more on book burnings are next...

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Tom Fairlie <tfairlie () frontiernet net>
Date: November 13, 2004 6:11:33 PM EST
To: Simon Higgs <simon () higgs com>
Cc: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on book burnings are next...

Hi Simon,

Let's start over shall we. It's far too easy to go down
our current path and wind up making arguments that
have nothing to do with each other. Plus, I have had
this debate more than 100 times in the past few years
and that's no exaggeration.

My only points are thus:

1) We agree that religion and faith have nothing to
do with each other. Game, set, and match.

2) I disagree with your assumption that faith is a logical
conclusion of study and learning, in the context of our
public schools. For example, someone could be incredibly
bright, ethical, hard-working, and moral, yet still have no
faith whatsoever in a supreme being, a higher power, or
whatever. I personally know at least two atheists that
are an order of magnitude more moral (i.e., loving, helpful,
charitable) in the acts they do than any Christian I have
ever known.

Would you assume that these people must be subconsciously
following a higher power and don't know it? I can tell you
the answer. They are both incredibly smart, were raised to
be religious, have studied the issues at length, and have
consciously decided to be an atheist. Any attempt to have
taught them otherwise in a public school setting would
have mitigated their kind acts later in life (in my humble opinion).

The spiritual path one takes is and should be a personal one.
Trying to force such a path on young children seems not
only fruitless (in the sense that they may just as readily
reject such teachings in their teenage years as they seek
independence) but also inherently flawed because one
person's definition of spirituality, faith, or even morals is
always going to differ from everyone else's.

I believe that it is the parent's responsibility to impart a
moral sense in our children. Why I would want to outsource
that function to a public school teacher is beyond me.
You say that faith can be taught. The home is the school.

3) You argument about what is 'real', what is 'belief', and what
is 'knowledge' are all philosophical rabbit holes that can be
debated, but have little impact on the question of public
school curricula and here is why.

Suppose you wanted to expose the children in public
schools to (a) moral/ethical thinking, (b) religious principles,
(c) spirituality, or (d) general teachings related to 'b' or 'c'.

Case 'a' is easy. There used to be a show called "Ethics
in America" that is still available on VHS tape. Watch it
and you'll realize that ethics and morals can be intellectually
debated without being couched in a spiritual context.
If you wanted to apply such thinking to a younger audience,
you would just have to tailor the subject matter and the
analysis appropriately. I have no problem with any of this.

Case 'b' is possible only if every major religion is represented
in a fair and balanced way. Given the state of America's public
school system (at least from where I sit; I have 4 children in
the Midwest), I doubt that we have the teaching resources
necessary to provide such a robust and inclusive curriculum.
Falling short of the goal, which is far too easy, will inevitably
lead to rampant bias in what is taught and will invariably lead
to an increase in intolerance and polarization--two things we
need to combat, not encourage.

Case 'c' is much more problematic than 'b'. I suppose it's
possible to cover such a topic, but the demand on the
teacher is severe. I can just imagine one teacher talking
about the rapture and another talking about some Far East
philosophy and a third discussing the benefits of polygamy.
Given the incredibly high bar that would have to be set,
this is realistically a non-starter.

Case 'd' appears to be where ID attempts to insert itself,
although I tend to view it as 'b'. The problem here, just as
in Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,
is the inherent bias such a system will promote. In other
words, how many teachers are going to cover Islam and
the teachings of Mohammed? How many children are
going to feel wrong or ashamed because they don't get
or don't agree with what the teacher is pushing. Again,
this is an issue for the home.

4) Let me explain my 'belief' argument again (perhaps fruitless,
assuming that you're going to equate Einstein's equations with
Pat Roberton's predictions--not that you did, but there you go :-).

The scientific community has built upon itself over centuries
(and against the church, btw) and has created a body of knowledge
that allows me to drive a car to work, use a computer to create
incredibly complex devices, microwave my food, listen to high-
fidelity music wherever I go, keep in touch with my wife and
children through a wireless network, react to my baby crying
(on a monitor) when I'm out of earshot, and read about world
events with the click of a mouse button. I believe in these
scientists because I use the fruits of their labor every day.

People like Dr. King require more belief. If I completely disbelieved
in him and his work, I could try to write him off as just another
charismatic speaker. However, millions of Americans look up
to him not just as a leader, but as someone who fought to
change the legal system to finally end discriminatory practices.
Thus, if I have even a small belief in him and his work, I can
easily attribute a lot of good to what he did and the impact he
had on society.

My last example, Dr. Dobson, requires the most faith; not just
because he accomplishes little, but because his subject is faith
itself. The analogy is the scientist who talks about science itself.
Stephen Wolfram, a reputed genius and the inventor of the
popular software program Mathematica,  wrote a book a couple
of years ago called "A New Kind of Science". In this book, he
described a new paradigm that was intended to put the entire
scientific community on its ear and change the way scientists
work. Perhaps his tome will be accepted some day (Einstein had
to wait years for people to simply confirm his math, let alone
agree with him), but the truth is that is currently an exceedingly
large paperweight.

