definition provided by Jennifer, Sonlight does not indoctrinate. Sonlight, as a company and a product, absolutely excepts you to question. We provide tools for that.
Granted, some of what we question is what you hold to as pretty well settled.
~Luke
Luke, I agree too about where it started — you did claim your curriculum did more than indoctrinate. What I saw happen after that was, that with your own thinking you went on to demonstrate through the rest of the discussion, that indoctrination CAN block (despite even good will, intelligence and effort) understanding of anything else, perhaps most significantly including how one has been indoctrinated in the first place.
Luke–
Whatever you’re reading is not the primary literature. That’s where the data are. And you’d be hard-pressed to understand any of it without many years of rather rigorous training.
Could and should scientists do a better job explaining their work to the public? Absolutely. Does that fact mean that the public ought to just make up its own mind about whether or not the science is “true”? Absolutely not.
The public doesn’t know enough to know its own mind.
The smart bet is to go with the consensus. That’s what science is and what it does. The consensus is the default but it is always being tested with new data to either confirm, modify, or reject.
Think about it in terms of statistics. In a statistical test, the null hypothesis is only rejected when sufficient data are gathered that are significantly different from the null. The consensus, in this case, is the null. You can’t reject it w/o data. “The Bible tells me so” isn’t data.
And even after you’re able to deal with real “data”, that just equips you to begin the search for what we might all agree is “Truth.”
Daniel Dennett in a 2006 essay adapted from his book, “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon”:
Heads up all — your community chest card reads, “Go straight to Dale, do not pass go.”
Seriously, all of you please go read this and if you have a minute, follow the links at the bottom to learn more about this crazy story. I’m posting it at Snook now . . .
Thanks for the link, JJ
Yep, it’s pretty dumb to go after Hemant. He is such a nice guy; the woman trying to get him fired looks like a goon, in contrast.
btw, don’t tell anybody who might accuse me of indoctrinating my child w/atheist theology that, when we homeschooled math, all of our equations always came out to 666, too >:)
Hmmm, I wonder which divinity plagued Favorite Daughter with her math coding disorder, or was it a gift through disability, to protect her from any possibility of such mathematical devil worship? (like blinding you so you can’t look upon evil?)
Hi Luke,
Actually, my repeated comments were in response to repetitive questions from Curious :) I’ve stopped using the word “indoctrination” in this thread because everybody seems to be defining it differently. My issue is the “presenting both sides” meme – when Sonlight obviously doesn’t do that. I understand that it’s your job to defend the curriculum, but those defenses just aren’t cutting it. Sorry.
~Lynn
Yeah, JJ, it sounds like Favorite Daughter has got a demon. I’m so sorry. Luckily, I know just where to send her – ASAP! – for Deliverence (tell her to turn her speakers on for optimal effectiveness).
You may recall that I had problems with demons at one time. I cast them out, stopped telling people to “take care,” rid my closet of all paisley prints and I couldn’t be happier. I really recommend demonbusters dot com.
LMAO!
But you aren’t empowered to perform this service for us? Couldn’t we get you blessed, or cursed, for that somehow?
Luke,
After glancing over responses to this thread at your FaceBook page, I am saddened to realize just how staggeringly ignorant and lost some of your customers are. Wow. I’ll go ahead and toss up some of it, as I can’t remember the last time I ran across such picture-perfect examples of why the christian religion is simply beyond redemption as a belief system – and why I bother to blog about it.
Sadly, I think the views of your customers offer valuable insight into why many equate christian homeschooling with child abuse. For which Sonlight provides “tools,” as you acknowledge.
Well, Rabbit is too sad to make more trails.
The pigs and dogs are sad, too :(
JJ:
Good point. Tell FavD I’m on my way!
Let’s review.
This is a very interesting observation, JJ: “What I saw happen after that was, that with your own thinking you went on to demonstrate through the rest of the discussion, that indoctrination CAN block (despite even good will, intelligence and effort) understanding of anything else, perhaps most significantly including how one has been indoctrinated in the first place.”
Sadly, I’m so “indoctrinated” now, it’s probably even pointless to be reading Scott’s book… [giggle]. If that is true, and you see it clearly in what I have written, then I am still, for now at least, lost. Perhaps one day I will see the light. Perhaps.
Daryl, “The smart bet is to go with the consensus.” Perhaps, but that is accepting Authority (something Scott warns against in Chapter 1 that I just read [smile]). You trust them. I, based on the limitations of the field, do not put quite as much faith in them. They may show themselves trustworthy in the future–once they have done a better job of communicating–but until that time, I’m okay with my doubts.
Lynn, perhaps the claim that we present both sides isn’t cutting it. And I think I’m beginning to see why. In order for you to accept that as a reality we would need to offer products infinitely refute each other. If we could do so, that would be truly be a solid presentation of both sides.
Such a task is virtually impossible and completely impractical from a curriculum standpoint (cost prohibitive for parents, time restraints on students, etc).
But Sonlight carries books with both sides of this controversy. And, as I mention above, while we carry titles that attempt to refute evolution, many titles in our science programs present at least as much information on evolution as I got in my high school advanced biology class. So, no, we do not push evolution. But it is there. And, considering Daryl’s comments, it would be nearly impossible because of how poorly it is currently communicated.
And you’re absolutely right: We do a poor job defining things, don’t we? I know haven’t pushed too much for definitions. …wait… no, I did. But we kept bouncing around the definitions. But I tried. That’s why I even quoted Jennifer’s definition. I try to work with it, but you’re right: It isn’t working out too well. [sigh]
And based on those thoughts, perhaps it is time for me to drop this. [shrug] It’s been fun.
…and it continues in the review [smile].
See you there!
~Luke
Probably the meanings we’re impossibly at odds over, never mind science as a playground, are the “ultimate concern” words that define the human experience, concepts represented in this conversation by words like “lost” and “see the light” not to mention “trust” and Authority”–
The movie “Doubt” is a case in point. What is “doubt” in the education process, including doubting Authority, and is it strength or weakness, virtue or sin, etc. . .whose side is “doubt” on, if there even can be any real meaning to “sides” in honest inquiry and education?
Is that perhaps not an absolute value, then — is doubt’s goodness or badness a question that can’t be determined until after we see its human effects in a particular situation?
Sorry I missed this thread! I realize that none of the comments I’m going to respond to were directed at me, ‘cuz I wasn’t participating, but I thought I’d chime in.
//I can’t imagine from this blog and your discussions on this post that you teach your kids anything other than what you believe. //
In my family’s case, we tell our kids what we believe and we explain why. That’s different from teaching them to believe what we believe. Of course, as parents, we wield a lot of influence, so by telling our kids what we believe we are, in fact, influencing them in some way. That’s just how it works, and we acknowledge it.
However, we did not have any discussions about religion or god until my oldest was ~8 and my youngest 6. They were atheists when they were born, and they still are because no one has tried to tell them they’re wrong. Well, someone did. More on that in a moment.
We also tell our kids what other people believe. They’re learning what Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Pagans believe, to name a few. We have quite a few friends who are into the “woo-woo” (as one of them put it). One believes that UFOs have visited our planet, for example, just because she and a friend were driving in a car at night and saw some sort of aircraft with lights go by. They had never seen anything like it before, so they concluded that it must be a UFO with aliens in it.
So one thing we talk to our kids about is whether it makes sense to jump to the least likely conclusion first. :-)
//You and Nance and others have rapped Luke over the knuckles several times with ‘atheism is “the truth”‘ comments. So, do you hand over to your kids Spurgeon, McDowell, CS Lewis, Rico Tice, John Chapman and others and say, “kids, figure it out for yourselves?”//
We don’t just hand our kids reading material and leave them alone to figure it out alone. We don’t do this with any topic. We discuss everything. We answer their questions to the best of our ability. When we don’t know an answer, we look it up (if it’s look-up-able). Sometimes we just say, “I don’t know. What do you think?” Or sometimes we say, “Does that sound right to you?” We want them to think things through for themselves and draw their own conclusions, but we are there to help them through the process. In the end, what they believe about the supernatural will be up to them. All we can do is be there and help them sift through the information.
What’s funny to me is that all children are born atheists. They don’t believe in any gods at birth. It’s not until others start teaching them religion that they start to believe it, just as they believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy once someone teaches about them.
My kids had no idea what “god” was or what “hell” was until Christian neighbors across the street started talking about those things. Unfortunately, they weren’t kind and curious children, those Christians. They were trying to scare our children into believing that they’d go to hell because they didn’t believe in Jesus. They even got their mother into the act. My kids, of course, said they weren’t going to hell (after the friendly Christian kids explained the burning eternity to them), at which point the Christian kids called to their mother across the yard, “T&G are going to hell because they don’t believe in Jesus, right?”
What do you think the mother said? Perhaps she said to herself, “Gee, their family apparently doesn’t share our beliefs. It’s not my place to apply my family’s beliefs directly to them, especially without their parents present.” Nope. She just called back, “RIGHT!”
Nice.
What’s interesting is that my naturally born atheist kids — they had no “teaching” or indoctrination of any kind, no discussion of religion or god whatsoever — thought the family across the street was wacky. What? We’re going to burn forever if we don’t say we take Jesus into our hearts? What does that even mean? None of it made any sense to them, from the very idea of god to the specific details of this particular religious point of view.
So until someone plants the idea of the supernatural into children’s heads, they’re nonbelievers. It’s their natural state. (One might say it’s their god-given state. ;-)) There’s no need to indoctrinate or teach them not to believe in something.
//My biggest curiosity factor, however, is why do you care? So what if half the world believes that there is God, heaven and consequences for our actions? What benefit is there in converting others to atheism? What is the allure for someone like me to want to chuck up what the bible offers and take on an anti-God worldview? When we die, and our bodies rot as compost, does it matter to you whether those of us who believe in Heaven and Hell do nothing more than be human fertiliser?//
JJ answered this one pretty well. If only it were merely about what happens to us after we die. If only it were a difference of opinion about the afterlife. If only it mattered as a topic of discussion. But that’s just now how it is. It’s about the here and now because the superstitious always seem to want to impose their beliefs on the rest of us today, here on this planet, and codify those beliefs into the laws of our land. If *they’d* leave it alone and chalk it up to a difference in belief about the afterlife, then all would be well. But when there’s a constant battle over prayer in schools, teaching of religious doctrine in science classes, laws that discriminate against homosexuals, etc. etc. etc., then it’s not just a difference of opinion about what happens when our bodies are in the ground.
So while I don’t feel the need to “convert” anyone to atheism (not even my own kids), I do feel a need to fight against the constant bleeding of religion into our schools and laws. The separation of church and state is paramount.
[...] was accused of selling that [...]
[...] spent quite some time today writing up a response to the many comments left on this post. If you’re interested in what I’ve been thinking about today, give it a [...]