Response To DD’s Unscientific America
Posted in Blogosphere, Responses, Science, Thinking Critically on | 3 minutes | 5 Comments →
Hmmm…. I'm not sure, but I believe Deacon Duncan considered my response to his Unscientific America trolling, and deleted it. I suppose time will tell. What is it with atheists and censorship, anyways? Do the dissenters now fear the dissent they were once so fond of championing?
DD's post was about the great American intellectual decline, and of course, he blames religious influence – and only religious influence – for the current problems facing our education system. I've noticed that many otherwise educated individuals erroneously brand religion as the convenient scapegoat for society's ills-du-jour, and for me, such usually comes across as rhetorical stretching, just like when religious individuals blame evolution for society's problems.
I felt DD's argument had a tincture of merit, but was also grossly oversimplified. I figured I might as well post my thoughts somewhere else they be wasted, so my response follows. I'm mostly interested in your thoughts on the great American intellectual decline, but I'd also like to know if anyone can speculate on why this comment might have been deleted.
The problem is that our approach to education is built on top of a foundation that was originally designed, not to promote a scientific approach to life, nor critical thinking, nor freedom of thought, but to preserve and promote religion. The first schools in colonial America were founded, not to turn children into skeptics and humanists and scientists, but to make sure that they could read the Bible, and would learn to obey its teachings. The basic model for American education thus is not the laboratory, where discoveries are made, but the catechism, where children learn to repeat stock answers to predefined questions. (Deacon Duncan, Unscientific America)
I found your “religion is the culprit” angle to be a bit oversimplified. I agree that America is intellectually impoverished, and that our educational system needs restructuring, but the problem is far too complex to simply attribute to religion – or any singular cause, for that matter. For example, pop culture and blind consumer-materialism are also strong contributors to the widespread intellectual decline in this country. It’s simply not “cool” to be smart, and who cares about what we know when who we know and how we look are arguably top priority for tomorrow’s voters? It’s no help to intellectualism that our entrepreneurial institutions continually enforce these shallow but lucrative creeds.
Although certainly religious and more conservatively so with age, and although we would all likely disagree with his views on civic enforcement of religious policy, John Cotton – the founder of America’s first public school – was no intellectual sheep. Cotton rallied against organized religion of his day, the Church of England, and “dissent with responsibility” was a keynote of Boston Latin School’s curriculum. Five who signed the Declaration of Independence were students: William Hooper, Robert Treat Paine, John Hancock, Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin. All of these men were first-class freethinkers.
Pick up Neil Postman’s The End of Education if you haven't, which touches on many ideas along these lines. Yes, our current educational system has roots in religious education, and yes, it’s disheartening to see our current educational system in shambles, but if we really want to make it better, we need to do more than just blame it all on religion.
Karla
says...Actually education was doing very well in this country when the Bible was still accepted in the classroom. If anyone takes the time to study the scholastic records one will find a major decrease in achievement as soon as the government got involved.
Homeschooled and Private schooled children score much better on standardized tests so I would say that there is a lack of evidence to support that a secular education promotes better learning than one influenced by Christianity.
Our current school system is the result of a secular education, and has moved so far from it’s religious roots that such roots cannot be blamed. Maybe it’s time to change the worldview the curriculum away from secular humanism.
Karla
says...Actually education was doing very well in this country when the Bible was still accepted in the classroom. If anyone takes the time to study the scholastic records one will find a major decrease in achievement as soon as the government got involved.
Homeschooled and Private schooled children score much better on standardized tests so I would say that there is a lack of evidence to support that a secular education promotes better learning than one influenced by Christianity.
Our current school system is the result of a secular education, and has moved so far from it’s religious roots that such roots cannot be blamed. Maybe it’s time to change the worldview the curriculum away from secular humanism.
Karla
says...Also, I’m surprised the Christian foundation is acknowledged when it supposedly benefits the argument against it. I thought the predominate idea in secularism today is that there was no Christian foundation to our nation. . . Interesting that one (DD) doesn’t mine positing it when it suits their purpose.
cl
says...Well, on one hand I see your point, and I do think colonial America was much more “Christian” than secularists want to admit, but I would also say that the presence of Christian schools isn’t exactly the same thing as a “Christian foundation” to America. Still, good observation on your part, and something I completely overlooked.
Karla
says...The reason for the schools to educate in Christianity wasn’t just because that was the primary worldview of the day, but because the Founders saw Biblical education as indispensable to self-governance and freedom. The more the people self-governed themselves the less the government would need to usurp freedoms for the good of society.
I’m surprised their was any admission of any kind of Christianity being readily promulgated in the schools. I have an old McGuffy reader so that I can always point to the evidence.