Is "secular" education possible?

[nmoira]

Perhaps. But we all believe things that others tell us, simply relying upon the warrant of their credibility. If we find a credible source, we cast ourselves upon it, even being unable to authenticate it.

But you specifically cited that as an "authenticating" point.

 

My point is that faith is essential to knowledge itself. How then can education be "secular" if its very nature requires faith in an outside authority? Again, this implies that our choice is not "secular ed or religious ed?" but, rather "which religious ed?"

The word "faith" in a theological context means "The spiritual apprehension of divine truth or intangible realities" (as per my trusty Oxford). You are taking the broadest definition of faith -- confidence, belief; especially, but not necessarily without evidence or proof -- and using it in place of a very narrow one.

 

Not all "outside authorities" are part of an "intangible reality." You need to clearly define the terms you are using for debate to be useful, unless the point is to keep the discussion drifting. ;)

[genie]

Yikes! What similarities are you thinking of? As I said above, all the pagan religions "of the time" taught the impossibility of a man raising from the dead.

 

Christianity holds similarities to Mithraism, the cult of Dionysis, the Imperial cult, and probably many more.

 

Are you implying that you've studied every single pagan religion that was around at that time?

[nmoira]

 

What kinds of tests can you contrive to prove Lincoln was the 16th president?

Extensive contemporary historical accounts. His own writings. Photographs. Federal records. Military records. Death certificate. I suggest you read the introductory chapter of any history book (even SOTW) if you need a refresher as to how historians go about their business.

[genie]

Extensive contemporary historical accounts. His own writings. Photographs. Federal records. Military records. Death certificate. I suggest you read the introductory chapter of any history book (even SOTW) if you need a refresher as to how historians go about their business.

 

Also, in contrast to the writing about Jesus, the historical accounts of Lincoln do not describe events that no longer occur or are otherwise considered to be miracles. Is it not more logical to believe in believable events than it is to believe in unbelievable events?

[rowan-tree]

Extensive contemporary historical accounts. His own writings. Photographs. Federal records. Military records. Death certificate. I suggest you read the introductory chapter of any history book (even SOTW) if you need a refresher as to how historians go about their business.

 

Thus, my point. Ancient historians went about their business, too, and in much the same way. You accept the fact of Abe's presidency based on authenticating documentation. You find your sources credible. It's an act of faith. You're not asking anyone to prove it to you or wishing for a time machine. What's the difference between that and any other religion's followers?

 

Sorry to leave with a question hanging. I'll leave you the last word and have a look tomorrow. 'Night.:seeya:

[genie]

What's the difference between that and any other religion's followers?

 

Religion requires belief in a deity.

[nmoira]

Thus, my point. Ancient historians went about their business, too, and in much the same way. You accept the fact of Abe's presidency based on authenticating documentation. You find your sources credible. It's an act of faith. You're not asking anyone to prove it to you or wishing for a time machine. What's the difference between that and any other religion's followers?

 

Dunno... lesseee... Supernatural <---> not supernatural. See my post above about the definition of faith, and please clearly define how what you mean by the word.

 

And BTW, contemporary historians take ancient historians and other evidence with a grain of salt. So much depends on who commissioned the work...

[nmoira]

Bumping.

 

rowan-tree seems to have abandoned this thread without returning to at least clarify her working definitions of faith and religion. Or why the faith of others is, in and of itself, authenticating wrt to Christianity.

[rowan-tree]

Bumping.

 

rowan-tree seems to have abandoned this thread without returning to at least clarify her working definitions of faith and religion. Or why the faith of others is, in and of itself, authenticating wrt to Christianity.

 

Sorry, I've been tied up. Alright, back to it.

 

My point is that everything we believe requires faith. Faith being the "inclination to believe." I get this understanding from the philosopher, Alvin Plantiga who wrote a very readable epistemology "Warrant: The Current Debate."

 

My point with Lincoln was that, the same warrants one has for believing in the existence and the actions of anyone for whom you have no direct contact is the same as for any other. Therefore, to believe in the persons, acts and events of Jesus requires no different sort of faith than belief in Lincoln.

