Teaching religion - “American education proceeds on the assumption that God is either dead or

[BridgeTheGap]

irrelevant."

So argues philosopher Warren Nord in a provocative new book, Does God Make a Difference?, published by Oxford University Press.
Conventional wisdom in public schools and universities, Nord claims, is that students “can learn everything they need to know about any subject (other than history and literature) without learning anything about religion.” Students are uncritically taught to make sense of the world in “exclusively secular categories.” And that makes public education “superficial, illiberal, and unconstitutional.”
Before saying more about Nord's arguments, I disclose my longtime friendship with him — and my admiration for his extraordinary contributions to the field of religion and education.
Is Nord right? On the charges of “superficial and illiberal,” I would agree. Ignoring the role of religion in history and society — and, more deeply, ignoring religious ways of understanding the world — deprives students of what used to be called a broad or liberal education. Education, Nord rightly argues, should address the “big questions” about meaning and morality — questions that cannot be properly considered without giving religion a place at the curriculum table.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20101207/OPINION04/312070016/1054/OPINION/Charles+C.+Haynes+%7C+Teaching+religion

[stopbush]

1. Who in the hell ignores religion in schools?

What a red herring. I have kids in school in liberal CA, and I can assure you they learn all about religions, and not just Xianity. They learn about the religions that were around long before Xianity showed up, and they tend to see Xianity in the context of other religions that make supernatural claims.

And, yes, that is pretty much restricted to history, literature and the arts.

Is the author suggesting that religion needs to enter into the math room or science classes? Last I looked, god wasn't necessary to solve 2+2. Last I looked god wasn't required as part of the explanation for why chemistry works the way it does.

Keeping god out of certain subjects is hardly “superficial, illiberal, and unconstitutional.” It's just common sense.

[rurallib]

2. 'Ok children what is X in the equation X+4 = 7

please pray for an answer from GOD.

[AlecBGreen]

4. yup

I teach high school and religion is right where it belongs: in social studies. It pops up in my science class and I tell the kids "The state of Virginia says the Earth is 4.5 billion years old." If any students want to discuss science AND religion, I tell them to see me after school.

"...God wasn't necessary to solve 2+2. Last I looked god wasn't required as part of the explanation for why chemistry works the way it does.

Keeping god out of certain subjects is hardly “superficial, illiberal, and unconstitutional.” It's just common sense. :thumbsup:

[trotsky]

5. How old do YOU think the earth is? n/t

[AlecBGreen]

6. 4.5 billion years

give or take a few

[trotsky]

9. So if a student sees you after class, do you tell them something different? n/t

[AlecBGreen]

11. no

n/t

[cleanhippie]

7. Really?

"The state of Virginia says the Earth is 4.5 billion years old." Really? You actually said these words in a SCIENCE class? REALLY?


If you actually said that, without explaining yourself, then you are no science teacher at all.


Did you explain that the State of Virginia doesn't state that, but that the State of Virginia accepts the scientific findings as the most plausible explanation and as such, decided to include those scientific findings in the curriculum? Did you also explain HOW science has determined that the age of the earth if 4.5 billion years old?

If you failed to do what a science teacher is SUPPOSED to do, you are doing a great disservice to the children in your charge, and certainly do not deserve the title "science teacher."

[trotsky]

8. Heh, evidently you raised the same eyebrow I did. n/t

[AlecBGreen]

10. get a grip

Yeah, in a high-school Earth Science class my single and only mention of the age of the earth is the sentence you quoted and nothing more. I provide no data to back up those claims, I provoke no discussion on the matter, and I ask for no opinion on what the students think. I just say The State Says Its So and Lets Move On.

In the future it would be good to ASK what someone does before jumping to so many (faulty) conclusions as you just have done. Epic fail dude.

[USArmyBJJ]

12. But why do you word it that way?

Do you honestly word every proposition in class as, "The State says so and so..." instead of just "This is so and so..." Why say "The State says the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old," instead of, "The Earth is around 4.5 billion years old?"

[AlecBGreen]

17. here is when/why I phrase it that way

in the order of topics I teach, the age of the earth is the first 'controversial' topic we reach. When I say 'controversial' I mean its the first topic where students who have a conservative, fundamentalist religious upbringing disagree with what I (and the state curriculum) holds to be true.

We discuss the data that supports the hypothesis of a 4.5 billion year old earth: fossil evidence, tectonic plate evidence & radiometric dating. Some students (usually one or two per semester) will object and say "I dont believe that." To that I say fine, thats what science is all about: you have to weigh the data in support of and against any hypothesis. If your religious beliefs trump what modern science tell us, fine, thats your right. I disagree and I think the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and most importantly, because you (the student) will be judged by the state standards, the Commonwealth of Virginia says the earth is that old. You can believe what you want, but on the test there is only one right answer.