Whereas Wolfram selfishly pursues knowledge (even if flawed),
someone like Dobson pursues an agenda that is selfish in the
sense that it serves only his own purposes. If Wolfram is
completely wrong, it has no impact on me. If he's right, I can
only benefit. If he's wrong, but the scientific community
mistakenly follows it, then they may hurt themselves, but will
eventually right the ship over time.

In Dobson's case, his agenda can neither be declared right
or wrong because someone will always lose whether there
is a benefit or not. This is because his tactics polarize rather
than unite. He possesses the 'truth', yet becomes a hate monger
when challenged. He is a child of God, but apparently believes
that only half the electorate is worthy of similar status. My point
here is that it takes pure faith, in both Dobson and his narrow
message, to derive a benefit from him.

You could easily argue that Dobson is an extreme example,
and you'd be right. However, history books are stuffed with
examples of what goes wrong every time faith (or religion)
mingles with the apparatus of the state. Instead, I believe
that the only way to inspire someone to change for the
better is to live your life as an example to them. Famous people
like Bill Bennett (former drug czar) tried to take the shortcut by
writing pamphlets like "The Book of Virtues" without making the
sacrifices necessary to live up to them. When his million-dollar
gambling addiction was exposed, he denied that it was a problem
at all. My point here is to let faith, spirituality, and beliefs live or
die on their own. We don't need to incorporate any of this into
public schools.

5) I didn't get what you mean when you said:
"Saving the innocents? Consequences and accountability? Religious 
crusades?

That is all for now. Fingers are tired.

Tom Fairlie


----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Higgs" <simon () higgs com>
To: "Tom Fairlie" <tfairlie () frontiernet net>
Cc: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 4:30 AM
Subject: Re: [IP] more on book burnings are next...


Tom,

> With all due respect, I think you're missing out on several
> important aspects of the issue at hand and my response to it.
>
> First of all, equating science to religion on the basis of both
> being 'knowledge' is outside the borders of this discussion.

Then it's hardly a discussion. It's either knowledge or it's not. 
Banning
knowledge simply on the basis of it's content is well outside the 
borders
of a true education. Part of a decent education is to learn the true 
value
of knowledge and place it in proper context with other knowledge. 
Knowledge
and facts are different animals. Do you know what you know? Do you know 
if
what you know is fact or fiction?

> Our public school system is intended to prepare our children
> to become productive members of the workforce and that's all
> there is to it.

Then, in the real world, it's a total failure and not meeting that
objective. But, hey, I live in Los Angeles, home to the most 
dysfunctional
school district in the world.

> It was nice when they used to teach kids about
> the 'arts' and put on plays and such, but unless you live in
> the suburbs, that's mostly gone today.
>
> I think your equation also fails once you mention the word
> 'belief'. I don't have to 'believe' in Einstein or Newton in order
> to derive benefit from their knowledge.

Yes, you do. You have to believe in their theories and proofs to derive
benefit. Conversely, you have to disbelieve them to reject them. Either 
way
you expressed a measure of faith. Not necessarily in them, but in their
work.

> In the middle ground,
> I *would* have to at least partially 'believe' in the work of
> someone like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in order to consider
> him a great man. (I do.) However, one could hardly consider
> someone like Dr. James Dobson a good man unless they had
> *total* belief in him and his acts. (I don't.)

You're expressing greatness in proportion to how much faith you have in 
a
person. You've rejected Dobson because you don't/won't have 100% faith 
in
him, yet you are willing to accept far less than 100% from MLK. It just
sounds like you're prejudice.

> Furthermore (and speaking of Einstein), he proved that
> everything is relative in terms of your point of view
> (Cf. Special Theory of Relativity). It was a radical thought
> at the time and yet nobody challenged it once it was understood.
> I suspect that you might doubt this sort of orthodoxy, but
> the irony here is that Science (capital "S") and the [real]
> scientists who practice it actually challenge long-held beliefs
> and adapt them or improve them over time. Of course, there
> is often a lot of inertia to overcome and scientists can certainly
> be bullheaded about change, but nonetheless, their feedback
> look reinforces the quality of their work.

Sounds like a basis of faith to me. Faith in Relativity and the
relationship of space and time. Much of our confusion results from the
assumption that time and space are things that exist independently of
faith. Remember that the next time you walk on water.

> The fact that organized religion (and Christianity, to be specific)
> demonstrates very little of this introspection, leads them to adopt
> a very absolutist worldview. Perhaps consistency is maintained,
> but at a high cost; and in reality, few practice it. Many is the
> Christian who preaches the sanctity of life for the unborn fetus
> and yet champions the death penalty; glorifies our military
> adventures against Islam while ignoring the innocent civilian
> casualties; sees nothing wrong with capitalism while millions
> go without their basic human needs being met.

Saving the innocents? Consequences and accountability? Religious 
crusades?

You're confusing Christianity with the actions of some American church
goers. Sad but true. This is the classic confusion between religion and
Christianity.

> You bring up Darwin's twilight regrets. I hadn't read that about
> Darwin, but given the world in which he lived, are you sure that
> he wasn't bemoaning the use of his theories by eugenicists?

Not in that specific context, but they may be included along with the
Linnean Society of London as well as the Royal Society of London and the
British Association for the Advancement of Science. All of them 
contributed.

> After all, his half first cousin, Francis Galton, was the pioneer of
> eugenics and helped make the latter half of the 19th century and
> the first half of the 20th a living hell for tens of millions of 
> people--
> most famously the Jews under Hitler. This is the further irony of
> Darwin; that his theories are laughed at by people who seem to
> think that Social Darwinism is perfectly acceptable. Hardly a
> Christian concept by my definition.
>
> One last thing on Darwin; his theories certainly do hold up to
> scientific scrutiny. Remember that Darwin proposed theories,
> not proofs.

Then why are Darwin's theories taught as proofs and without the benefit 
of
alternative theories?

> While scientists have been poking and prodding
> his work for more than a century and important anomalies have
> been found and studied, the vast majority of scientists aren't
> ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater. By contrast, the
> folks behind ID took one of Darwin's anomalies (the complexity
> problem), ignored the scientific theories that may explain it
> (e.g., the law of big numbers, et al), and then used it as a pretext
> to push Christian teachings as opposed to scientific reasoning.

Look from the other side, the scientist with a faith has to reconcile 
that
somehow. There isn't an ulterior motive, there is simply another theory 
or
proof in the equation which has to be accounted for. More data to
extrapolate from.

> I can't take such debate seriously, since it is by definition un-
> scientific and has such an obvious ulterior motive.

Yeah, but those are two very unscientific reasons to reject a theory or
proof. You are guaranteed the wrong results because you don't have all 
the
data. We're back to knowledge you have eliminated instead of putting it 
in
context.

> > > Assuming that you're not clumsily falling into this trap and 
> > > sincerely
> > > want religion taught in our public schools, then I guess we could
> > > be persuaded towards this thinking if the education included all of
> > > the major religions of the world and a fair analysis--with the pros
> > > and cons--of each.
>
> > And the problem you have with that is what exactly?
>
> I don't have a problem with this at all, which is why I suggested it.
> Of course, this suggestion is tongue-in-cheek, since almost nobody
> I know is interested in debating such topics. The overwhelming
> majority of people I know who have truly studied religion have
> little or no interest in talking about their faith as a subject of 
> debate.
>
> Extrapolating this to the community at large would seem to indicate
> that this debate would go nowhere fast and would only seek to
> inflame people on both (all?) sides. You implied that I'm against
> such a debate, while the truth is that I'm against such a non-starter
> of a topic.
>
> Speaking of which, you implied that I was 'silly' for allegedly
> ignoring your theory that teaching our children basic skills would
> inevitably lead to their discovery of a higher power. Pure nonsense.

You have data to back that up? ;-p

> Every person operates uniquely and their modus operandi cannot
> be so easily predicted. Personally, my own belief that there is a
> higher power came not from school, science, or the Catholic school
> (and church) in which I was raised; I came upon that discovery through
> personal intuition and spiritual maturity--both ways that cannot be
> taught no matter hard you or anyone else can possibly try.

You learnt, didn't you? Then you can't say that it can't be taught.
Everything that can be learnt can be taught. But we're back to putting
knowledge in it's proper context.

>  However,
> by undertaking such an educational effort, you or the professional
> proselytizers you seem to support would be embarking upon a costly
> and risky mission that: will certainly be very inefficient; is 
> inherently
> prejudiced against a large percentage of the population; may stimulate
> the opposite effect in many children; and will inevitably be borne by
> taxpayers that have no idea about or interest in such outcomes.

Ah, now I get it. That's fear talking. Fear of brain washing. Fear of
indoctrination. Fear of lifestyle accountability. Fear of loosing
individual choice. All rational reasons. However, you need to recognize 
the
difference between religion and faith. Religion breeds cults and is over
all highly unhealthy. Faith breeds self-sacrifice and service to the
community. You've just got to know the difference. And don't confuse
religion with Christianity. They're polar opposites.

> Thus, who is being the silly one here?

So when do I get a choice where my taxes are spent?

> Sincerely,
> Tom Fairlie
> PS. Sorry for ending this note on a quasi-insulting tone.
> However, you started it. :-)

Thbbttthhhttt... ;-p


Best Regards,

Simon Higgs



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/