 

The faith is not of a different order or nature, faith being fundamental to any knowledge (again - to know anything at all you have to believe it). The difference is not that faith is required, but that we are inclined to believe/disbelieve something based on the demands it places upon us.

 

Christianity is rejected, not because its claims are implausible, but rather, because, of the implications for one's life believing the claim that Jesus rose from the dead (and is therefore King of humanity and requires every human's allegiance) requires of that person.

 

That clearer?

[nmoira]

My point is that everything we believe requires faith. Faith being the "inclination to believe." I get this understanding from the philosopher, Alvin Plantiga who wrote a very readable epistemology "Warrant: The Current Debate."

 

My point with Lincoln was that, the same warrants one has for believing in the existence and the actions of anyone for whom you have no direct contact is the same as for any other. Therefore, to believe in the persons, acts and events of Jesus requires no different sort of faith than belief in Lincoln.

 

The faith is not of a different order or nature, faith being fundamental to any knowledge (again - to know anything at all you have to believe it). The difference is not that faith is required, but that we are inclined to believe/disbelieve something based on the demands it places upon us.

But you have chosen to equate faith with religion, as per the OP. They are not the same thing. You specifically asked if education could be "non-religious" not if education at some level requires faith in an authority (teacher, text book writer, primary sources, etc.). Education can be non-religious yet at some level still require faith. I think a better work, however, is trust. We dig down far enough until we either trust our sources, or decided that we cannot be certain.

 

Christianity is rejected, not because its claims are implausible, but rather, because, of the implications for one's life believing the claim that Jesus rose from the dead (and is therefore King of humanity and requires every human's allegiance) requires of that person.

Are you speaking for all non-Christians? Christianity's claims are implausible (in fact supernatural) by definition, as you've already pointed out... which is why it is a religion and requires faith to believe. It is arrogant to claim that Christianity is "rejected" solely because its life changing implications are just too much for some people. Try Jainism if you want to talk life changing implications.

[rowan-tree]

But you have chosen to equate faith with religion, as per the OP. They are not the same thing. You specifically asked if education could be "non-religious" not if education at some level requires faith in an authority (teacher, text book writer, primary sources, etc.). Education can be non-religious yet at some level still require faith. I think a better work, however, is trust. We dig down far enough until we either trust our sources, or decided that we cannot be certain.

 

 

I think that the "digging down deep" part is an act of faith as well, i.e., faith in your own rational process. I think Nietzsche and others has shown that such an approach logically ends in skepticism. I personally, am a commonsense realist and don't think rationalism, with its system of internal verification, has gotten us very far.

 

At bottom, we rely upon external testimony as the foundation of our knowledge, and although we employ our rational faculties of discernment, we incorporate each foundational axiom as an act of faith.

 

This is trusting in an outside authority, and we do it with religious zeal. This is why I don't think education can be non-religious, strictly speaking. Rather, it's a question of which religion.

 

 

It is arrogant to claim that Christianity is "rejected" solely because its life changing implications are just too much for some people. Try Jainism if you want to talk life changing implications.

 

Am I be arrogant again simply because I believe what I'm saying to be true? We all have theories of why this or that thing is the way that it is. We all have theories by which we understand the nature of the world and humans around us. Such theories do not make one arrogant.

 

What can be known about God has been clearly demonstrated in the world - His divine nature and his godhead, because He has testified of these things through His creation. Men know these things in their hearts. They can't help but be struck with the majesty of creation and even of their own fearsome and wonderful constitution, understanding themselves to be created and, therefore, accountable to their Creator for the way they live their lives. But they reject this knowledge and are not thankful in their hearts, and therefore rather than becoming wise, they become fools.

 

This is what Christians believe. Does that make them arrogant? No more arrogant, I would say, than anyone who claims to be right about their beliefs and who formulates reasons why others believe what they believe.