The other topics which tend to bring out strong objections are the formation of the solar system & earth, and the creation of the universe. In both instances I repeat what I said earlier: "Here is the evidence, weigh it and decide for yourself. However you must know that this is what is true according to Board of Education of Virginia and thus, what you are expected to answer on a test."

Personally, I believe everything I teach: the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the earth formed when a large nebula collapsed & condensed, and the universe was formed ~14 billion years ago by what scientists refer to as the Big Bang. I use the phrase mentioned before (This is whats true according to the State...) so that the students know I am comfortable with entertaining and discussing a wide range of possibilities but they must know what they are expected to answer. Ive found that there is no quicker way to shut a person down from the learning process than to mock or ridicule what they believe, regardless of how I feel about it.

Does all this make sense?

[USArmyBJJ]

19. I can see your point

In the sense that I'm not a teacher and certainly not a teacher in a conservative place where people believe in absurd things like young earth creationism. I would hope that you advocate very strongly for the scientific perspective on these issues, but I can understand why some compromises might need to be made in order to avoid crazy people ;)

[cleanhippie]

21. But the only "controversy" is the one you make happen.

As a science teacher, its not really your job to discuss or compare a religious belief at all. As a science teacher, I would think that you would teach actual science, and if/when a fundie student raises a flag you would just say "this is science class and we only apply science in science class." Viola, no controversy.
Now I know that is being a bit simplistic, but the conversation really doesn't need to be much more in-depth than that, does it? Why even make a religious claim with no basis in science, an issue or controversy at all?

[AlecBGreen]

22. that is what I do

I have said that ( "this is science class and we only apply science in science class.") almost verbatim. The students know where I stand: I accept the data and agree with the scientific explanation for all those issues like the age & formation of the earth, the creation of the universe, etc. My PRIMARY role (according to the state) is to make sure the students 'learn the facts.' The other great professional responsibility is to generate critical thinking skills, observational skills, and the ability to form hypotheses. Personally I hope to inspire them to fall in love with the natural world and appreciate just how fortunate we are to live on this great planet. That, and help them transition from adolescence to adulthood. Its a full time job :)

"As a science teacher, its not really your job to discuss or compare a religious belief at all." I agree, and I do not discuss religion at all, period. The ONLY time I intentionally bring it up is when we discuss the age of the earth or (when I teach biology) evolution. I preface our day's discussion with the following: "What we are discussing might run counter to what some of you believe. We are not here to discuss belief, we are here to examine data and weigh its merits." I do this to pre-empt disruption and let everyone know where I stand on the issue.

"Now I know that is being a bit simplistic, but the conversation really doesn't need to be much more in-depth than that, does it? Why even make a religious claim with no basis in science, an issue or controversy at all?" No it doesnt need to be any more indepth than that, and as I said earlier I limit it (discussion of religion) to my opening statement. If it comes up organically in class, I say something similar to what you said ("this is science class and we only apply science in science class") and move on. In seven years I have never made a single religious claim other than "I am a Christian" when a student asked me flat-out. Since then (that happened early on in my career) I now say "That is personal and it is immaterial to this class."

[cleanhippie]

25. Sounds like you are doing it right then.

My hats off to you.

[cleanhippie]

14. Get a clue.

I DID ask you a question about it, and then gave a tentative reply based on one possible answer you might have given me.


The first line of my comment...
""The state of Virginia says the Earth is 4.5 billion years old." Really? You actually said these words in a SCIENCE class? REALLY?"

Then I made a comment based on an answer I inferred from your post that I would get..
"If you actually said that, without explaining yourself, then you are no science teacher at all."

Then I asked the question again and another, in more detail...
""Did you explain that the State of Virginia doesn't state that, but that the State of Virginia accepts the scientific findings as the most plausible explanation and as such, decided to include those scientific findings in the curriculum? Did you also explain HOW science has determined that the age of the earth if 4.5 billion years old? "

Then I made another comment based on an expected answer that I inferred from your post...
If you failed to do what a science teacher is SUPPOSED to do, you are doing a great disservice to the children in your charge, and certainly do not deserve the title "science teacher."

Kindly notice that I prefaced my comments with a great big "IF YOU..."

Then you replied...
"In the future it would be good to ASK what someone does before jumping to so many (faulty) conclusions as you just have done. Epic fail dude."

Now, considering that I DID ask you not one question, but THREE, all based on what can reasonably be inferred from your original comment, perhaps you should reevaluate where the epic fail happened today...dude.

[AlecBGreen]

18. i see what you are saying CH

here is how I took it. To me it seemed you were asking rhetorical questions and inserting answers into my mouth without knowing me, my background or my circumstances. To me it seemed like disingenuous questioning at best, and actually just a way to mock me. In other words, I felt like you werent asking questions but rather just trying to stick the knife in. The perceived tone of your first question ("Really? You actually said these words in a SCIENCE class? REALLY?") just pushed my buttons. I have a thin skin when my professionalism and my dedication to my students is questioned. Anyway, thats how it seemed to me.

To answer your questions:

Really? You actually said these words in a SCIENCE class? REALLY?" Yes, really.

"Did you explain that the State of Virginia doesn't state that, but that the State of Virginia accepts the scientific findings as the most plausible explanation and as such, decided to include those scientific findings in the curriculum? To me, stating it and accepting it are the two halves of the same coin. See below.

Did you also explain HOW science has determined that the age of the earth if 4.5 billion years old?" Yes, we spend a week investigating & discussing the evidence.

If you are interested in a more in-depth explanation as to why I say what I do, read my reply above to USArmyBJJ.

[cleanhippie]

20. Thank you for your response.

I can see how you could have taken my comments, and it is not wrong.

How can stating that "The State says..." is the same as "The State accepts the findings..." when the first statement implies that the State is the authority on such matters and that the students should accept that authority, and the second statement only implies that the State agrees with the science?

I see a clear and distinct difference and it is difficult for me to accept that you do not see it. Maybe its because one of the main apologists arguments is the Argument From Authority, and my recognition of and disdain for it.

[AlecBGreen]

23. now that you mention it I can see the difference

it is not something that i noticed until you brought it up. Yes, there is a different connotation.

I am guilty of falling back on the AFA in class from time to time when a student asks me to explain something I dont understand well. I usually say "I dont know" if I dont know but sometimes I say "It just IS!" which is just a cop-out and a form of AFA. Its a habit I need to break.

[cleanhippie]

24. Cool!

On the same page! I like it!

:toast:

[AlecBGreen]

26. lol if you JUST cracked a cold one like I did

then we are REALLY on the same page :toast: If so, I hope its better than the Miller High Life i got

[cleanhippie]

27. Homebrew!

Its the best, IMO../

[trotsky]

3. "...the assumption that God is ... irrelevant."

Perfect. That's the way public education should be. You do not need a god to perform arithmetic, do science, learn languages, or analyze literature.

But where these idiots go off the track is equating the omission of their specific god (make no bones about it, there is just ONE god they want taught) with the total disregard of all religion, which simply does not happen. They just want their particular religion put above all the others - which perfectly illustrates why we NEED to have public education treat the question of god as irrelevant. Funny how they are unable to see that. I suspect they might whistle a different tune if someone was suggesting we need ALLAH put into the schools.

[Goblinmonger]

15. One nit to pick.

(I think some theist's heads just exploded to see me and you disagree :evilgrin: )

Obviously I agree you don't need a god, but if you want to understand American literature (and others but particularly American), you do need to have at minimum a working knowledge of the god of Abraham. WAY too much symbolism comes through that kids miss if they don't know it. Greek mythology, too, I suppose.

[trotsky]

30. And that is a fine nit.

True, a student must have an understanding of the concept of god, but I would argue kids don't need the kind of god lessons that the god-botherers referenced in the OP *think* they do.

So see? We don't disagree after all. :P

[laconicsax]

16. Math as revealed by God shows serious flaws in secular mathematics.

You only need to open a Bible to learn that 3.14159...3.0, 2499=5269, 29,818=31,089=42,366, and 43=44. Don't forget that 1+1+1=1 in trinitarian mathematics too.

[Deep13]

13. I say it's irrelevant to the purposes of education.

"Education, Nord rightly argues, should address the 'big questions' about meaning and morality — questions that cannot be properly considered without giving religion a place at the curriculum table."

Wow. Gee. Too bad this is America, then.

That is a common and completely unsubstantiated statement. I submit that morality can only be addressed without injecting the distorting consideration of what god might want into the discussion. We have to get away from the idea good =/= holy.

[skepticscott]

28. And what "big questions" has religion

made any progress toward answering? What have theologians done for centuries except blather back and forth imperiously, without bestowing the least bit of knowledge or understanding on humanity?

[laconicsax]

29. Expect a major breakthrough any time now.

I hear they're very close to reproducing the pattern used to knit the lace frills on the Emperor's new coat.