Monday, March 27, 2006

"Education is the answer!"

Aaron Kinney said:

“Note that I never claimed a direct causal link between religiosity and a well-behaved society. I would like to clear up and misconceptions you may have about my statements and claim right now that the causal force in my argument is not religion, but education. More education = better social behavior and less religion.”

i) This is an assertion, not an argument. And a very value-laden assertion at that.

ii) Is Aaron operating with a blank slate view of human nature according to which a human being is a lump of silly putty which education can shape anyway it pleases?

It doesn’t take young parents very long to learn that their children have a mind of their own.

iii) Education is a form of social conditioning, so it tends to make students think alike and act alike, within certain parameters—like gender differences.

Whether that makes them better behaved depends on your idea of right and wrong, and not on social conformity, per se.

The Hitler Youth were very “well-behaved.” The Spartans were very “well-behaved.” The Kamikazes were very “well-behaved.”

They did what they were told. They didn’t buck the system. But whether that comports with social morality is a different question entirely.

iv) Christians believe in education too—Christian education.

“So I have acknowledged your point, I have agreed with you that religion and good social behavior are correlative, and I have also shown that my argument is still valid regardless by providing a sufficient causal factor: education.”

Except that, up until now, he hasn’t shown any such thing. Now he’s feeding nickels and dimes into an expired parking meter.

“Enjoy this link:

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm”

This is from a tendentious Wikipedia article which is endlessly anthologized on atheistic websites.

Is this Aaron’s idea of scholarship?

Let’s note a couple of elementary flaws in the article:

i) It equivocates over the definition of I.Q. Does this have reference to innate intelligence?

To say that unbelievers are generally smarter than believers suggests that unbelievers disbelieve because they are naturally smarter than believers. They are much too smart to be taken in by anything as dumb as Christianity.

Or are we correlating I.Q. with one’s educational level? What does an I.Q. test test? It’s a test of your ability to take a test. Obviously, the better educated you are, the more experience you have at test-taking.

If that is the operating definition, then even if there’s a negative correlation between I.Q. and religiosity, education, and not innate intelligence, is the differential factor.

And all that proves is that a secular education has a secularizing influence on the student body.

ii) Then there’s the question of whether the scientific community is less religious than other demographic groups.

Suppose this were the case? So what?

iii) Does a degree in science make you competent to evaluate religious claims? Are religious claims primarily scientific claims?

iv) It may also reflect the groupthink of any subculture.

Aaron’s nickels and dimes are wooden nickels and dimes.

“Furthermore, even the correlation between religion and good social behavior are damaging to Christianity. That is because Christianity claims that it is in itself a causal force for good social behavior, and this has been shown not to be the case.”

In what sense does Christianity claim to be a force for the good?

i) It’s principally a force for those good of those who believe it and act accordingly.

ii) Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Christians are far less ethical than unbelievers.

But don’t unbelievers tell us that the doctrine of hell was invented to make believers behave themselves out of fear of future retribution?

“I also think its funny that Christianity claims to be a positive causal force for society, and when the evidence is presented that refutes that, the Chrsitians come running up to say "its only correlative and there is no causal connection!" Are they unaware that they are contradicting the claims of their theology within their very defense against this evidence?”

Aaron presented no evidence up to now. And the only evidence he has now presented is a shoddy Wikipedia knock-off.

“But in an atheistic universe, humans are not "mere" humans, nor are animals "mere" animals. Instead, they are are all glorious beautiful living entities, in control of their own destiny.”

How, according to a secular outlook, are human beings in control of their own destiny? Are they not creatures of biological determinism and social conditioning?

“And celebrating the wonderful priceless experience that is life. They serve themselves and fulfill their OWN values the best they can, instead of fulfilling the values of an all-seeing all-knowing all-powerful big brother/God who exerts total slave ownership of everyone and everything.”

What is the source and standard of moral norms in a mindless and aimless universe?