[nmoira]

I think that the "digging down deep" part is an act of faith as well, i.e., faith in your own rational process. I think Nietzsche and others has shown that such an approach logically ends in skepticism. I personally, am a commonsense realist and don't think rationalism, with its system of internal verification, has gotten us very far.

 

At bottom, we rely upon external testimony as the foundation of our knowledge, and although we employ our rational faculties of discernment, we incorporate each foundational axiom as an act of faith.

 

This is trusting in an outside authority, and we do it with religious zeal. This is why I don't think education can be non-religious, strictly speaking. Rather, it's a question of which religion.

You're dancing around the question. "Religious zeal" is not religion. Trust in an outside authority is not religion, unless it's a religious authority. You're choosing to define religion as synonymous with faith or trust in any authority. If you choose to define religion in such a broad way, then why did you even bother asking the original question? Everything would be religion, which would make "religion" rather meaningless.

 

Am I be arrogant again simply because I believe what I'm saying to be true? We all have theories of why this or that thing is the way that it is. We all have theories by which we understand the nature of the world and humans around us. Such theories do not make one arrogant.

It is arrogant not because of what you believe, but rather because you state as fact why others don't.

 

This is what Christians believe. Does that make them arrogant? No more arrogant, I would say, than anyone who claims to be right about their beliefs and who formulates reasons why others believe what they believe.

You are the only one in this thread speaking for those who don't share your beliefs. I merely said that Christianity is a religion and requires faith. I hardly think that's arrogant, offensive, or objectionable.

[rowan-tree]

Trust in an outside authority is not religion, unless it's a religious authority. You're choosing to define religion as synonymous with faith or trust in any authority. If you choose to define religion in such a broad way, then why did you even bother asking the original question? Everything would be religion, which would make "religion" rather meaningless.

 

 

Well, that is the question. I think that trust in an outside authority is a religious act, although I recognized, as you point out, that this is not the generally understood definition of religion - which is normally associated with something institutionalized. But the real difference, I'm saying, between the groups of people who adhere to a set of beliefs and the individuals who choose another belief-set, is not merely that the former can be called a "religion" and the other not, but that the former is a collective while the latter is an individual. The faith demands upon the members of a religion are the same essential faith demands upon the individuals who aren't part of a particular group (is that possible?) The belief in the non-supernatural is just as much a 'religious' belief as the belief in the supernatural. Both require faith. The curriculum an educator chooses to impose, then, cannot be neutral or without an interpretive framework. That interpretive framework (worldview, as our Catholic friend, above, called it) has so much in common with any framework an organized religion suggests, that I would identify it as its own religion. Either way, you have to believe in things that can't be seen.

 

It is arrogant not because of what you believe, but rather because you state as fact why others don't.

 

Again, I'd say that to formulate an understanding as to why others don't believe something is essentially the same as atheists suggesting that Christians believe what they do because it "comforts" them - as someone in this thread suggested. Why didn't you think that was arrogant?

 

 

You are the only one in this thread speaking for those who don't share your beliefs.

 

I'm the only one speaking, and I may be one of the few who hold this position, but, historically, this has been the Christian position, and I think you can see from Romans 1:18-22 (which I paraphrased) that my position is consistent within the Christian faith.

 

I merely said that Christianity is a religion and requires faith. I hardly think that's arrogant, offensive, or objectionable.

 

No, I wasn't saying you were being arrogant. And, yes, Christianity requires faith in a peculiar way, i.e., it requires faith in a person - not just that He exists, but more - the requirement to place our trust in Him and to be loyal to Him.

 

My distinctions had more to do with the aspects and qualities of religion that are concerned with the nature of knowledge, and since education is concerned with knowledge, I saw the two (religion and education) as related.

[nmoira]

Well, that is the question. I think that trust in an outside authority is a religious act, although I recognized, as you point out, that this is not the generally understood definition of religion - which is normally associated with something institutionalized. But the real difference, I'm saying, between the groups of people who adhere to a set of beliefs and the individuals who choose another belief-set, is not merely that the former can be called a "religion" and the other not, but that the former is a collective while the latter is an individual. The faith demands upon the members of a religion are the same essential faith demands upon the individuals who aren't part of a particular group (is that possible?) The belief in the non-supernatural is just as much a 'religious' belief as the belief in the supernatural. Both require faith. The curriculum an educator chooses to impose, then, cannot be neutral or without an interpretive framework. That interpretive framework (worldview, as our Catholic friend, above, called it) has so much in common with any framework an organized religion suggests, that I would identify it as its own religion. Either way, you have to believe in things that can't be seen.

Which makes your OP either aimless or disingenuous.

 

Again, I'd say that to formulate an understanding as to why others don't believe something is essentially the same as atheists suggesting that Christians believe what they do because it "comforts" them - as someone in this thread suggested. Why didn't you think that was arrogant?

Don't you mean to ask me if I find that to be arrogant? That is not something that I would say out of the blue on an multiple faith board, no matter what my private belief.

 

I'm the only one speaking, and I may be one of the few who hold this position, but, historically, this has been the Christian position, and I think you can see from Romans 1:18-22 (which I paraphrased) that my position is consistent within the Christian faith.

Couching phrases in "I language" goes a long way... especially in a diverse forum. This is not an explicitly Christian forum, and we are asked to respect others holding different beliefs.

 

And, yes, Christianity requires faith in a peculiar way, i.e., it requires faith in a person - not just that He exists, but more - the requirement to place our trust in Him and to be loyal to Him.

Yeah, I'm sure there are no other religions like that.:001_rolleyes:

[rowan-tree]

Which makes your OP either aimless or disingenuous.

 

This comment reveals you've forgotten the content of the OP, where I asserted my position. If you think it is disingenuous to assert a position as a means to engage other folk who both agree and disagree, then I suppose you can add that to the list of things I've been labeled during my first short week of posting. I happened to have benefited from this discussion.

 

Don't you mean to ask me if I find that to be arrogant? That is not something that I would say out of the blue on an multiple faith board, no matter what my private belief.

 

 

You wouldn't? And yet that's exactly what you did.

 

Couching phrases in "I language" goes a long way... especially in a diverse forum. This is not an explicitly Christian forum, and we are asked to respect others holding different beliefs.

 

It goes without saying that when I post something, it's what I believe. If others disagree that I represent them, they have the liberty to speak up, as they often do.

 

Yeah, I'm sure there are no other religions like that.:001_rolleyes:

 

I wasn't making a distinction between Xy and other religions on that point. I was making a distinction btn Xy and secularism. However, the more I think about it, the less inclined I am to hold it. Every position requires loyalties and personal allegiances.

 

What annoys me is the claim that secularism is somehow "neutral" and therefore a more appropriate form of education than a religious education. Neutral does not equal right. And it certainly does not equal "rational."

[rowan-tree]

Yeah, I'm sure there are no other religions like that.:001_rolleyes:

 

This is pretty much the only statement of substance in your last post. I think that means we're peetering out. Thanks for sticking with it this far. I think I'm done for now on this topic. Maybe we can give it a go later. So, if you want the last word, go for it.

[Carrie12345]

 

What annoys me is the claim that secularism is somehow "neutral" and therefore a more appropriate form of education than a religious education. Neutral does not equal right. And it certainly does not equal "rational."

 

According to...?

 

A secular education is not appropriate for everyone.

A religious education is not appropriate for everyone.

 

A secular education is right for *my* children.

Everyone else can do as they see fit.

 

As far as public school goes, I feel very strongly that secular education is a must. My Muslim/Hindu/Jewish/Christian/agnostic neighbors have every right to send their children to a school they fund, without having to be concerned that the beliefs of their small children will go challenged by adults in positions of authority.

 

That said, I'm extremely grateful to have the opportunity to withdraw my child (with agnostic parents, one with a Jewish background) from the public school where he somehow came home with a belief in Jesus Christ as our savior.:001_huh: