Is education inherently religious in nature or can it be separated from faith?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dts
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dts

Guest
Is it possible to separate faith from education or is education inherently religious in nature?
 
Seems to me that all disciplines help us to know about God better. Like studying the artist by examining the paintings.

Perhaps the inherent religious nature of education and society’s blatant disregard of this fact explains why secular education is somewhat disappointing. 🙂
 
It’s seems to me that something such as simple mathematics can be separated from religious faith – after all, Christians, Muslims, Jews, polytheists, atheists, agnostics can all pretty much agree that 1 + 1 = 2. Even things like physics can be viewed in a limited scientific manner of recording observations and results and explaining it all with mathematical formulas.

However, a better question might be “Is an education separated from faith better than one that is combined with faith?” I say no. You want more truth, not just a subset. You want to see the forest don’t you, not just the trees?

And then we have subjects such as English Literature which I think can have very good or very bad influences on children, especially if there isn’t a moral perspective. Same for things such as social studies and sex education (which should be the job of parents, not a school administration which likely does not share the same view of sex).
 
40.png
milimac:
It’s seems to me that something such as simple mathematics can be separated from religious faith – after all, Christians, Muslims, Jews, polytheists, atheists, agnostics can all pretty much agree that 1 + 1 = 2. Even things like physics can be viewed in a limited scientific manner of recording observations and results and explaining it all with mathematical formulas.

However, a better question might be “Is an education separated from faith better than one that is combined with faith?” I say no. You want more truth, not just a subset. You want to see the forest don’t you, not just the trees?

And then we have subjects such as English Literature which I think can have very good or very bad influences on children, especially if there isn’t a moral perspective. Same for things such as social studies and sex education (which should be the job of parents, not a school administration which likely does not share the same view of sex).
Click to expand...
In regard to your math example, what do you think of this response from a couple of Presbyterian theologians? Are they in error?

Foundations of Christian Education, Louis Berkhof and Cornelius Van Til (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. 1991 Reprint)(excerpts quoted below)

The real difference between Christian schools and all other education systems, public or private, must be traced back to its source in two antithetical world views: on the one hand, the world view that takes the living God, Creator, Revealer, and Redeemer, as its starting point, listening dependently to his revelation in Scripture, creation, and providence; and, on the other hand, the world view that explicitly or implicitly, denies that the God of the Bible is the source of all reality and the measure of all truth. From these fundamental starting points all the surface characteristics that mark off Christian education from humanistic education flow (with varying degrees of consistency) . . .

Because they did not understand the doctrine of common grace churches granted that no ultimate difference could be hidden behind the statement of a Christian that two times two are four and a statement of a non-Christian that two times two are four. Now the fact is that two times two are four does not mean the same thing to you as a believer and to someone else as an unbeliever. When you think of two times two as four, you connect this fact with numerical law. And when you connect this fact with numerical law, you must connect numerical law with all law. The question you face then, is whether law exists in its own right or is an expression of the will and nature of God . . .
 
The question posed here seems not to question academic disciplines, but rather the instructive nature of education. I believe that it can be – and is – separated from religion in secular schools because religion plays no part in my teaching you how to balance a chemical equation or work through a differential equation.
 
40.png
IoA:
The question posed here seems not to question academic disciplines, but rather the instructive nature of education. I believe that it can be – and is – separated from religion in secular schools because religion plays no part in my teaching you how to balance a chemical equation or work through a differential equation.
Click to expand...
Did you read the post just above yours?

To balance a chemical equation or work through a differential equation don’t you have to assume or explicitly teach certain things about the nature of the universe?

Secular schools say they separate themselves from religion. But is that claim true or can it be true?
 
40.png
dts:
Did you read the post just above yours?

To balance a chemical equation or work through a differential equation don’t you have to assume or explicitly teach certain things about the nature of the universe?

Secular schools say they separate themselves from religion. But is that claim true or can it be true?
Click to expand...
As a matter of fact, no, you don’t. I can give you the mechanical aspects and teach you why a chemical equation must be balanced by saying that “no atoms are lost or gained over the course of the reaction.” Of course, this can lead to bigger questions about the conservation of matter, etc., but science is only a means by which to approach the divine, for the willing believer who wishes to make those connections. Nowhere within the course of my lesson do I need to offer any explanation greater than It Is What It Is. And when you come away, you’ll know how to balance a chemical equation. Where you choose to take it after that is entirely up to you.
 
40.png
IoA:
As a matter of fact, no, you don’t. I can give you the mechanical aspects and teach you why a chemical equation must be balanced by saying that “no atoms are lost or gained over the course of the reaction.” Of course, this can lead to bigger questions about the conservation of matter, etc., but science is only a means by which to approach the divine, for the willing believer who wishes to make those connections. Nowhere within the course of my lesson do I need to offer any explanation greater than It Is What It Is. And when you come away, you’ll know how to balance a chemical equation. Where you choose to take it after that is entirely up to you.
Click to expand...
Agreed. You can do these things. But, then you are just assuming things about the nature of the operations (e.g., that the formulas will work the same way everytime). The religion is present and inseparable, but not mentioned. It doesn’t go away simply because it isn’t mentioned in a particular lesson.
 
40.png
dts:
Agreed. You can do these things. But, then you are just assuming things about the nature of the operations (e.g., that the formulas will work the same way everytime). The religion is present and inseparable, but not mentioned. It doesn’t go away simply because it isn’t mentioned in a particular lesson.
Click to expand...
From our Catholic perspective, you are quite right. But the way each individual looks at the world effects this, is what I’m trying to say. I look at science and see the Truth of God in everything I learn. My awe and my acknowledgement of how religion is inseparable from the workings of the universe is solely dependent upon my perspective. It is quite possible for me to teach an athiest about the workings of the universe, and he will come away knowing a lot of science. But he will never have drawn any religious connection between what I have taught and what he has learned, because that’s not his outlook on life.

Does it mean that the religion isn’t there, that God isn’t intertwined with everything he just learned, just because the atheist doesn’t believe it? Of course not.

But the atheist is not required to acknowledge the religious connections in order to learn what I teach. It’s my opinion that he has missed a great deal of spiritual food by not making those connections, but it does not mean that he has not learned.
 
I agree. It is clear that atheists and others can gain portions of the truth while denying aspects of reality. Hence, back to the quote I cite above which speaks of the meaning of common grace.
 
I just finished a Catholic education course at the university. There were some interesting problems that were brought up. What it came down to is whether you could seperate religion and education. People were split in the classroom. But I think the problem stems from the fact that people who were for the separation (of religion and education) believed that religion can be harmful for a non-believing child i.e. Indoctrinization; yet, for whatever reason, an absence of religion was not harmful for a believing child. This second option they said, was not indoctrinization. But is that really possible? I don’t think so. Either God and catholicism is the name of the glasses you see the world through, or it isn’t. If your faith can be separated from learning about the world then it sounds to me you have a shallow faith.

Just something to think about.
pax Christi
 
Well, I do think that there is no such thing as “value free” education, therefore, one is teaching something along with the intended content (arithmetic, grammar, whatever). Now, some of the values might not be, strictly speaking, religious, but they are at least quasi-religious (thinking here of the sort of thing frequently called “secular humanism”).
 
40.png
Melissa:
Well, I do think that there is no such thing as “value free” education, therefore, one is teaching something along with the intended content (arithmetic, grammar, whatever). Now, some of the values might not be, strictly speaking, religious, but they are at least quasi-religious (thinking here of the sort of thing frequently called “secular humanism”).
Click to expand...
This is a good reason for the separation of education and state. Would someone like to start a movement?

JimG
 
40.png
IoA:
But the atheist is not required to acknowledge the religious connections in order to learn what I teach. It’s my opinion that he has missed a great deal of spiritual food by not making those connections, but it does not mean that he has not learned.
Click to expand...
Hmm, not sure why I don’t get notified on some of my subscribed posts. Anyway, what you said above is what I was getting at when I said,
However, a better question might be “Is an education separated from faith better than one that is combined with faith?” I say no. You want more truth, not just a subset. You want to see the forest don’t you, not just the trees?
Some subjects, such as math, can still be of value even when separated from a religious context. Others, such as social studies, literature, etc, are greatly diminished when the religious context is removed.

Therefore, I answered “yes” in the poll.
 
Following the moral law is prerequisite to recognizing and knowing the truth.

Education is about the skills for learning and sharing truth, beginning with the moral law and the knowledge of God, if it is to be successful.

“… If you continue in my word you shall be my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8 : 31-32
 
40.png
milimac:
Hmm, not sure why I don’t get notified on some of my subscribed posts. Anyway, what you said above is what I was getting at when I said, However, a better question might be “Is an education separated from faith better than one that is combined with faith?” I say no. You want more truth, not just a subset. You want to see the forest don’t you, not just the trees?
Some subjects, such as math, can still be of value even when separated from a religious context. Others, such as social studies, literature, etc, are greatly diminished when the religious context is removed.

Therefore, I answered “yes” in the poll.
Click to expand...
As was hinted in earlier posts, I believe this viewpoint is really dependant on whether you are talking about explicit or implicit religious connection. One foundation of education is the assumption that the universe can be objectively known. The main reason to believe this is that the universe is the work of an objectively real God (harkening back to the arguments of design and first cause for “proofs” of God’s existence). As long as these assumptions are in place, education can occur without explicit reference to religious instruction. However, I have had a math teacher tell me that mathematics is not grounded in objective reality, but in consensus logic. In other words, 2+2 does not equal four because the equation reflects something in objective reality. Rather, it equals two because the field of mathematics agrees that it equals two. He turned to non-Euclidean geometry as an example of how consensus can change the rules of mathematics. My problem with this viewpoint is that we are then teaching only consensus opinion! No wonder kids don’t care about learning when they have received the message that reality is all subjective, and none of it really matters unless it can lead to a larger paycheck.

As long as education peacefully co-existed with religion, allowing it as part of the general intellectual discussion in the schools, education seemed to me solid and productive. However, as efforts to explicitly exclude religion from schools have become increasingly successful, I see more and more thinking like that of the math teacher I described above. Sure, we can learn the rules of math and science without explicitly teaching theology and faith, but once we close the door to God completely, we lose the reason for teaching science and math in the first place!
 
As has been pointed out, I can perform a mathematical equation or a scientific experiment without reference to religion. I can even read in the humanities without reference to God… but I do believe religion is an essential component in our ability to interpret the disciplines, to appropriate them wisely.

Then you run across a problem some friends of mine experienced in their former connection with a private school: is it necessary to reduce the disciplines to religion?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top