Fix-all for society's problems: education

[ApostateAbe]

Education correlates strongly with the things we value: non-religion, liberalism, science, health, wealth, intelligence, etc. Therefore, if we want to fight the good fight, then we must advance education.

Things we can do:

1) Tutor a struggling child in English and mathematics.
2) Contribute to someone's college fund.
3) Contribute to scholarship funds.

There must be more we can do. Please suggest something.

[Ronin]

Education correlates strongly with the things we value: non-religion, liberalism, science, health, wealth, intelligence, etc. Therefore, if we want to fight the good fight, then we must advance education.

Things we can do:

1) Tutor a struggling child in English and mathematics.
2) Contribute to someone's college fund.
3) Contribute to scholarship funds.

There must be more we can do. Please suggest something.

<emphasis mine>

You appear to be supporting the theist fear that there is an active deconversion process through "education" in public schools and an intent to support one political ideology over another.

I think that a more sufficient list would be:

Critical thinking skills, science, health, productivity and intelligence...let the chips fall where they may.

.02

[viscousmemories]

I can't really speak to traditional education since I went a very non-traditional route, but it seems to me that most American adults (even college graduates) are functionally illiterate on some very important subjects like global economics, science and politics, for example. So I'd personally rather see more effort put into improving education than spreading it. Unfortunately sports and business programs make most of the money for schools, so it seems that's where the bulk of it goes.

[ApostateAbe]

Education correlates strongly with the things we value: non-religion, liberalism, science, health, wealth, intelligence, etc. Therefore, if we want to fight the good fight, then we must advance education.

Things we can do:

1) Tutor a struggling child in English and mathematics.
2) Contribute to someone's college fund.
3) Contribute to scholarship funds.

There must be more we can do. Please suggest something.
<emphasis mine>

You appear to be supporting the theist fear that there is an active deconversion process through "education" in public schools and an intent to support one political ideology over another.

I think that a more sufficient list would be:

Critical thinking skills, science, health, productivity and intelligence...let the chips fall where they may.

.02 Such fears are justified. I would also encourage letting the chips fall where they may, but the chips usually fall on the side on the side of anti-dogma and liberalism in places of education, which is true from China to Saudi Arabia.

My point is that many of us want to advance causes such as atheism and liberalism, and the best way to do it is by advancing education. Let the conservatives have their fears.

[ApostateAbe]

I can't really speak to traditional education since I went a very non-traditional route, but it seems to me that most American adults (even college graduates) are functionally illiterate on some very important subjects like global economics, science and politics, for example. So I'd personally rather see more effort put into improving education than spreading it. Unfortunately sports and business programs make most of the money for schools, so it seems that's where the bulk of it goes. That is the truth. So what can we do to fix it?

[squian]

Interesting point ApostateAbe. Here are some alternative points to consider.

I'm sure you are aware that correlation is not causation. Hence, I wonder if the causal relationship is not reversed. Namely, do intelligence and wealth cause a person to become more educated rather than the reverse?

In some cases, education may not lead to desireable results. An article from Women's eNews (http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1591) indicates some disturbing correlations between education and domestic violence.

Perhaps the commitment to education goes beyond seeking particular goals.

[ApostateAbe]

Interesting point ApostateAbe. Here are some alternative points to consider.

I'm sure you are aware that correlation is not causation. Hence, I wonder if the causal relationship is not reversed. Namely, do intelligence and wealth cause a person to become more educated rather than the reverse? Certainly wealth and education cause each other. Wealth is necessary for education and education is necessary for wealth.
In some cases, education may not lead to desireable results. An article from Women's eNews (http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1591) indicates some disturbing correlations between education and domestic violence.

Perhaps the commitment to education goes beyond seeking particular goals. That is only for India, where men are peceived to be more powerful when they have an education AND control their wives. I imagine that education is nevertheless a good thing in India as it is generally for the rest of the world.

[LadyShea]

Education correlates strongly with the things we value: non-religion, liberalism, science, health, wealth, intelligence, etc. Therefore, if we want to fight the good fight, then we must advance education.

Things we can do:

1) Tutor a struggling child in English and mathematics.
2) Contribute to someone's college fund.
3) Contribute to scholarship funds.

There must be more we can do. Please suggest something.
<emphasis mine>

You appear to be supporting the theist fear that there is an active deconversion process through "education" in public schools and an intent to support one political ideology over another.

I think that a more sufficient list would be:

Critical thinking skills, science, health, productivity and intelligence...let the chips fall where they may.

.02 Such fears are justified. I would also encourage letting the chips fall where they may, but the chips usually fall on the side on the side of anti-dogma and liberalism in places of education, which is true from China to Saudi Arabia.

My point is that many of us want to advance causes such as atheism and liberalism, and the best way to do it is by advancing education. Let the conservatives have their fears.

I agree with Ronin, advancing education for its own sake should be the goal, not advancing any particular worldview or political stance.

[squian]

...most American adults (even college graduates) are functionally illiterate on some very important subjects like global economics, science and politics, for example.

An interesting choice of words, vm. The use of the word "literacy" to mean "The condition or quality of being knowledgeable in a particular subject or field" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) is a relatively recent and American modification of the word. So "functionally" illiterate would seem to indicate the lack of knowledge needed for people to function in these arenas; fortunately, these subjects are rarely practiced by most American adults. Is there some other reason people need literacy in these subjects?

Unfortunately sports and business programs make most of the money for schools, so it seems that's where the bulk of it goes.

Can you substantiate this? Business programs hardly exist below the university level so I think you are focusing on levels of education that few have anyway.

To vm's point about better education before more of it, ApostateAbe, do you have any evidence that better basic education (say, up to high school) has the correlations you asserted?

[viscousmemories]

That is the truth. So what can we do to fix it?
One thing we can do is improve elementary education. Livius started this thread (http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=820) on the subject last summer. Maybe she'll write more on it here. All my experience with college level education is anecdotal, though. So I have no idea what improvements could be made there.

[squian]

Certainly wealth and education cause each other. Wealth is necessary for education and education is necessary for wealth.

I am confused about your assertion of mutual causation, ApostateAbe. The most educated are not the highest paid. And even the poorest can be educated. Maybe I misunderstand how you are using the terms "wealth" and "education"; or how they cause each other.

[ApostateAbe]

To vm's point about better education before more of it, ApostateAbe, do you have any evidence that better basic education (say, up to high school) has the correlations you asserted? No, I do not. I know of a negative correlation between religion and years of higher education, but I don't know any correlation that accounts for quality of education.

[viscousmemories]

An interesting choice of words, vm. The use of the word "literacy" to mean "The condition or quality of being knowledgeable in a particular subject or field" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) is a relatively recent and American modification of the word. So "functionally" illiterate would seem to indicate the lack of knowledge needed for people to function in these arenas; fortunately, these subjects are rarely practiced by most American adults. Is there some other reason people need literacy in these subjects?
Ah well, I thought it was just a fancy way of saying "for all intents and purposes, these people are illiterate". And my point was that people generally (myself included) don't seem to know as much as they need to about their role in the global community to make informed choices about who they vote for, how they consume resources, etc.

Unfortunately sports and business programs make most of the money for schools, so it seems that's where the bulk of it goes.
Can you substantiate this? Business programs hardly exist below the university level so I think you are focusing on levels of education that few have anyway.
I can't, no. It's purely anecdotal. But I was referring to university level education with that comment. It has been my experience that people who encourage spreading education (in America, anyway) are not referring to the already mandatory elementary education. So I assumed that was Abe's intention, although in retrospect I'm not sure.

[ApostateAbe]

Certainly wealth and education cause each other. Wealth is necessary for education and education is necessary for wealth.
I am confused about your assertion of mutual causation, ApostateAbe. The most educated are not the highest paid. And even the poorest can be educated. Maybe I misunderstand how you are using the terms "wealth" and "education"; or how they cause each other. Perhaps it would be better to say that wealth is helpful for education and education is helpful for wealth. By education, I mean time spent listening to lectures and reading textbooks, and by wealth I mean personal possessions and bank account total.

[squian]

And my point was that people generally (myself included) don't seem to know as much as they need to about their role in the global community to make informed choices about who they vote for, how they consume resources, etc.

How informed must a person be? Is this a role of "educational institutions" or should an individual seek out the necessary knowledge of their own accord? In other words, where does the responsibility to be informed lie?

[ApostateAbe]

I agree with Ronin, advancing education for its own sake should be the goal, not advancing any particular worldview or political stance. Advancing education "for its own sake" doesn't make sense to me. Would we still value education if highly-educated people worked the same dead-end jobs as everyone else, made just as poor decisions, were just as ignorant, just as uncritical, etc., even though they have lots of knowledge up in their heads? The truth is that we value education because education advances our values. Education may even advance our more disagreeable values. If so, then we should advance education in part for that purpose. There is no use being timid about such motivation among ourselves. We are being intimidated by the other side.

[squian]

Perhaps it would be better to say that wealth is helpful for education and education is helpful for wealth.

Yes, I understand better now. In fact, I am worried a little about this interaction between wealth and education. It seems more like a closed selection system than an open feedback mechanism. In other words, the wealthy choose private education and the best colleges and universities. They become the most educated. We then turn to the most educated to help us make our most difficult decisions, such as political ones. Decisions like how to build an education system that "leaves no child behind".

Can we trust those who benefit from the cycle of wealth-education-power to open the cycle to anyone? It is my feeling this is one of the greatest inefficiencies of "the market". Thank goodness we have people like ApostateAbe advocating direct action. We need not trust those people. Let us take the matter of education into our own hands.

[squian]

Advancing education "for its own sake" doesn't make sense to me.
Then I also misunderstood you comment on domestic violence and education. Granted, the example is only India but the outcome is still undesirable. What then did you mean about "imagining that education is nevertheless a good thing"?
That is only for India, where men are peceived to be more powerful when they have an education AND control their wives. I imagine that education is nevertheless a good thing in India as it is generally for the rest of the world.

Would we still value education if highly-educated people worked the same dead-end jobs as everyone else, made just as poor decisions, were just as ignorant, just as uncritical, etc., even though they have lots of knowledge up in their heads? The truth is that we value education because education advances our values.
I just don't find the same truth in this. I have known highly-educated people who drove cabs (it seems to happen more frequently in college towns). Educated people are still people; I don't see why that means they make better decisions. Regardless of any other achievements, I value and respect the educated simple for the effort they put into learning something. It's accomplishment for it's own sake. Hence, I value education for it's own sake regardless of the objective benefits (or even detriments) it provides. As for values, can we really say education, itself, advances a particular set of values?

Education may even advance our more disagreeable values. If so, then we should advance education in part for that purpose. There is no use being timid about such motivation among ourselves. We are being intimidated by the other side.
On this point, I am surely confused. Who is the other side? And how is being timid to say education has value for it's own sake?

[Adora]

There must be more we can do. Please suggest something.
Revolutionise a flawed system designed by Quakers. (yes folks, you heard me right)

Abolish secondary (7/8-12) co-ed schooling.

More streaming and better trained teachers, as well as qualifications for teachers that require an understanding of underlying social issues that affect students lives, like homophobia, racism, classism, etc. You'd be surprised the mental issues & "values" the people teaching your kids have.

Destruction of the Glass Elevator for men in the teaching profession.

The removal of religious institutions as the basis for pastoral care for students.

The promotion of cultural activities such as academic, musical, dramatic and artistic activities as absolute equals of (if not more important than) sporting activities.

The removal of board-based funding (unfortunatly this is the prevalent mode of funding in the US, and is now being introduced in my country. We. Are. Fucked.)

The removal of school funding based on results output. Just another symptom of neo-liberal capitalism infecting all realms of life.

The removal, in states such as mine, of bell-curve marking in the end-of-school results, which drags marks down for children who don't deserve it, just because the rest of their grade is teh stupid.

Better funding for girl's sports.

Streaming via academic achievement, rather than age.

An improvement of the attitudes the general society has towards education & teachers, and more responsibility taken for their child's behaviour, instead of that responsibility being placed on the school's (flawed) shoulders.

Better pay for those in the education system.

As for this...
Education doesn't solve the problem of domestic violence, because it is rooted in wider social gender issues and power within culture. Until we get rid of these problems, education is like a bug chirping in the face of a bull. And, as AA said, education by certain disagreable factions may simply compound the issue.

November 25th! IDAVAW! Buy a white ribbon from organisations near you connected with UNIFEM and support the struggle for the elimination of violence against women and children!

[Ronin]

RE: ApostateAbe and Adora

There are times when my fellow non-believers really freak me out.

Thanks for both of your views. I will no longer consider conservative Christians totally unstable and irrational when they express such fears.

Ronin = Lesson Learned

:eek:

[wildernesse]

Education correlates strongly with the things we value: non-religion, liberalism, science, health, wealth, intelligence, etc. Therefore, if we want to fight the good fight, then we must advance education.

Things we can do:

1) Tutor a struggling child in English and mathematics.
2) Contribute to someone's college fund.
3) Contribute to scholarship funds.

There must be more we can do. Please suggest something.

There is something more you can do--advocate for economic change. A living wage, for instance. Or programs that provide free day care for working parents and free healthcare or free parenting classes. Advocate for comprehensive sex education. Protest the cutting of funds to HeadStart. Or better environmental regulations.

In many places, there is a strong correlation between the number of children receiving free/reduced lunch and low test scores. It is the exceptional school that breaks this rule.

Parents are the number one education influence on most children--if they haven't done their job before their kids show up to kindergarten, then that kid may never catch up (hence HeadStart). People with fewer economic needs have fewer chances to prepare their children for school--there aren't extra books, educational toys, new and different experiences. People who have to work all the time don't have the time (or likely the patience) to read to their child, or interact with their child in varied situations--their kids aren't likely to get to travel anywhere if there's no vacation time. Parents who don't even know that it's a good thing to read or to talk to their child or how to grow their kids vocabulary--or even that a baby needs a lot of interaction to help develop its brain.

Parents who have a lot of stress in their lives may self-medicate more than others--and if you're living in poverty, or never able to climb high enough to some type of security, relying on that coping mechanism isn't going to provide a good learning environment at home. Another factor that affects education is that often people living in poverty or poorer areas often live in more polluted areas--with higher incidences of asthma and other environmentally related illnesses, which causes kids to miss school and in some cases may even interfere with development.

These are society changes, and are necessary for long-term change. They're bigger than giving a couple of hours on Saturday to mentor a kid--which is great, but just dealing with a symptom of a larger problem. Far be it from me to tell you not to treat symptoms though.

[ApostateAbe]

Let me make one thing clear: I do not advocate promoting an exclusive set of ideologies in the public education system. I wish to advance the learning of mathematics, English, science, and career skills. Simply by doing that, I believe that we can advance our most important values at the expense of Christianity and conservatism.

[wildernesse]

Let me make one thing clear: I do not advocate promoting an exclusive set of ideologies in the public education system. I wish to advance the learning of mathematics, English, science, and career skills. Simply by doing that, I believe that we can advance our most important values at the expense of Christianity and conservatism.

So it's just my crappy math education that keeps me a Christian, eh? I think you're being just the tiniest bit arrogant/misguided in thinking that if everyone was just more educated, they'd be more likely to agree with you. I know far, far too many multi-degreed conservative Christians to travel too far down that path. Not to mention the multi-degreed conservatives and multi-degreed Christians. Lump those 3 groups together, and that's a pretty huge group.

[ApostateAbe]

Education correlates strongly with the things we value: non-religion, liberalism, science, health, wealth, intelligence, etc. Therefore, if we want to fight the good fight, then we must advance education.

Things we can do:

1) Tutor a struggling child in English and mathematics.
2) Contribute to someone's college fund.
3) Contribute to scholarship funds.

There must be more we can do. Please suggest something.
There is something more you can do--advocate for economic change. A living wage, for instance. Or programs that provide free day care for working parents and free healthcare or free parenting classes. Advocate for comprehensive sex education. Protest the cutting of funds to HeadStart. Or better environmental regulations. I prefer a narrower focus. Promoting education to advance atheism and liberalism is indirect enough as it is. Raising the minimum wage and whatnot would be a politically-contested step away from the objective. Let's just focus on advancing education directly, and we would meet less opposition.
In many places, there is a strong correlation between the number of children receiving free/reduced lunch and low test scores. It is the exceptional school that breaks this rule. This is a good idea, if the correlation is truly a causation.

[ApostateAbe]

Let me make one thing clear: I do not advocate promoting an exclusive set of ideologies in the public education system. I wish to advance the learning of mathematics, English, science, and career skills. Simply by doing that, I believe that we can advance our most important values at the expense of Christianity and conservatism.
So it's just my crappy math education that keeps me a Christian, eh? I think you're being just the tiniest bit arrogant/misguided in thinking that if everyone was just more educated, they'd be more likely to agree with you. I know far, far too many multi-degreed conservative Christians to travel too far down that path. Not to mention the multi-degreed conservatives and multi-degreed Christians. Lump those 3 groups together, and that's a pretty huge group. I do believe that an education based on math, English, science, and career courses can grant people critical thinking, problem solving, and research abilities. These mental tools advance the side of reason and destroy faith. It is arrogant, no doubt about it, but it is true. I know some fundamentalist Christians that are highly educated, but the number of such Christians decreases and the number of non-religious people increases with a higher level of education. The more educated people are, the less likely they are to believe in God.

[squian]

Revolutionise a flawed system designed by Quakers.
I grant you it's flawed but why revolutionize? It seems like many of the changes you suggest could be incremental.

Abolish secondary (7/8-12) co-ed schooling.
Are you suggesting keeping boys and girls separate after 6th grade?

[squian]

These are society changes, and are necessary for long-term change. They're bigger than giving a couple of hours on Saturday to mentor a kid--which is great, but just dealing with a symptom of a larger problem. Far be it from me to tell you not to treat symptoms though.

Indeed, what do we do until we can make larger societal changes? In fact, doesn't education fit into making the necessary changes?

[Adora]

There are times when my fellow non-believers really freak me out. Thanks for both of your views. I will no longer consider conservative Christians totally unstable and irrational when they express such fears. Ronin = Lesson Learned
:eek:
Er, whut? Explain please. I don't see what's so frightening about trying to improve the education system. It is a system, therefore it can be changed and manipulated by those affected by it. It can be improved, and it has to be improved if we want to see wider cultural change in society.

I've had firsthand experience of some of the things I mentioned through my years of schooling. I have also witnessed it through my mother, who has been a teacher for 30 years in the Australian education system, as well as an administrator for 13 years. You wouldn't believe some of the stories I could tell. Because of the issues I've seen, I also have a strong interest in theory and research regarding the education system, and everything I have said has been recommended by those who research the education area, government reports, and others. I've simply condensed everything they've said into a short post.

*pats Ronin* If you're going to use the phrase "let the chips fall where they may", you must never be afraid of change, my friend.

EDIT: Squian- perhaps not total seperation, but definitely in the classroom. Boys dominate teacher attention, time, discussion, they harrass girls, distract girls and are distracted because of them, and are the ones who dominate discipline-time and process in schools. Even reports by the government that blame boys' problems on advances made for equality in school by feminists which I totally disagree with, state these facts of male-dominance in the classroom (and otherwise) and the detremental effect it has on females and class learning. I recommend it outside the classroom as well, but that's a more complex issue that also has detremental issues to it as well.

[Petra]

EDIT: Squian- perhaps not total seperation, but definitely in the classroom. Boys dominate teacher attention, time, discussion, they harrass girls, distract girls and are distracted because of them, and are the ones who dominate discipline-time and process in schools. Even reports by the government that blame boys' problems on advances made for equality in school by feminists which I totally disagree with, state these facts of male-dominance in the classroom (and otherwise) and the detremental effect it has on females and class learning. I recommend it outside the classroom as well, but that's a more complex issue that also has detremental issues to it as well.

But you still have some major bullying issues and general behavioural problems in an all girl's school, too. (http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,202517-1-7,00.html)


An article. We have kids left behind, too. (http://www.listener.co.nz/default,2385.sm)


I'm a big believer in investing in a nation's young through both schools and community. "It takes a whole village to raise a child", and all that.

We don't put nearly enough resources into either public education or community.

My daughter started off in the public school system, but is now nearing the completion of her first year in a private school. The difference between the public and private school sectors is vast. The educational resources, the quality of the teachers, class size, everything, is so much better where she is now, and she is thriving. But she's a lucky kid; she has rich people paying her way - I sure as hell can't afford the $30,000+ a year for her to attend such a great school, and I lament that the public school system cannot match such a high level of education for all our nation's young. Too many kids get left behind.

[wildernesse]

I prefer a narrower focus. Promoting education to advance atheism and liberalism is indirect enough as it is. Raising the minimum wage and whatnot would be a politically-contested step away from the objective. Let's just focus on advancing education directly, and we would meet less opposition.

The thing is, children who aren't prepared before they come to school may never catch up. The most important years in a child's development--when the foundation is laid for lifetime learning--is from birth to six. So if you don't deal with factors that are affecting how a child develops in that time period, you've already lost the war in large part--especially for the most vulnerable children.

I just don't see economic justice as that far away from improving children's lives so that public education can have its intended effect.

In many places, there is a strong correlation between the number of children receiving free/reduced lunch and low test scores. It is the exceptional school that breaks this rule. This is a good idea, if the correlation is truly a causation.

Well, your entire thread is based on a correlation that may not truly be a causation, so why the nitpick?

[wildernesse]

I do believe that an education based on math, English, science, and career courses can grant people critical thinking, problem solving, and research abilities. These mental tools advance the side of reason and destroy faith. It is arrogant, no doubt about it, but it is true. I know some fundamentalist Christians that are highly educated, but the number of such Christians decreases and the number of non-religious people increases with a higher level of education. The more educated people are, the less likely they are to believe in God.

If education destroys faith and makes me less likely to believe in God, when I graduate in a couple of years with the letters A.B., M.P.A., J.D. all to my credit, what in my education will have been lacking? Because I really don't see myself ever dropping "Christian" as a descriptor. (Mostly because I feel that I'm at a type of equilibrium--but I wouldn't take on the "non-believer" title even if I didn't believe, just out of spite to all the jerks.) If you say science and math, then what do you do about the genetics professor I worked for whose life work was to study evolutionary theory and was still Christian? I know plenty of people who work with evolution and are Christians--church-going, communion-serving, prayer-leading Ph.D.'s from one of the top schools in genetics.

But, what's the tipping point? Can you pinpoint how many classes a person has to take before they stop believing? How much more educated do you have to become to drop religion? From the people I know, it seems like you'd have to go beyond Ph.D. in some cases. From the people I know, it doesn't seem that higher education attracts non-believers any more than it attracts believers or that higher education causes faith to implode. Specific beliefs--such as ID or literalism, which might erroneously considered the foundation of their faith--perhaps, but not the belief as a whole.

[wildernesse]

Indeed, what do we do until we can make larger societal changes? In fact, doesn't education fit into making the necessary changes?

I think better education is necessary, but as I said in an earlier post, if the building blocks that support a child's ability to learn aren't there, then having a more rigorous education isn't really going to help.

I would focus on volunteering to help with parenting classes, or in pre-K and 3-year old programs--or HeadStart. Or you could become a HeadStart teacher. See if there is a state parenting program and work with them.

After children become school age, I'd focus on helping them make learning fun--working with summer camps or afterschool programs, for instance. Volunteer with a school--they always need help.

Or you could run for school board.

In the end, if you wait until larger societal changes occur, then you're just going to be waiting around. It's better if you're working for the things you want, instead of just hoping someone else (who's better qualified, more knowledgable, whatever) is working on it somewhere. Be the change you want to see in the world.

[ApostateAbe]

In many places, there is a strong correlation between the number of children receiving free/reduced lunch and low test scores. It is the exceptional school that breaks this rule. This is a good idea, if the correlation is truly a causation.
Well, your entire thread is based on a correlation that may not truly be a causation, so why the nitpick? Because we can grant free lunches to kids, but there is little use in it if it doesn't work toward our objectives. If free/reduced lunches really cause higher test scores, then I would be all for it. I am already convinced that an advanced education can cause damage to a religious faith, not just correlate to it.
If education destroys faith and makes me less likely to believe in God, when I graduate in a couple of years with the letters A.B., M.P.A., J.D. all to my credit, what in my education will have been lacking? Because I really don't see myself ever dropping "Christian" as a descriptor. (Mostly because I feel that I'm at a type of equilibrium--but I wouldn't take on the "non-believer" title even if I didn't believe, just out of spite to all the jerks.) If you say science and math, then what do you do about the genetics professor I worked for whose life work was to study evolutionary theory and was still Christian? I know plenty of people who work with evolution and are Christians--church-going, communion-serving, prayer-leading Ph.D.'s from one of the top schools in genetics. OK, so about those PhD Christians--do any of them have destructive religious divisions in their family? Do any of them hold the Bible to be the literal word of God? Do they oppose abortion and stem-cell research tooth and nail? Do they strongly protest gays getting married? Do they regard atheists as fools? If my suspicions are correct, then religion has a lesser degree of control over their minds.

But, what's the tipping point? Can you pinpoint how many classes a person has to take before they stop believing? How much more educated do you have to become to drop religion? From the people I know, it seems like you'd have to go beyond Ph.D. in some cases. From the people I know, it doesn't seem that higher education attracts non-believers any more than it attracts believers or that higher education causes faith to implode. Specific beliefs--such as ID or literalism, which might erroneously considered the foundation of their faith--perhaps, but not the belief as a whole. There is no tipping point, except maybe for individuals. My tipping point was about two years of high school, two years through community college and one year through the university.

I am sorry I don't have the evidence on hand to show you that education contributes to causing less religious faith, but if I see the evidence again, I'll let you know.

The thing is, children who aren't prepared before they come to school may never catch up. The most important years in a child's development--when the foundation is laid for lifetime learning--is from birth to six. So if you don't deal with factors that are affecting how a child develops in that time period, you've already lost the war in large part--especially for the most vulnerable children.

I just don't see economic justice as that far away from improving children's lives so that public education can have its intended effect. My biggest objection to your idea is based on the fact that economic changes are tougher--they would meet more resistance--whereas, simple and direct contribution to education would meet no resistance at all, but most likely more support from those who would normally disagree with us.

[dave_a]

If education destroys faith and makes me less likely to believe in God, when I graduate in a couple of years with the letters A.B., M.P.A., J.D. all to my credit, what in my education will have been lacking? Because I really don't see myself ever dropping "Christian" as a descriptor. (Mostly because I feel that I'm at a type of equilibrium--but I wouldn't take on the "non-believer" title even if I didn't believe, just out of spite to all the jerks.)

I tend to agree that education, particularly learning critical thinking skills, how to understand the elements of an argument, determining opinion from fact etc. do tend to reduce the amount of faith people operate by.

I do not believe that education will result in a person no longer believing in the existence of a diety. It might happen in some cases, but I don't know that I believe there is a strong causation there.

Rather what I see happening is that those with religious faith temper that faith more with reason as they get better educated. I don't even mean university education, any education that teaches a person critical thinking skills and how to apply them does the trick.

You may be a Christian, but do you believe it is morally wrong to be gay? Do you believe in a literal 6 day creation or do you find evolutionary theory to be a more likely explanation? Are you arguing with the school board that creationism should be taught alongside evolution?

These are the things I am talking about. I am atheist, but I have absolutely no issues with thinking theists whatsoever. My wife is one.

What I find is that the harmful segment of Christianity (or Islam) is largely anti intellectual, does not engage in critical thinking, but lives their lives with a football game mentality where it's their team against the other teams and Go Team! There team is justified in whatever it does because they are on the right side.

I don't care about the percentage of theists to atheists, I just care about the number of theists falling into the non thinking camp who do silly things like campaign against rights for gays and rail against science in favor of Genesis being taugh in public schools.

That is the benefit of a good education focused on literacy, math (because it's pure logic), and critical thinking skills and perhaps even a smattering of comparative philosophy that includes Christian (or whatever religion is predominant in a culture) philosophies.

[viscousmemories]

Abe, I suspect you're right that higher education causes a reduction in fundamentalism, but I think that's a different thing from saying higher education causes atheism. I guess I don't see a contiuum between non-belief and ultra-fundamentalism. I see a contiuum between belief and non-belief, and a separate contiuum between ultra-conservative interpretation and an ultra-liberal interpretation of the specific religious beliefs.

In other words, I don't think it's safe to say that the more liberal someone's beliefs are the closer they are to non-belief. I think it's entirely possible to wholeheartedly believe in God and have a very liberal stance on various religious beliefs.

ETA: x-posted with dantonac, who already said some of what I was trying to say, I think.

[Petra]

Because we can grant free lunches to kids, but there is little use in it if it doesn't work toward our objectives.

Emphasis mine.

Does anyone else think this is a disturbing statement?



Incidentally, my daughter goes to a Christian private school - it's Anglican and they have a chapel. I don't mind that at all - I care only about the quality of her education and that she is doing well in school.

When she goes to high school, she will be attending either St. Cuthbert's or Auckland Diocesan - both Christian private schools with an excellent name in education.


My objective is only to make sure my daughter gets the best, most well-rounded education possible. And she is.

Your objective feels more sinister somehow. Like you aren't really interested in providing kids with the best, most well-rounded education without prejudice, but are only interested in another kind of brainwashing - like in China's cultural revolution or something. Scary.

[viscousmemories]

My objective is only to make sure my daughter gets the best, most well-rounded education possible. And she is.
Just for its own sake, though? You aren't hoping that her education will contribute to her sharing your values?

Your objective feels more sinister somehow. Like you aren't really interested in providing kids with the best, most well-rounded education without prejudice, but are only interested in another kind of brainwashing - like in China's cultural revolution or something. Scary.
I don't find it particularly sinister that Abe wants to advance his values. Don't we all wish people would share our values? Granted I disagree that there is an inherent correlation between liberalism and non-belief, so I don't see the point of promoting the latter to advance the former. But I don't think he was suggesting brainwashing. On the contrary, he said (emphasis mine):

Let me make one thing clear: I do not advocate promoting an exclusive set of ideologies in the public education system. I wish to advance the learning of mathematics, English, science, and career skills. Simply by doing that, I believe that we can advance our most important values at the expense of Christianity and conservatism.

[Ronin]

That was the initial vibe I got as well, lunachick, and commented on that aspect of it.

I'm also very glad you informed everyone here regarding the choice of private school Zoe has been sent to, for what reasons and your own openmindedness regarding that option.

I've been fairly consistent in providing some local letters to the editor on this very issue and may have another one printed in the coming days as a counter to the following submission by Tim Battle:

"America is in need of a faith lift" (http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/editorial/letters/10170437.htm)

[ApostateAbe]

Because we can grant free lunches to kids, but there is little use in it if it doesn't work toward our objectives.
Emphasis mine.

Does anyone else think this is a disturbing statement?



Incidentally, my daughter goes to a Christian private school - it's Anglican and they have a chapel. I don't mind that at all - I care only about the quality of her education and that she is doing well in school.

When she goes to high school, she will be attending either St. Cuthbert's or Auckland Diocesan - both Christian private schools with an excellent name in education.


My objective is only to make sure my daughter gets the best, most well-rounded education possible. And she is.

Your objective feels more sinister somehow. Like you aren't really interested in providing kids with the best, most well-rounded education without prejudice, but are only interested in another kind of brainwashing - like in China's cultural revolution or something. Scary. Once again, I'll make it clear: I do not want to impose an exclusive set of ideologies in the public schools. I wish only that more children and young adults would receive more quality education consisting of math, english, science, and career skills. This is what advances our values at the expense of Christian conservatism.

This is the way Christian conservatism works: education is their enemy. Christians need to impose their Christian values on the education curriculum. They need to homeschool their children or send them to private Christian schools or make them attend Sunday school every week in order to ensure that their kids become Christians and stay Christians. But we don't need to do anything like that! Reason is on our side. As such, we don't need to impose our values on the classroom. If we give students the skills to think, then they will become reasonable and find something close to the truth on their own.

You seem to criticize me for focusing on objectives.

[dave_a]

I've been fairly consistent in providing some local letters to the editor on this very issue and may have another one printed in the coming days as a counter to the following submission by Tim Battle:

"America is in need of a faith lift" (http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/editorial/letters/10170437.htm)

Whew! The first time through I misread this and understood you to be the writer of that op-ed.

I feel better now.

[viscousmemories]

This is the way Christian conservatism works: education is their enemy. Christians need to impose their Christian values on the education curriculum. They need to homeschool their children or send them to private Christian schools or make them attend Sunday school every week in order to ensure that their kids become Christians and stay Christians. But we don't need to do anything like that! Reason is on our side. As such, we don't need to impose our values on the classroom. If we give students the skills to think, then they will become reasonable and find something close to the truth on their own.
This whole argument is founded on two demonstrably erroneous suppositions: that all Christians are evangelical fundamentalists and that Christianity relies on promotion and endorsement of schools for sustenance.

[viscousmemories]

I've been fairly consistent in providing some local letters to the editor on this very issue and may have another one printed in the coming days as a counter to the following submission by Tim Battle:

"America is in need of a faith lift" (http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/editorial/letters/10170437.htm)
Post it here. I formed a rebuttal in my head as I read it, but I'd like to see yours.

[Petra]

You seem to criticize me for focusing on objectives.

I'm on the run so admit I haven't closely read replies since my last post - just a quick skim read - but just wanted to say that it is the idea that it isn't worth giving kids free lunch to make sure they get the nutrition they need to learn more readily if it that education is not condusive to the extension of some dogma - be it a theist or atheist dogma.

I say feed them to nourish their growing bodies and enhance their cognitive abilities regardless. You suggest it's useless unless it's a part of some cultural revolution.


I'll have to get back to you on any other points a little later. Gotta run! :wave:

[Ronin]

I've been fairly consistent in providing some local letters to the editor on this very issue and may have another one printed in the coming days as a counter to the following submission by Tim Battle:

"America is in need of a faith lift" (http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/editorial/letters/10170437.htm)
Post it here. I formed a rebuttal in my head as I read it, but I'd like to see yours.

I will, vm.

The limit for submissions is 300 words (loosely applied), so it wasn't entirely possible for me to address every issue that Battle was able to squeeze into his 344 word offering.

I'll be flying out of state for a few days for specialized training, so I may miss the actual day it is printed. If you're curious, keep your eye on the letters to the editor page at www.sunherald.com and try to guess which one is mine.

:popcorn:

PS Sorry for the scare dantonac...I tried to do my best not to lend that initial impression.

[Adora]

But you still have some major bullying issues and general behavioural problems in an all girl's school, too.

I know that, just as I know there is bullying in all-boys schools as well. But I think cross-sex bullying is a more important issue that has to be dealt with first (or removed entirely) along with other serious issues that always arise in co-ed schools. So I will always be in favour of single sex education for senior years.

[squian]

You seem to criticize me for focusing on objectives.

I have been criticizing you for that. For 3 reasons. First, education is valuable. By itself. It needs no more justification than itself. Partly, the value of education is the only objective is knowledge. Not a specific kind of knowledge or a specific outcome. Knowledge is good.

You may find people who disagree. They are not likely to value science or intelligence. So it will be futile to tell them education is good for those reasons anyway.

Second, I don't think we, as members of the freethought forum, share enough objectives for you to refer to "our objectives", "our values", and "our goals" as those in your OP.

non-religion, liberalism, science, health, wealth, intelligence, etc.

Non-religion, liberalism, and science are beliefs, not behaviors. I think this is the aspect that invokes the notion of brainwashing. I suspect there is considerable difference in opinion about the importance of wealth. I'll go with you on health and intelligence. As for "etc." I worry what other objectives you might have in mind but won't tell us until we are educated.

Finally, we fall back to the problem of correlation and causation. Now to convince people to take the worthy and valuable actions you proposed, you are burdened with the proof that the actions lead to the desired objectives -- which simple correlation does not support.

That said, Abe, your clear focus on "what do we do about it" is very refreshing. If you believe the advancement of education is important to achieving the goals you value then why complicate the issue with your agenda. Why not just advocate education?

[squian]

I think better education is necessary, but as I said in an earlier post, if the building blocks that support a child's ability to learn aren't there, then having a more rigorous education isn't really going to help.

I would focus on ...

In the end, if you wait until larger societal changes occur, then you're just going to be waiting around. It's better if you're working for the things you want, instead of just hoping someone else (who's better qualified, more knowledgable, whatever) is working on it somewhere. Be the change you want to see in the world.

When I asked if education fits into making the necessary changes, I guess I had in mind the notion of "teach ins". That it is both political and educational to teach parents how they can participate directly in their chilren's education and how they can change the educational system. Hence, I wholeheartedly agree when you say, "Be the change you want to see in the world."

[wildernesse]

First, before I say anything else, I want to apologize if my point/counterpoint of quote and respond seemed overly antagonistic or debate-ish. I'm not actually trying to do some kind of blow by blow--I was pressed for time and a bit lazy since I was posting before I ran out the door this morning. Plus, it helps me to see that I've responded to as many points as I can. I'll try to cut back on it, though.

Abe, I think that we may be off track a bit on the free lunch deal--I probably wasn't clear. Free/reduced lunch does not cause higher test scores--free/reduced lunches are provided for children whose parents don't make above a certain amount and therefore can't afford for their child to have a hot lunch--so the feds pay for it. And, the percent of kids receiving free/reduced lunch in a school system has a close correlation with how poor the test scores are--the more kids getting free/reduced lunch, the worse the test scores. Of course, free/reduced lunch correlates perfectly with economic status, since low economic status is the prerequisite for free/reduced lunch. For schools who have very low levels of free/reduced lunch, they tend to have higher test scores. To me, this is a good argument for working for improving the economic conditions of those on the low end of the scale. And I can think of several reasons why poor children may not do well in school.

Also, I don't think that you've yet addressed the problem that a good number of children aren't getting the stimulation and the interaction that they need from a young age to build the foundation that an education can work upon. If you start out with a shakier foundation, it really doesn't matter how expensive or intensive you build on it--it's going to be harder to make an actual difference.

As to education causing damage to religious faith--I have to disagree with you. No, I don't hold literalist or fundamentalist beliefs, but neither do I consider my faith to be damaged because I decided that Adam and Eve don't have to be literal individuals. My faith and beliefs are doing quite well. I think that you are falling into the common trap of equating real religion (whatever that is) with fundamentalist religion, and I think that is an entirely different argument, and not a good one.

To tell the truth, I don't know the particulars of most people's beliefs who are Ph.D.'s in the Genetics department. But that doesn't really matter--they are still self-identified Christians who are also rather well-educated.

I think that it is interesting that you think that Christians who are non-literalists, pro-choice and pro-science, etc. means that religion has a "lesser degree of control over their minds." First of all, I don't think that religion is mind control. Religion does not exist out there somewhere, exerting a force of any kind on anyone. Religion is a set of beliefs that people have usually about a deity, and from which they derive a certain worldview and/or principles. Some people's religion is much more structured and legalistic than others, and some rely much more on community enforcement. But, I think that you would be seriously mistaken if you thought that religion didn't greatly inform most of those "liberal" Christians' views about the world--that it's just on the back burner, barely hanging on. Many Christians base their acceptance of women's right to choose, the lgbt community, science and all the rest on an understanding of their religion. Simply because their beliefs lead them to agree with you doesn't mean that their religion did not inform those conclusions, and inform them to a great degree.

I also would like to comment on your continued use of "our" and "us"--as if everyone agreed with you, or more troubling, that this forum is by and for the non-religious. I don't think that this forum is by and for the non-religious, even though the majority of the population is, although I hope that I am corrected if it is. I think that the continued use of those terms can really only serve to divide us, and I hope that you'll take that into consideration.

[Petra]

That said, Abe, your clear focus on "what do we do about it" is very refreshing. If you believe the advancement of education is important to achieving the goals you value then why complicate the issue with your agenda. Why not just advocate education?


Agreed. :yup:

[ApostateAbe]

It seems perfectly acceptable to me to advance education for selfish political purposes, but I know I can't convince anyone else of that. So let us advance the cause of education for the same set of values that Ronin suggested: critical thinking skills, science, health, productivity and intelligence.

Now how can we do it?

[livius drusus]

I agree with wildernesse about the "we" being inaccurate when discussing goals and preferred methods. It's rather odd to see you keep using it during a discussion where most people have taken issue with you, even after you acknowledge that your "selfish political purposes" are not shared by everyone or even most of the people here.

Narrowing the discussion down to your current Ronin-redefined goal, Abe, how is science a value? How is intelligence a value? What do you mean by productivity? As squian noted above, what's wrong with advocating education for its own sake?

[squian]

Abe, I have a job that involves quite a bit of selling. And what you seem to be doing is called "the presumptive close." If you were selling a house, you might be saying, "Well, everyone wants a bigger garage so what is it going to take to get you into this house?" If you were selling a car, you might be saying, "All the cool people drive fast cars, so why not plunk down some dough for this car."

There are 2 things wrong with this approach. First, you are "presuming" that people make the connection between "this house" and "a bigger garage" or between "this car" and "fast". Second, you are "presuming" the why the target audience wants your goods in the first place. Both presumptions are likely to make a prospective buyer think, I don't want this because I don't want "a bigger garage" or "a faster car". The lesson for sales people is, "Listen, understand, then pitch."

Just as it makes people uncomfortable in sales, you are making people uncomfortable with your ultimately practical suggestions. Considering my sales advice, let's listen first to the problems people perceive with education. Then, let's understand what can be done. Finally, let's propose the concrete actions with a goal of maximizing the impact on the problem with a minimum of effort (because too often the minimum effort is more than a person can afford).

[ApostateAbe]

This discussion is getting too tedious for me. All I want are some suggestions on how to advance education. Instead, I am being asked to have the correct motivations and the correct way of phrasing them. I don't want an intellectual dialectic. I have had too many of those. I want to make something happen.

[wildernesse]

Personally, I would think that advice on a better way to approach an issue so that in the future people are more receptive to your ideas would be in the column of actually doing something. Anyway, I feel that I have given you some different ideas--focusing on economic justice and pre-school child development, for example. There are concrete, non-politically contested ways of working on those factors. Even though politically contested shouldn't mean that anyone shies away from the challenge.

I won't bother replying to anything else in this thread--far be it from me to contribute to anyone's tedium. Good luck.

[Petra]

Just stopping by to post a quote I've stumbled upon:

The privilege of a higher education, especially outside Africa, broadened my original horizon and encouraged me to focus on the environment, women and development in order to improve the quality of life of people in my country in particular and in the African region in general.

[viscousmemories]

I can kinda see what you mean, Abe. In fact I wouldn't have responded as I did in the beginning if I had realized this thread was in the activism forum, so I apologize for my debate-like response. But anyway I do think there have been some good, practical suggestions made for things we can do to advance education. Wildy made most of 'em if I recall correctly... maybe someone could come up with a list? Wildy?

[Ronin]

I almost forgot to post my submission after it made print last weekend.

Anyway, it looks like the editor saved up a collection of some very positive CSS letters all for one day.

I felt very good about my letter being placed among them.

Letters to the editor - Nov. 20, 2004 (http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/editorial/letters/10229504.htm)

[dave_a]

I almost forgot to post my submission after it made print last weekend.

Anyway, it looks like the editor saved up a collection of some very positive CSS letters all for one day.

I felt very good about my letter being placed among them.

Letters to the editor - Nov. 20, 2004 (http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/editorial/letters/10229504.htm)

Which one is yours?

[Petra]

Which one is yours?

This one:

In the perpetual attempt to infuse a particular religion (most often their own Christianity) with human governance, many letter writers continue to misinform the people regarding the basic rights empowered to them by the First Amendment.

Most often we are told that the Constitution provides for the "freedom of religion" and not the "freedom from religion."

It is not often pointed out, however, that the Constitution does not define "religion" nor does it promote the notion that our government should favor one, namely a monotheistic Christian "one," over all of the thousands of others.

If a person were to favor a particular ethical and moral worldview that involves no gods or goddesses, then that person also has the right to be "free from" the religion of others.

In like manner, a Christian is "free from" the religions of Wicca, Islam, Hinduism, etc., and their respective terminology, practices and icons.

In this light, it is now quite obvious that the First Amendment provides for the "freedom from religion" as well.

As representatives of government, public school teachers cannot impose these religions on students and judges cannot impose them on citizens in court. Teachers teach critical thinking skills and judges judge facts and circumstances "free from" religion.

As U.S. citizens, however, we cannot be "free from" our own government. Because of this, our government must remain secular in order for the First Amendment to apply or have any value for us at all.

The First "Commandment," on the other hand, is by its own immovable stance incompatible with our fine Constitution. It does not, in any way, provide that anyone can be free to practice any religion (have any other "gods") that they want. It directly prohibits the free exercise of religion.

Our Constitution derives power from "we, the people." Simply put, humans ordain our United States Constitution and our government, not any of the proposed gods.


Nice letter, Steve. :yup: :)

[dave_a]

Which one is yours?

This one:

Nice letter, Steve. :yup: :)

I heartily concur :appl:

[ApostateAbe]

A toast to Ronin's letter. :cincin: Let's all write a letter to our local editor whenever matters of religion emerge.

[Ronin]

A toast to Ronin's letter. :cincin:

Thanks, ApostateAbe...I'll drink to just about anything, but drinking to what I write never occurred to me.

I may have just found the impetus to become a prolific author.

:winedunk:

Let's all write a letter to our local editor whenever matters of religion emerge.

I usually make it a habit to send one in every month or so as they don't seem to be enforcing their 30 day rule anymore.

Here's another one from last year (http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/editorial/letters/6354849.htm).

(for some reason I can link to that one in archives but not the others).

[Ronin]

Hey, I just stumbled across another one (http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/editorial/letters/8857440.htm) from this year thanks to an old email link.

For what it is worth, I highly recommend the practice of providing reasoned and considerate debate regarding morality, ethics and liberty. It may become rocky at times, but it has been my experience that perseverence produces hope and greater understanding.

And these are very good things.

[viscousmemories]

I was on the road and hence missed your post about your 1st amendment letter. Great job, Ronin. And thanks for sharing it with us. :)

Btw nobody mixed alcohol and prose like Charles Bukowski.

Edited to add: The other two are great too. I love your closing line in the Kate Hepburn one. :yup: