This is probably the most controversial topic
of the moment, since particularly in America the Creationists have been making a
strong bid to force their world view into the curriculum. Sadly, the concept of
Intelligent Design has been used as a cover for Creationism, which gives the
latter an undeserved shade of scientific respectability and the former an
undeserved shade of religious fundamentalism. ID is the basis of the case
against atheism, but it is no more conclusive as an argument for the
Creationists' God than Darwin's theory of natural selection is conclusive as an
argument for the atheists' god of chance.
In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins argues against the religious indoctrination
of children (though one suspects that he would have no problem if they underwent
anti-religious indoctrination). Few would dispute Wordsworth's assertion that
"the Child is Father of the Man", especially in the light of the Jesuits'
notorious educational slogan ("Give me a child until he is seven, and I will
give you the man"). But without an Orwellian thought-police force, you cannot
prevent parents from passing on their beliefs. Indeed if you tried to do so,
where would state interference end? The histories of Nazi Germany, the Soviet
Union and countless lesser dictatorships give us the horrendous answer to that
question. Besides, even in a comparatively free society, any single-track
approach to the so-called "deeper" questions could lead to conflict within the
home if the domestic belief is different from that taught in the educational
establishment. I am not talking here just of religious education. If a child is
told at home that there is a loving God looking after him, and at school he/she
is told that there is no such thing as God, and science alone can give us
reliable answers, the result will be confusion and conflict rather than
enlightenment and harmony.
This is where agnosticism comes into its own. Until there is universal
recognition of the fact that no-one can claim a monopoly on truth, confusion and
conflict are inevitable. Schoolteachers should not take it upon themselves to
inculcate young minds with any one version, no matter how sure they may be of
their particular beliefs. If religious indoctrination is a sin, so too is
anti-religious indoctrination. Objectivity is all.
In view of the current dispute, however, let us be specific. The theory of
evolution through natural selection is pure science. It is based on scientific
observation, and is argued from a scientific standpoint. It should therefore be
taught in science lessons. However, Creationism, Intelligent Design and atheism
are emphatically not based on science and therefore should not be part of the
science curriculum. If the question of origin comes up in class, no teacher has
the right to push forward one of these faiths to the exclusion of the others.
The answer has to be all or nothing: theist, atheist, and agnostic. When the
child has been given all the information, it can mull things over for itself
and, in due course, come to its own conclusions.
What about religious education as such? Again, there has to be objectivity. A
single faith establishment can only breed prejudice, ignorance and intolerance.
Religious instruction should encompass at least the most widespread faiths,
including those that are not designer-orientated, such as Buddhism (the quest
for human enlightenment) and atheism (belief in chance). But above all, what
should be emphasized are those aspects of faith and religion that have common
ground and that will lead young people to a greater understanding of human
worth. Most religious systems encompass some form of social code that condemns
sin and vice, and advocates neighbourly love and considerateness. The Jews have
their Ten Commandments (Exodus 20: 2-17), and Jesus, when asked which was the
greatest of these, picked two: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart" etc., and "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Matthew 22, 37-39).
The Qu'ran is filled with similar precepts: "You shall not serve any save God;
and to be good to parents, and the near kinsman, and to orphans, and to the
needy; and speak good to men, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms" (The
Cow, 75-80). The most famous Hindu of modern times, Mahatma Gandhi, preached and
practised non-violence, self-sacrifice and reconciliation. For Buddhists, the
path to Enlightenment entails "right views; right aspirations; right speech;
right conduct; right livelihood; right effort; right mindfulness; and right
contemplation" (from the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta). And let us conclude our
section on religious education with a quotation from Richard Dawkins, himself
quoting from an atheist website : "Do not do to others what you would not want
them to do to you. In all things strive to do no harm. Treat your fellow human
beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty,
faithfulness and respect. Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering
justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly
regretted. Live life with a sense of joy and wonder" (http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/new10c.html).
3859 Postings in 258 Threads, 36 registered users, 7 users online (0 registered, 7 guests)
RSS Feed