"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?