Bible Humper

That isn't what I was talking about, I was saying that there is no effort to nurture an emotional investment the way a church does.

Nothing I say is ever going to convince you that your religious beliefs are anything but the Truth, but think of all the rest of the religions. Surely you have noticed that despite the fact that your religion is the only real one, that the adherents of all the rest of the world's religions are utterly incapable of seeing this truth because of the emotional investment nurtured by their religious indoctrination.

We perceive the process your church uses to "educate the children" to be indistinguishable from the process that all of the churches of the other religions and sects use to "brainwash the children".

Perchance

I think that religion can be rewarding- but if it's taught as the ULTIMATE TRUTH it will get them into very big trouble. I teach college freshmen, and since I teach in a fairly conservative, almost-Bible-Belt area, these kids come in without any idea that other people who think differently than they do exist in the world (or at least it seems so). I've had many of them try to use the Bible as logical proof, on the same level as a scholarly book or journal article. When I point out that it doesn't make sense to someone of another faith, they give me horrified looks: "But it's the TRUTH!"

I don't actually mean to single out religion here; it's just the one I see most often. Someone who has never learned to cope with opinions and ideas different from her own- be it in religion, politics, philosophy, or anything else- is going to have a hell of a time. It's even worse with someone who's already convinced he's right. I've seen this in a professor of mine who declared loudly all the time that her parents were hippies. She was a radical feminist, to the point where she thought all men were misogynists and that Republicans were the same thing as Nazis.

Blindness can come from either side. But the Christian religion seems to have a history of not only teaching exclusive modes of thought, but that those exclusive modes of thought are unquestionable and the same as objective reality.

I don't know that I would call it 'brainwashing.' It doesn't always stick, and the teachers who teach that way don't (usually) have some sort of malevolent purpose. But the people who break free of it, or who can learn to question it without going through anguish, are rare.

-Perchance.

HelenM

Yes, this is what I was thinking - that realistically, young children are taught things in a very simplistic way in school as well as church.

But - on the other hand, as a teenager [in England] I was still being taught science in a simplistic manner and it was mostly a matter of - here are FACTS - learn them to get a good grade. Or so I recall.

There wasn't a great deal of encouragement to think for oneself. Or to think critically and question. (Especially not in maths where the teacher was upset with me a few times for pointing out she got something wrong )

Helen

HelenM

Well, in theory. In practice, children don't tend to question what authority figures say and it's clear that many of them like the approval they get from doing what the teacher says.

I don't see that as entirely non-emotional, myself.

And this is relevant...how?

I wasn't aware you'd ever been to my church...next time you're there and you've observed the teaching in the children's classes, come find me and we can discuss it

Helen

Bible Humper

The fact that children have emotional responses to the authority figures who teach them is irrelevant.

The emotional investment a christian has in his holy scriptures is obviously not shared with his math text book.

Well, I figured that there was no point beating around the bush so I cut to the chase.

You obviously aren't going to believe that your own religious beliefs have something to do with anything other than them being the absolute truth, so I put it in perspective for you by referring to the other religions.

Surely you've noticed that despite the fact that all of the other religions are based on myths, the adherents of those faiths for some reason fail to realise this, and the truth of christianity, even when presented with the Word!

How can this be so unless the adherents of these rival religions have emotional investments clouding their perceptions? If you have a different answer to this, go ahead and set me straight!

Do you envision the process of religious instruction in all the rival faiths to include the priest swinging a pendulum in front of the child's eyes in order to program his or her adherence?

I didn't think so! Put yourself in our heathen shoes for a sec now, how do we distinguish between the "brainwashing" going on in all the other faiths, and the "education" going on in yours?

Goliath

Helen,

The simple difference is that at school, your children are not (or atleast should not be) told to learn the material or suffer for all eternity in the flaming bowels of hell.

Sincerely,

Goliath

agapeo

And you really think all Christians have this approach? I think not! Speaking from experience. Your comments IMO are a prime example of brainwashing at it's finest if that is what you teach your children about Christians. If you fail to teach your children that not all Christians teach this viewpoint how is that any different than Christians who do advocate this approach?

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: agapeo ]</p>

DigitalDruid

Perchance, that's an interesting point. I am now reading a book ("Heavenly Errors" -by Neil F. Comins)which is about astronomy-related common misconceptions.In the book Comins mentions his experience of teaching introductory Astronomy to students with fundamental Christian background. His experience is akin to yours. It seems after learning about astronomy and cosmology these students exhibit three kinds of attitudes:

The first group of students feel much conflicted at the end of the course and express great anger towards Comins. They continue to hold biblical views.

The second group feels conflicted too but they are now angry with their preachers, ministers, and parents for feeding them (what they now consider) unverified stuff for so long.

The third group assimilates all the stuff taught in class, does well in tests, but treat what they learnt as just an alternative view! I guess they avoid conflict.

Also I'd never forget one scene from the four-part series on evolution on public TV last year. A son returns home for vacation after completing his first course on geology. The young man is so conflicted over what his parents and church hold as truth about the age and creation of the earth that you can almost feel the tension around their dinner table. The son explains why he thinks geology is right; but the father still thinks the bible is right. The mother looks on alarmed at this duel between father and son.

Often we think of conflict between biblical view and that of science as academic. But I think it causes some serious difficulties for some young people.

Buffman

HelenM

I wish there were a direct, simple, answer to your opening query. Unfortunately I know of none that will receive universal support. The issue might be framed thusly: "What Is the Purpose of Education?" The only honest answer I have is, "Well, that all depends on what someone needs to learn in order to survive." Here are some thoughts of those who have given this issue some very serious consideration. The first two are Thomas Jefferson's. They are followed by one where two men view "history" as a key to successful education. IMO, they make several valuable observations which I have extracted. Finally, I have included two URLs that express a more religious perspective to the purpose of education since I suspect it is that view in which you find a potential conflict with the teachings that are more apt to be found in most public schools.

<a href="http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1350.htm" target="_blank">http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1350.htm</a>

<a href="http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1370.htm" target="_blank">http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1370.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.studentsfriend.com/onhist/educat.html" target="_blank">http://www.studentsfriend.com/onhist/educat.html</a>

(Extract)
Few would dispute the proposition that the primary purpose of schooling is to prepare students to function effectively in the future, and thereby to assist society to function effectively as well. This purpose is accomplished through focused learning, or, as Jacques Barzun put it, "the removal of ignorance."

...In his book Meaning Over Memory, noted history educator and author Peter N. Stearns put it this way, "The purpose of education is to provide understanding." He suggests we adopt"...curricula that would promote understanding rather than overwhelming critical thought with memorization..."**

...Thus, with the help of Professors Barzun and Stearns, we can identify three basic principles of schooling. It should:
-prepare students for the future
-focus on meaningful learning
-be realistic in its expectations
These guidelines provide a useful test against which any educational content or method may be measured.
(End extract)


<a href="http://homeschoolunitstudies.com/TG/Philosophy/07primary.htm" target="_blank">http://homeschoolunitstudies.com/TG/Philosophy/07primary.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.christianparents.com/edpurpos.htm" target="_blank">http://www.christianparents.com/edpurpos.htm</a>

Helen, in the world of today, this is a very complex subject. That is why I attempted to reduce the subject to its most basic common denominator...SURVIVAL. Now I will add my non-supernaturalist caveat..."Survival in this natural world." The world of the here and now. I believe we must start at that primitive level in order to better understand how we have arrived at what we currently believe is the necessary education for our children.

I also believe that it important to understand how the brain-mind interface evolves over a human lifetime. How do genetics and environment condition that interface? When I say environment, I am talking about socialization and culture as well as experience and formal training. Naturally that issue would lead us into a discussion of "family values, morality and ethics." And that would bring us round-robin back to your opening post...the educational differences between church and state. "What happens when they are in educational conflict?"

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Goliath

agapeo,

And where did I say that all xians have this approach? Some certainly do, and it wouldn't surprise me if a very large number did. But nowhere did I claim that all xians did this.

Looking back on things, my original post in this thread should've read: "The simple difference is that at school, your children are not (or atleast should not be) told to learn the material or suffer for all eternity in the flaming bowels of hell, whereas that need not be the case at church."

So please, pretty please, with sugar on top, stop stuffing words in my mouth. Ok?

Oh, and I do not have children. To paraphrase Samuel L. Jackson in The Long Kiss Goodnight, "When you make an assumption like that, you make an ass out of you and umption!"

Sincerely,

Goliath