| Site links | Tricks
of the trade - Wayne's World - a textbook review. - this page will be under development for some time - last updated 30th May 1999 |
|
Where religious power comes from The celibacy of priests and nuns Atheist parent - church school E-mail think@writeme.com
"...teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests." Einstein 1934, at a Conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
"If the belief in god were natural, there would be no need to teach it. Children would possess it as well as adults, the layman as the priest, the heathen as much as the missionary. We don't have to teach the general elements of human nature; the five senses, seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and feeling. They are universal; so would religion be were it natural, but it is not. On the contrary, it is an interesting and demonstrable fact, that all children are Atheists, and were religion not inculcated into their minds they would remain so. Even as it is, they are great sceptics, until made sensible of the potent weapon by which religion has ever been propagated, namely, fear - fear of the lash of public opinion here, and of jealous, vindictive God hereafter. No; there is no religion in human nature, nor human nature in religion. It is purely artificial, the result of education, while Atheism is natural, and, were the human mind not perverted and bewildered by the mysteries and follies of superstition, would be universal." Ernestine L. Rose, "A Defense of Atheism" (1878, Women Without Superstition ed. Annie Laurie Gaylor, Madison, WI: FFRF, 1997), p. 82.
It struck me suddenly that to be such a deeply conscious aware human being in life and then to "not exist" is a far more powerful thing than an afterlife or anything God could do. The heroism and tragedy of human life which is so marvelous and yet is capable of ending had a very big impact on me. It was partly the feeling that the universe had created something greater than itself - conscious, aware, striving man who is doomed after a short spell of the miracle of awareness to complete oblivion. The power and impact of such a thought (this is the important bit of the experience that really got me thinking) was completely lost if God existed, or was even thought to exist, which really struck me as remarkable. This was really very shocking and disturbed me very much. It seemed to me that death is one of the most natural things for living beings and it is something which is denied us by many religions. It places a special dignity on human conscious life - aware and striving - and so vulnerable!
"The splendour of human life, I feel sure, is greater to those who are not dazzled by the divine radiance." Bertrand Russell
"promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no effect on an atheist." John Locke (an advocate of religious tolerance)
Until the passage of the Evidence Amendment Act 1869 atheists in England were considered incompetent to give evidence in a court of law.
"The man who has the hardihood to avow that he does not believe in God, shows a recklessness of character and utter want of moral sensibility, such as very little entitles him to be heard or believed in a court of justice in a country designated as Christian." Supreme Court
of Tennessee
"no atheist as such can be a true friend, an affectionate relation, or a loyal subject." Richard Bentley, 1724
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein
"Religion without science is lame, science without religion is blind." Albert Einstein - page 109 in the textbook being criticised here. The authors of this book should really have known better - in fact they are deliberately deceiving the children studying this book by using this quotation. Read quote below and click through to Einstein on this site for an explanation of this quote.
"As the first way out there was religion, which is implanted into every child by way of the traditional education-machine. Thus I came - though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents - to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression." 'Autobiographical
Notes', Einstein, Open Court Publishing Company,
"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God." Thomas Edison
"All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of the few." Marie Henri Beyle
"In the long run nothing can withstand reason and experience, and the contradiction religion offers to both is only too palpable." Sigmund Freud
"Religion is not insanity but it is born of the stuff which makes for insanity. ... all religions perform the function of delusion." George Dorsey "The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called 'faith.'" Robert G. Ingersoll
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" Derek Bok Ex-president of Harvard
"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell
"Theologian: An uncommon individual who, though possessing finite abilities, has been called by God himself who, though possessing infinite abilities, requires the assistance of the former in explaining Himself to the rest of us." [Translation: if God existed, theologians would be out of work.]" Donald Morgan
"The trouble with born-again Christians is that they are an even bigger pain the second time around." Herb Caen
"I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them." Galileo
"Jesus' last words on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" hardly seem like the words of a man who planned it that way. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure there is something wrong here." Donald Morgan
"I am arguing that faith as such, faith as an alleged method of acquiring knowledge, is totally invalid and as a consequence, all propositions of faith, because they lack rational demonstration, must conflict with reason." George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1989), p. 120.
"The third major characteristic of God -- "infinitude" -- is the catchall, the universal modifier of Christian theology. God is not merely a being; he is infinite being. God is not merely good; he is infinite goodness. God is not merely wise; he is infinite wisdom. And so on down the list. God is exaggeration run amuck" George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1989), p. 68.
"Christian faith is a habit of flouting reason in forming and maintaining one's answer to the question whether there is a god. Its essence is the determination to believe that there is a god no matter what the evidence may be." Richard Robinson, "Religion and Reason" Critiques of God
"Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown, and partly the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing - fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand-in-hand" Bertrand Russell, 6/3/27
I would have all the professors in colleges, all the teachers in schools of every kind, including those in Sunday schools, agree that they would teach only what they know, that they would not palm off guesses as demonstrated truths. Robert Ingersoll, 'What I Want for Christmas'
False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for everyone takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness; and when this is done, one path toward errors is closed and the road to truth is often at the same time opened. Charles Darwin, 'The Descent of Man'
"Scientific education and religious education are incompatible. The clergy have ceased to interfere with education at the advanced state, with which I am directly concerned, but they have still got control of that of children. This means that the children have to learn about Adam and Noah instead of Evolution; about David who killed Goliath, instead of Koch who killed cholera; about Christ's ascent into heaven instead of Montgolfier's and Wright's. Worse than that, they are taught that it is a virtue to accept statements without adequate evidence, which leaves them a prey to quacks of every kind in later life, and makes it very difficult for them to accept the methods of thought which are successful in science." J. B. S. Haldane
"The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church." Ferdinand Magellan, Cardiff, 'What Great Men Think of Religion'
"Religions are like fireflies. They require darkness in order to shine." Arthur Schopenhauer
"Man is certainly stark mad. He cannot make a flea, and yet he will be making gods by the dozen." Michel de Montaigne,' Essays'
"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?" John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson
"All good intellects have repeated, since Bacon's time, that there can be no real knowledge but which is based on observed facts." Auguste Comte, 'The Positive Philosophy'
"If we go back to the beginning we shall find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that fancy, enthusiasm, or deceit adorned or disfigured them; that weakness worships them; that credulity preserves them, and that custom, respect and tyranny support them in order to make the blindness of men serve its own interests." Paul Henry Thiry d'Holbach, 'The System of Nature'
"A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any agreement from experience can possibly be imagined....Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happens in the common course of nature....There must, therefore, be an uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as an uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle." David Hume, 'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding'
"Facts are the air of scientists. Without them, you never can fly." Ivan Pavlov, 'Bequest to the Academic Youth of Soviet Russia'
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors." J. Robert Oppenheimer, Life, October 10, 1949
"In dark ages people are best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind, old men as guides." Heinrich Heine, 'Gedanken und Einfalle'
"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." Abraham Lincoln, to Judge J.S. Wakefield, after Willie Lincoln's death
"They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth. The mystics of spirit call it 'another dimension,' which consists of denying dimensions. The mystics of muscle call it 'the future,' which consists of denying the present. To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say — and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge — God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out." Ayn Rand (1905-1982), "Atlas Shrugged." Ayn Rand was the founder of Objectivism. All the negative qualities mentioned by Ayn Rand (except virtue being non-profit) are key features of the the textbook discussed at right.
"Freethinkers reject faith as a valid tool of knowledge. Faith is the opposite of reason because reason imposes very strict limits on what can be true, and faith has no limits at all. A Great Escape into faith is no retreat to safety. It is nothing less than surrender." Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: FFRF, 1992).
"The most extraordinary Roman soldiers that Rome ever heard of were those soldiers that were set to watch the tomb of Jesus. They managed to fall asleep simultaneously in order to allow Jesus to pass unseen, and when they awoke, for a bribe they deliberately committed suicide by admitting that they had slept -- an admission that meant instant execution. Was ever invention so stupidly desperate and mendacity so recklessly absurd as that invention and that mendacity upon which rests the story of the Resurrection, upon which the whole fabric of the Christian faith has elected to stand or fall? The basis is too puerile to support a story told by an idiot for the purpose of imposing upon a fool." W.S. Ross, "Did Jesus Christ Rise from the Dead?" An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism
"Throughout the last 400 years, during which the growth of science had gradually shown men how to acquire knowledge of the ways of nature and mastery over natural forces, the clergy have fought a losing battle against science, in astronomy and geology, in anatomy and physiology, in biology and psychology and sociology. Ousted from one position, they have taken up another. After being worsted in astronomy, they did their best to prevent the rise of geology; they fought against Darwin in biology, and at the present time they fight against scientific theories of psychology and education. At each stage, they try to make the public forget their earlier obscurantism, in order that their present obscurantism may not be recognized for what it is." Bertrand Russell, "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish" (1943) in Bertrand Russell on God and Religion
"The pragmatic suggestion, that we had better teach the Christian religion whether it is true or not, because people will be much less criminal if they believe it, is disgusting and degrading; but it is being made to us all the time, and it is a natural consequence of the fundamental religious attitude that comfort and security must always prevail over rational inquiry." Richard Robinson, "Religion and Reason" Critiques of God (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1997).
"The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in the bonds of Hell." St. Augustine
"Accustomed to trace the operation of general causes, and the exemplification of general laws, in circumstances where the uninformed and unenquiring eye perceives neither novelty nor beauty, [the scientist and natural philosopher] walks in the midst of wonders." John Herschel (as quoted on page 124 of Emerson: The Mind on Fire)
"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense." Chapman Cohen
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know." Mark Twain |
This is a look at techniques used to repudiate atheism used in a school textbook aimed at 11-13 year olds: "At Home on Planet Earth" by Derek Sankey, Desmond Sullivan & Brenda Wilson, published in 1988 by Basil Blackwell ISBN 0 631 90048 9. I chose it at random from a selection of books in the local public library. I shall keep quotations from the book to a minimum in case there are copyright problems. However, the quotations are for for information and comment only and should not violate copyright. The object of the book is supposedly to reconcile science and religion. Although not apparent at first sight as you read through you will discover the intellectual dishonesty and moral failure that is the hallmark of this deceitful book. For the underlying theory the authors appear to base their approach on see here. The book has been worked through very thoroughly developing a consistent theme with no word left to chance. It involves a group of early secondary school age children going on a summer camp with Mr. Jones, their English Teacher, Mr. Payne their Religious Education teacher, and Miss Ridgewell, their Science teacher. Quotations from the book are in ochre, Atheism Central comments are in black. The cover shows a beautiful sunset about 4" x 5" in size. Chapter
One - A Sunset Experience Chapter One - "A Sunset Experience" The theme of this first chapter - and indeed of the book- follows from the picture on the cover - and the third sentence introduces us to the first (and probably most important) character in the book - Wayne: "The look on Wayne's face was typical of many. It bore a simple message: 'I hate school'. They arrive at camp and Wayne soon emerges as more adventurous than many and goes off into the woods brimming with confidence 'I reckon I know more about this place now'. We are then introduced to the second character who evokes the dark forces at work by saying 'Just think what it will be like with those trees when it gets dark. There won't be any street lights you know. It'll be creepy'. Wayne does not see this creepiness in the world around him. The 'creepy' or frightening
side of the natural world is frequently emphasised in the book as a
backdrop to it's beauties - this is an important part of the book -
we shall see why later. "Everyone stood still, captured for a moment by what they were seeing. It was like a parting farewell. The sun gradually sank below the horizon and finally passed out of view" 'That was fantastic,' said Leila, as everyone returned to what they had been doing before. 'I've never seen a sunset quite like that. 'I have,' retorted Wayne, 'and anyway it's not that wonderful; it's only the earth turning on its axis.' Mr. Payne, who had stood enchanted a little longer than the others, picked up Wayne's comment. 'Is that all, Wayne? Don't you think perhaps you're missing something?' Things to do 1. Do you think that Wayne was 'missing something'? If so write in one or two sentences what you think he was missing. Wayne has clearly failed to appreciate the beauty of the sunset. He gave a bland scientific explanation of something that causes 'normal' people to experience a sense of enchantment. 2. Read carefully the following passages about the sun.
a. b. c. What kind of book do you think each passage might have been taken from? Is one more true than the others? Which describes best what we see with our eyes? Which passage would Wayne prefer? Which passage do you prefer? Why? We realise that Wayne (who was unreasonably unfrightened by the creepy wood and who said the sunset was not wonderful) would prefer passage a. Of course, no-one wants to be seen as uncaring as Wayne - because to appreciate beauty is synonymous with being human - so they go for b or c. Because of its more powerful language the religious text is seen to appreciate beauty more - and the beauty of nature is connected with the existence of god.. Creative responses
Anyone who has see the film 'Forrest Gump' can remember how the director illustrated Forrest's humanity by a series of shots showing him speaking poetically of and enjoying the beauty of nature - the sunsets - the reflection of the mountains in a lake - the beauty of the desert. Poor Wayne - what a lot he is missing! The treatment of Wayne is dishonest and manipulative. Who would have sympathy with such a child? The children taking Religious Education (better called dishonest propaganda) are yet to discover the awful truth. Keep on reading to find out! Note the way the RE teacher - Mr. Payne (who does believe in god) stood enchanted longer than the others. No doubt his faith gives him a special appreciation of the beauties of nature! So in this chapter Wayne is treated a school-hating uncaring know-all who lacks a fundamental human quality - the ability to appreciate beauty. Topic Work Summary: This section begins by showing a series of common optical illusions in which the brain is tricked into giving the wrong answer. The object is to demonstrate the unreliability of the senses. Other ways of 'seeing' are then introduced using these examples: 1. 'The judge
sees through him all right.' It is then established (to the satisfaction of the authors of the book) that there are ways of seeing things which do not involve the eyes. At the bottom of the page a boy is shown 'seeing' things in three ways: Picture of boy drawing the
sun - caption - Through art. Also on the same page a 12 year old girl is interviewed saying she has thought about the world moving around in space and how strange it all is. 1. Do you sometimes wonder what caused the world in the first place, and whether it was made for a purpose? 2. Do you feel 'at home' in the world? Does it sometimes feel unfriendly and frightening? The notion of fear is raised again. The motive is obvious - if beauty is to be the carrot to entice these children to believe in God, then fear is to be the stick. 3. Have you ever wondered how we human beings fit in with the rest of nature? Are we different from other living things? Are we similar to animals or plants or even to the stars in some way? 4. Are you sometimes struck by the wonder and beauty of the world, for instance when you see a gorgeous sunset or some splendid scenery? The children are then asked to consider a Hindu cremation, a bird sitting on its nest, and Incas worshipping their sun god. They are introduced to a mini-history of religion and science neatly interwoven and pointing out that early scientists saw no conflict with religion - except for Aristotle, who did not believe in the Greek gods (Zeus etc.) but instead believed in the First Mover (handy really - a monotheist before his time). The mini-exposition ends with a quick look at Pythagoras' theorem followed by a quote from a 'modern philosopher' who said: 'When you
understand all about the sun, all about the atmosphere and all about
the rotation of the earth, you may still miss the radiance of the sunset.' Of course, if the kids don't know the correct answer by now they never will. Of course science isn't enough. It's boring Pythagoras! The children are then presented with Genesis 1, 1-8. They are guided into thinking that although Genesis is not scientifically true it is a metaphor for what happened (but there is latitude to include fundamentalists). The children read of 'people who are not religious' who say things like 'it's all made up'. The children are then given a sort of cultural history of the writing of Genesis (but not explaining its origin predates the Judeo-Christian religions). The chapter concludes by defining a human god (a he, she or it) as a metaphor just like Genesis. God isn't a man with a beard, but an undefined something which we can only describe using metaphors. No more is made of this in later chapters, despite the importance it plays in the theist-atheist controversy. So much for 'God made man in his own image and likeness!'
Chapter Two - "Can we be sure of what we know?" The children's summer camp continues with Wayne Dawn and Carol going to collect the milk from a farm. An accident occurs between a milkfloat and a car but we never discover the precise details of it - what we discover is that the children disagree over what they have seen. Wayne attempts to say what happened but is accused of lying by Dawn. He says he can prove what he says but is not given an opportunity to do so. His response to doubt is to make sexist comments about the girls always getting things wrong. Mr. Payne (the religious education teacher) decides to use this as an opportunity to examine how we know what we know. And the details of the accidentally are forgotten - although Wayne is again accused of lying but by Carol this time (so it's two against one - Wayne must be a liar). 'We all might see things differently,' says Mr. Payne, because 'we ourselves have to make sense of what we see.' Dawn says to Wayne 'you just saw what you wanted to. You think that all women are bad drivers but you've got it wrong.' By now we are sure that Wayne is a sexist brat who does not think things for rational reasons. Wayne struggles to discover a way of showing what is right: 'So how do we know who is right then?' he replied. 'It's like science, for instance. That's based on what we see with our own eyes and we can prove it's true,' Wayne said, looking straight at Miss Ridgewell (the science teacher). 'Who told you that, Wayne? she exclaimed. 'I'm certain I didn't.' Poor Wayne is nonplused. Miss Ridgewell explains that science is often contrary to common sense and personal observation by describing that our senses tell us that the sun goes round the earth when in fact science tells us this is not so. So science does not obey the evidence of our senses. Miss Ridgewell is probably the world's most unusual science teacher. 'How can we be certain of anything?' says Wayne. Mr. Payne then speaks of Descartes who was worried by uncertainty. They then play an 'uncertainty game' in which everyone thinks of something they are absolutely sure of and the others try to disprove it. 'That's easy,' said Wayne. 'I'll start. I am certain that the sun is shining right now. Nobody can doubt that.' 'I can,' replied Dawn,'because we can't see the sun. It's almost dark.' 'Yes, but it's still shining somewhere. We can't see it, but in Australia they can,' replied Wayne, indignantly. Miss Ridgewell took up Wayne's challenge. 'How can we be certain that Australia exists? You've never seen it.' she said... Wayne looked perplexed, he hadn't expected to be beaten that easily. The passage finished by looking at 'I think therefore I am' but without any special point being made. The key objective was to disprove Wayne's claim about science. The point is driven home by Miss Ridgewell who says that science never stays still and today's theories might well be seen to be wrong n the light of tomorrow's scientific discoveries. So in this chapter Wayne has been branded a sexist liar who is easily deceived and who foolishly places his trust in science. Topic Work: Making Sense of things. The topic work section deals with four ways of knowing things: Inner knowledge
(intuition) The history of astronomy is looked at (it is not taken beyond Kepler) with emphasis on the fact that each generation of astronomers had their ideas challenged (falsified) by their successors. Despite this they all used all four forms of knowledge. A key point is made that scientists often discover things by intuition. About a problem: 'You cannot see your way through it and then, quite suddenly 'the penny drops', as we say. The same is often true with religion. I hope you've got that because I am sure a good number of people would not see the connection between science and religion here! Page 30 shows a picture of Einstein with the caption 'Einstein discovered a hitherto unknown fourth dimension'. This is important in this very carefully crafted book, because the authors wish to demonstrate Einstein's support for their views - and will, in the final chapter, suggest an improvement on his theory of relativity by postulating a hitherto unknown fifth dimension! Religion and science are again equated in the following passage: Every now
and then in the history of both science and religion someone has suddenly
come to see the world or some part of it in a different way. In religion,
such changes of view are concerned with understanding of the world and
the meaning and purpose of life. In science they are to do with the
structure of the world and how it works. (Is this
really so? The theory of evolution has led to a great deal of secular
thought concerned with the understanding of the world and the purpose
of life - defined here as purely religious matters - as the authors
of this book no doubt are aware. It is very definitely science, and
not religion, that has enlarged our understanding of the world and the
purpose of life). In both science and religion, however, such
changes usually stem from someone with vision - someone who sees things
in a new way and not the way that things have been understood in the
past. The new view or picture of the world may be so powerful that it
changes the course of history. Did you spot it? Yes, 'vision' as it applies metaphorically to a scientific discovery, has been equated with religious revelation - quite a different thing! A clever trick! However, it doesn't really matter if the children remember this detail or not - this chapter, and others in the book fill the child's mind with a lot of scientific detail juxtaposed with a lot of talk about religion - giving the children the impression that religion is scientific - or at least as scientific as science is! Another important implication is that religion can progress in some way - in the same manner as science - as people with vision come along. This is an absurd notion but perhaps implies that, since the Moslem religion is more recent than Christianity it represents progress. The Scientologists would be happy - even though Ron Hubbard virtually admitted inventing the religion out of thin air! The most important objection, however, is that it is secular ideas, not religious ones, that have been responsible for progress by developing notions of human rights, identifying and criticizing racism, for example, and modifying our approach to crime and punishment. Religion has been a brake on progress. In addition, changes in religious dogma may have changed the world but it is not possible to demonstrate any 'progress'. Science, however, can visibly demonstrate progress. The topic work continues with a look at Isaac Newton with diagrams and a table of the velocities required for a circular orbit, elliptical orbit and the escape velocity for the Earth. The impression is given that religious the authors of the textbook can handle scientific thought easily so they must be right about religion too. Religion and ways of knowing. This is the conclusion of this chapter. It begins by referring to the four ways of knowing outlined earlier: Inner knowledge
(intuition) We have seen
that these are all used in science. They are all used in religion.
(It is impossible to image a scientist claiming to know anything as
a result of 'inner knowledge!'). So in one paragraph - despite the pages of effort the authors have gone to we are treated to a bald assertion: god exists because some people say so (to summarise).
Chapter
Three 'A terrible storm' The chapter begins with the science teacher, Miss Ridgewell introducing the children to the wonders of life - starting with fossil ammonites found on the beach and continuing with the seemingly endless array of life in the rock pools. On the way back from the beach, with the light fading fast and a storm approaching, the children once again find themselves in a wood almost as dark as night (Shakespeare used similar symbolism repeatedly - so do modern horror films). 'It's creepy
in here,' said Dawn nervously. 'The trees look like giant animals.' Followed by a little more in the same vein. Notice how Wayne is again 'Mr. Popularity'. He's a truly horrible little child, arrogantly taunting the others in that way! But we'll have to wait till chapter four to find out the dreadful truth about him! The ensuing storm is described using words such as 'insecurity', 'uncertainty', 'terrified' and 'terror.' Every chapter has mentioned the concept of evil in the form of things being creepy. This chapter looks at the 'argument from evil.' the debate follows this vein: ...'Earthquakes
(evil things) have played an important part in the formation of the
Earth's surface.' Then we have a little scientific explanation of the primeval soup and electrical storms producing the first life. (See 'compatibilism' on the glossary page.) Things to do 1. Have you really experienced something which really frightened you? Can you describe how you felt? Again here and in 'Creative responses' below we have the idea of creepy things. It has to do with the children grasping the idea that evil is present in the world. It is not intellectually respectable to speak of hellfire and damnation any more but this is a covert way of frightening the children. The stick of fear is being used here. We will have to wait till later to have the reason for this spelled out but perhaps the reader has begun to guess already. 2. If God created the world , do you think He could have done it differently? Can you think of any changes you would have made if you had created the world? would your changes lead to any other problems? Creative responses These involve painting a picture, writing a poem and enacting the storm in all its fury to get the children emotionally engaged. The word fear is not actually used this but the children are asked to 're-enact the tenseness and excitement as the storm rages' against a background of the creepiness in the previous two chapters, the creepiness in the wood in this chapter and the terrifying description of the storm. Topic Work: The Earth beneath our feet The children are again treated to a lengthy scientific exposition - this time of evolution. You may remember the children found ammonites on the beach at the beginning of the chapter. We start with the famous Mary Anning - the first great fossil collector in Lyme Regis just along the coast from where I am writing. We go on to the antiquity of the world, the dating of rocks according to their fossil content, continental drift, plate tectonics and earthquakes. Bizarrely, these elucidations are progressively more intermingled with discussion of the problem of suffering - a variation of the problem of evil. It is carefully pointed out that one of the scientists - Wilbur Smith the geologist was a Christian who did not take Bible stories as a literal explanation of the creation of the earth. Again the impression given is that anyone who can talk so much science and still believe in god must know what they are talking about. The special point is made, however, of Wegener's continental drift hypothesis that his opponents said, 'If we are to believe Wegener's hypothesis we must forget everything which has been learned in the last 70 years and start all over again.' You see how science can be wrong! If science could have been wrong then, think how wrong it could be today! (Uri Geller claimed the same thing.) In fact geologists did not have to abandon all they had learnt - great progress had been made and much was found compatible with continental drift theory. We arrive on the morning of 1 November 1755 with a powerful earthquake in Lisbon which seemed especially awful as the churches had been full of people because it was All Saints Day: Europe was stunned by the disaster. How could such a thing happen? Was it a punishment from God? The fact that so many of the victims had been in church caused particular problems in trying to come to terms with the disaster. 'How could a loving God allow this to happen?' they asked. The textbook takes this on the chin (apparently anyway):
We now move forward to an earthquake in Alaska on Good Friday in 1964 and read a woman's eyewitness account. At first the account is factual but after setting the scene the reader is suddenly assaulted by 'god talk.' Although crying, she (Anne) was still able to obey commands - thank God, because poor Dave was hysterical, and I could only hold him tightly. ... I suggested that first we say a prayer asking Jesus to take care of us and guide us, and both children stopped crying, closed their eyes and fervently pleaded with Him to take care of them. This had an extraordinary effect on them and on me. ... They were then rescued by 'six or eight' men who 'suddenly' appeared! The strongest feeling of all I know I share with the children and thousands of fellow Alaskans: a fervent thankfulness to God for having spared our lives in one of the world's worst earthquakes. We are thankful for the opportunity to rededicate our lives to His service.' This story shows clearly how frightening it is to be caught up in these kinds of disaster. More harping on fear.
There is no critical evaluation of the woman's alleged experience whatsoever. Nor are we are given evidence to demonstrate that she ever existed. Presumably the textbook writers would give equal credence to those who claim to have been abducted by aliens (about 20,000 in the USA alone, I understand). As a survivor of the Mexico City earthquake in 1985 I can suggest that the woman's claim to represent thousands of others in their 'fervent thankfulness to God' in Alaska is doubtful, to say the least. Mexico is a religious country by modern standards but there was no mention of god by anyone as far as I could make out. Absolutely no-one I came across attributed anything to god, either the earthquake itself, or their surviving it. Still, there's no need to believe me! It is most important to appreciate that deep questions such as these cannot be answered once and for all. The greatest thinkers who have ever lived have gone on wrestling with possible answers. Somehow it is overlooked that these possible answers include many that give compelling reasons for the nonexistence of god(s)! It is important, however, that we think our own answers to them and learn too from other people's experiences and the way they see situations. Experiences such as those of the Alaskan earthquake survivor are evidently what is meant here - people 'just knowing' that god exists! It is now explained to the children that science only explains the ordinary 'factual' explanation of how things happen. The authors go on to say that 'The fact of the 'laws' of science does not answer Carol's question as to why the world was made this way. It is now explained that suffering is a paradox: 'They see that suffering is bad and should be avoided if possible, but they also see it as helpful, in a strange way, in that it develops courage and patience and in this sense it is good. This is a paradox, a term used when two statements are felt to be true and yet contradictory. The children are then treated to a few paradoxes (including a quote from Einstein!). We find: It is important for us to note that there would be no danger or challenge if the possibility of suffering were not real. You may like to consider that suffering is the result of the fact that we have a nervous system (which helps us avoid injury). ...if suffering comes to them, it can give them more sympathy for other people; they can be more aware of how difficult life can be for everyone. Also, if people suffer, it gives others an opportunity to be kind and helpful (so exercising free will). Suffering can develop courage, patience, determination and resourcefulness - real strength of character. Presumably the authors are aware of what nonsense this is (an omnipotent god could have arranged things less sadistically) and carefully avoid the suffering experienced by newly-born infants who die in fires, people born with inherited conditions that expose them to suffering, those who are mentally ill or become vegetables - none of whom are in a position to benefit in the ways described above. Furthermore, they go on to say: 'Heaven'
is the purpose of life
(i.e., the purpose of life is to die so what happens here isn't
really that important.) Mystery in science and religion A mystery may be like a detective story which has to be solved, or it may be something which awakens a sense of wonder. The cleverest scientist knows that he or she is still extremely ignorant (unfortunately the same cannot be said of quite so many theists because they 'know' something that is objectively unknowable); our small brains and short experience can enable us to grasp only a few things. Einstein (an atheist - somehow this is overlooked), perhaps the greatest scientist of the twentieth century, is used to quote a parable of Isaac Newton: he felt that he was like a little boy playing beside the vast ocean of truth and picking up a few pebbles. People who are 'know-alls' (Wayne - of course) are generally very small-minded and ignorant because they do not know how much they do not know. People who are really clever know how little they know and are always eager to learn more. Why isn't this used as an argument for agnosticism - after all an agnostic knows that it is impossible to know that god exists but is open to proof?
Chapter Four - A day on the farm The children wake up in the morning to find that a tree nearby had been struck by lightning (in case we forget that the world is frightening). Soon after breakfast a local farmer asks the children if they would help him separate the ewes from the lambs for when the sheep-shearer comes. The farmer shows then how to hold down a ewe to prevent it from struggling and how to treat the ewes for foot rot. The lambs are worried by their separation from their mothers and the mothers answer their bleating. 'Do you think
they are talking to each other? asked Winston. Of course, the farmer shows that the ewes and lambs are communicating with each other and 'know-all' Wayne (small-minded and ignorant) who can never keep his mouth shut is shown up for a fool who lacks sympathy with animals - a fool who says things even when he doesn't know. The farmer gives a brief explanation of animal breeding complimented by the science teacher's later brief description of the theory of evolution about which she says: 'but most biologists nowadays think that's a one-sided view of nature' by which she means that nature is not always cruel but also kind. On the way back from the farm Mr. Payne, the Religious Education teacher points out a buzzard catching a young rabbit. I think that's
really cruel,' said Dawn... It's that nasty Wayne again - he clearly hates animals and has no sympathy at all for a poor young rabbit. Miss Ridgewell, the science teacher instantly refutes Wayne's comment about the survival of the fittest and says there are plenty of examples of nature working in harmony. The discussion moves on to evolution and the origins of mankind: 'Do you think
it's true, Miss, about humans coming from apes and all that? she asked.
'There some people at the mosque, where I go, who have said it isn't
true'. What strange
wording! Any Moslem who says evolution is true would be thrown out of
the mosque straight away! We've finally got there - now we know why this imaginary character, Wayne, has been so vilified throughout the book - he doesn't believe in god! In chapter one Wayne is treated a school-hating uncaring know-all who lacks a fundamental human quality - the ability to appreciate beauty. In chapter two Wayne is branded a sexist liar who is easily deceived and who foolishly places his trust in science. In chapter three he arrogantly taunts the other children when they are afraid of the creepy forest. Here in chapter four he is again painted as a know-all (earlier defined as very small-minded and very ignorant) and shows his contempt for animal life. And the explanation is right here too - Wayne does not believe in god! What a dishonest approach! What a disgraceful way to teach religion in our schools! What has happened to the authors' ideas of moral behaviour! On page 19 of the book the children are invited to carry out the following: Work in pairs and together write a short piece of conversation between two opponents who are arguing about the truth of something in the news recently using the ideas of 'proof', 'certainty' and 'biased'. We cannot expect an unbiased approach to what we read or hear - not even in children's religious textbooks. The people who write them have a mission, and that is understood. The objective of this web site is spelled out on the home page so you know what you're getting. It is biased, if you like. We can expect our religious textbooks to be non-manipulative - and, certainly in the case of state schools, we should require them to respect the point of view of one of the UK's most substantial minorities - those who are atheists or agnostics. The activity on page 19 suggests to the children that the material they are reading is unbiased and fair-minded. The manipulation of the character of Wayne shows this to be hypocrisy. Miss Ridgewell is invited to comment on evolution: 'I think
that humans and apes may have had a common ancestor; anyway, it's pretty
certain life has developed over millions of years,' she replied, 'but
I know some people think that the Bible teaches otherwise.' Oh, Wayne! So ignorant and unreasonable! Again this rather unusual British science teacher fails to support her erstwhile supporter. If the textbook is aimed at the American market, where creationism is still on the agenda, this could be understood - but here in the UK creationism is dead. It is doubtful whether more than a handful of science teachers would do much more than maintain a professional silence so as not to embarrass the RE teacher publicly. Things to do Points for discussion 1. ... is nature always cruel. Can you think how good comes out of it? The 'correct' answer to this question was given in the preceding chapter. 2. Do you agree with Wayne that religion is based on 'fairy stories'? Why do you think stories have often been used to illustrate religious beliefs? Hands up all the children who want to place themselves in Wayne's shoes and be narrow-minded sexist know-alls like him! Creative responses After reading the questions below, make a pictorial chart. On one side list the main character and the main event in each story, and on the other side write out the moral meaning or lesson of the story. 1. Read the story in Luke 15,11-32 told be Jesus to show God as 'father'. What is the meaning of this story? 2. Recall a story of a scientist (e.g. Newton and the apple, or the discovery of penicillin). What is the scientific truth put forward in your chosen story? 3. Choose a historical story (e.g. King Harold and the arrow, King Alfred and the cakes, or Robert the Bruce and the spider). What is the political or moral lesson of the story? 4. Dramatise in the classroom one of the above stories. (Teacher headache here). Have you seen it? Yes, here there is a deliberate confusion of fact and fiction, of story and history. It's so cleverly done! 1. We have a biblical story in Luke. The text implies this story is fictional but told by a true historical figure - Jesus. The fictional story is used to describe some truth. 2. We have a fictional story regarding Newton's apple (this is not true) used to tell a truth (about gravity). We have a true story about the discovery of penicillin to explain a truth of some kind. 3. We have a series of untrue stories described as historical stories when the word historical is normally used to describe something which is true. These stories make some political or moral point, on not, as the case may be. (There is no real evidence, despite the Bayeux tapestry, that Harald was killed by an arrow in the eye - but even if this were true, no moral could be divined from it). The key point is that biblical stories have now been equated in the minds of children with scientific truths and historical facts/fictions - there's no difference between them! But of course we know there is. What a clever manipulation of ideas! Topic Work: Evolution This section give an accurate explanation of Darwinism and the opposing arguments. Science is clearly seen to have changed the way we look at the universe. It concludes by saying that 'it is absurd to imagine the writers of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 could share our ideas about the earth as a globe going around the sun' etc. A brief conversation is held between four people in which it becomes evident that one of the people believes in evolution but not god, another does not believe in evolution and does not believe in god (I suppose such people must exist somewhere), another is a creationist who believes in god and yet another an evolutionist who believes in god (a compatibilist).
Chapter Five - Discovering a hidden pattern The chapter starts with Wayne saying 'I reckon it's a miracle we weren't caught by that storm' and being caught out using a religious word to describe a non-religious idea. The chapter continues by looking a an ecosystem as a community of plants and animals each contributing its part interdependently to keep the system going: 'It's strange
how it all keeps itself going, without realising it,' said Winston. We now have a phantom debate
in which one or two of the children side with Wayne and we come to the
crux of the book. It is argued that science and religion are unreconcileable
and inevitable foes: 'Science says there isn't a God and religion says
there is.' There is then the suggestion that God is responsible for
the aspects of the world that science cannot explain. Wayne says you
can't be a 'good scientist' as well as
a believer. Mr Payne calls this the 'God of the
gaps' (see glossary on this site) but then says 'I
don't see it like that,' he replied. I believe that God created the
world so that it would work in an orderly way and so that human beings
could enjoy finding out about it all.' So the essential argument of the book - compatibilism, the idea that there is no necessary conflict between science and religion - is presented in this chapter. Things to do 1. Why do some people, such as Wayne, think that you cannot be a good scientist and also have religious beliefs? Do you agree with them? Well, this is a tricky question. Wayne has already been substantially smeared in the course of the book, and so any opinion of his is suspect. Additionally, we have no idea what a 'good scientist' might be. It is such a vague idea (especially for early secondary school children) and it also sounds rather mean-minded to say someone is not a 'good scientist.' The RE teacher has spent a lot of the book teaching bits of science so the result is a foregone conclusion, unless there is some spirited and well-informed child in there who has parents motivated enough to set him up with some non-theist theory. Most children are sure to give scientists the benefit of the doubt, don't you think? 2. Have you ever wondered whether small life-forms, such a ants, can 'think' in some way or another? How can you explain their ability to work together? Another really tricky one.
The suggestion is that ants are too small to think and therefore must
be guided by god in what they do. My bet is that most children would
give this answer in the context of the question. I expect most teachers
would accept this answer. (My eldest son's RE teacher treated him to:
'If everything evolves - why haven't ants evolved into human beings?'
Such determined ignorance boggles the mind). Topic Work: 'The world runs itself; so where does God fit in?' This section looks at three of the ways that religious people see the relationship between god and the world: Deism, Theism, and Pantheism. Now that the opportunity has arisen to mention a few 'isms' there is no mention of atheism or agnosticism. Poor Wayne is left without a word to describe himself or his fellows - he is merely a person who does not believe in something - just a negative. The subject is dropped after outlining some subject impressions of the world by a variety of people, including a poetry fragment by Shelley. We go on to a section called Miracles in a 'scientific' world. The children are asked what we would call it if a friend who is desperately ill in hospital suddenly recovers without any explanation - indirectly giving the impression that such things are possible - a miracle, of course. The word miracle is described as coming from the Latin 'mirabilis' which means 'wonderful. Religious people are described as seeing a miracle as something more than a wonderful thing that has chanced to happen but as an indication of god's activity in the world. The bible is referred to as stating that miracles can happen, gives evidence that some miracles actually did happen, and says that these miracles are a sign of god's action. Look at these sentences. They are all explaining the same incident. The room was filled with light
The first explanation is just the mechanics of it. The second brings in the human agent. The third shows the purpose. These three explanations can each stand on their own and do not need any other. A completely adequate explanation would give all three. When religious people insist on the fact that such and such an event is a miracle, they mean that God happened to be involved in it as well as other factors. Presumably god relatives to the third point - the purpose of things. The natural conclusion of this is that everything that happens is a miracle because everything is wonderful in some way - does this include earthquakes and tsunami? It does fit in with the view that god made science. The unit continues with a description of biblical miracles - giving them much greater credence than contemporary UFO sightings and ignoring the vested interest of those who wrote the New Testament and needed to tell a convincing story - or the miracles reported in the texts of other competing religions of the period. A visit to Cholula in Mexico - a place with a lot of churches (one on top of every Aztec pyramid will show 'evidence' of hundreds of sightings in the sky of the Virgin Mary - strangely ignored by the church. Of course, alien abductions are more in fashion now. Reference is then made to the miracles at Lourdes - none reported since 1974, and the two most recent (checkable) ones dubious in the extreme. (See Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, Michael Martin). This suddenly appears in the text: Discuss this comment: 'The arrogant scientist and the gullible religious person do not use their common sense.' Do you agree? Although appearing to present a balanced view, by referring to the gullible religious person as well as the arrogant scientist (presumably one who does not believe in miracles, this question is heavily loaded. Would an 11 year-old spot it? The point is made that scientists who do not accept the existence of miracles in the religious sense are arrogant and unreasonable and therefore miracles really do occur. This is a great trade for accepting that some religious people are gullible. The unit finishes by 'demonstrating' that the miracles in the bible prove that 'the teaching of Jesus must have been from God.' This looks simple enough but in fact has been carefully worded not to offend Moslem students who believe that Jesus was a prophet. If a Christian audience were being exclusively targeted this text would no doubt have claimed that these miracles demonstrate that Jesus was the son of god.
This chapter is not worth close inspection. Without any reference to religious sources (or others) a thin religious case is made for looking after the environment of the planet. (Not too long ago 'Friends of the Earth' appealed to their members to tell them of any religion with a concern for the environment). This theme was very much in the spotlight when the book was written and the authors are jumping on the bandwagon. There is time for a sarcastic remark at Wayne's expense and with no other purpose but to remind us of his unpopularity: 'Wayne will enjoy that,' said Winston sarcastically. 'He loves stories about animals talking.' A play is enacted in order to bring home the fact (with no biblical or other source) that god would be annoyed with us if we destroyed our environment (although the previous chapter tells us that god is in charge of every little thing that happens). Topic work: taking care of the world This contains a lot of factual information about the environment but little else. There is a defensive attitude towards the end, citing those who say that Christianity has not promoted good custodianship of the planet. This is refuted, again without reference to any source or text.
Chapter Seven - Looking at the stars On the last day of the summer camp the children look at the stars with their RE teacher. The story develops the idea of the immensity of the cosmos and what astronomers have learnt about it and repeats a theme developed earlier: 'Do you think
we know it all now, then? asked Carol, whose voice was recognizable
although nobody could see her. The purpose of this is to allow the RE teacher to cast doubt on the state of scientific knowledge today. If science was wrong in the past it could be wrong today - so in a sense we know nothing. This is intended to remove science as a threat to religion. Science can 'prove' nothing more than religion does. So in one chapter we are told that god created science but in another we are (subtly) told that science holds no truths. The authors are gently trying to have it both ways. In fact it is the refutability of scientific knowledge that gives it robustness and enables us to have confidence in it. Scientific knowledge is testable (anything not testable is not science) - but even ideas in which scientists have the greatest confidence are still describes as theories - a humility contrasting greatly with the self-righteous 'knowledge' of the religious which lacks any method of testing besides death. 'That's right,' replied Mr Payne,' and it has happened again this century in many fields of science and especially in astronomy. Somehow it seems that, the more we know, the more we know we don't know, if you understand what I mean.' This is a very curious remark in the context of the book and again shows the authors' attempt to win every angle. Earlier, in Chapter Five, Mr Payne rejected the idea of the 'God of the gaps' explaining what cannot be understood by science - only to reinstate the idea here by suggesting that science can explain less and less and not more and more and so implying that what science cannot explain to us can only be explained by the existence of god. These points have been put very subtly by the authors (many intelligent 12 year old children would miss the point unless spelled out, I suspect) - but since they are the entire substance of the unit we must suppose that they are the main message - to be developed further by the RE teacher in the classroom. The summer evening continues with a reference to the astronauts circling the moon in 1966 who sent a Christmas message quoting the Genesis account of the creation of the Earth. It is stirring stuff and 'proof' that technological-space-scientist people can believe in Genesis in some way. It is not mentioned that this was a public relations exercise by NASA to ensure that the religious American public continued to support the space program. |
Monthly
update