“In a theistic universe, humans are "mere" humans. They are slaves.”

Why wouldn’t finite human beings be subservient to an omniscient God? Just as a two-year-old is subservient to his parents.

“In an atheistic universe, humans are glorious humans. They are their own masters.”

This sort of bravado bears no relationship with a secular worldview.

“Christianity, by its own doctrine, is doomed to lose the argument from self-esteem on every level, and from every angle.”

Is self-esteem Aaron’s criterion of truth?

7 comments:

  1. "Education is a form of social conditioning, so it tends to make students think alike and act alike, within certain parameters—like gender differences."

    That's an assertion, not an argument.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here's the mission statement of the NEA. Its mission is to indoctrinate students in the political views of the liberal establishment:

    "To fulfill the promise of a democratic society, the National Education Association shall promote the cause of quality public education and advance the profession of education; expand the rights and further the interest of educational employees; and advocate human, civil, and economic rights for all."

    http://www.nea.org/aboutnea/mission.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. So, how does the general conclusion that "education is a form of social conditioning" follow from one specific organization's designs to use it as such?

    Arguments, Steve! Don't you think you need to present arguments?

    ReplyDelete
  4. According to this atheist the Nietzscheian and the Orwellian have merged. Or, maybe one side of his brain isn't talking to the other...

    ReplyDelete
  5. ted said: "That's an assertion, not an argument."

    Yes, but this is an argument (right underneath.): The Hitler Youth [,]... Spartans [, and ] ... Kamikazes were very “well-behaved.”

    ted said: "So, how does the general conclusion that "education is a form of social conditioning" follow from one specific organization's designs to use it as such?"

    It would point that at least a segment of the population that Kinney would want to extol (by being "educated") see education as a means to indoctrinate. Thus a consistency of outcome is not necessarily remarkable. It depends on whether the system seeks a uniform outcome.

    But here's where your point in regard to Kinney really falls apart. Apparently, right now, we have free will. If we have free will and need more education, some--of their own free will--have not chosen education as much as a the planners would like. In that situation you cannot have a) more education, and b) totally free will.

    I know what the answer is, educating people that they need more education! Right? Because education is the magic bullet! Right?

    Look at Education as it exists: Apparently, it is the way you can tell children that they are masters of their own fate while keeping them off the playgrounds and scolding them for looking out the window, and not paying attention to their education. It is a way you can have a law compelling attendance and tell them that freedom and virtue are totally harmonious goals, despite what the old, stodgy people think.

    We have "Constitutional rulings" on what can be read for 10 minutes in schools or what stickers can be put on textbooks, because the content of education is so freeform and lacks any definite imprint in the lives of our children except that they emerge "educated".

    Also, how is "education" in the USA, suddenly not going to bear the stamp of the NEA?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve, you mentioned that Aaron said:
    “And celebrating the wonderful priceless experience that is life. They serve themselves and fulfill their OWN values the best they can, instead of fulfilling the values of an all-seeing all-knowing all-powerful big brother/God who exerts total slave ownership of everyone and everything.”

    How does "serv[ing] themselves and fulfill[ing] their OWN values" not lead to anarchy? If this were adopted, how could society exist?

    Self-esteem is found in how you view yourself, but also rooted in how you identify yourself. As a Christian, I endeavor to find my identity in Christ (and how He sees me), and not what others (or even I) may think of me. Any person finds his or her identity in something or someone; even the person fulfilling his own values is looking to something or someone as a measure! If the "utopia" above were present, self-interest would dominate and no one would need to care for anyone else. I mean, parents could simply abandon their children at birth as mother turtles do after laying their eggs on the shore. Who would we be to judge them?

    As much as the world tries to trumpet individualism, the more it seems folks want to be involved in a group of some sort...to do what? To find their identity, to belong to something. As Donne said, "no man is an island." Just my two cents, and sorry if off topic.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete