Blog

I was reading this blog entry with some bemusement. The author’s point is that superficial adherence to part of a religious practice, especially trendy parts (e.g. Madonna’s participation in Kabbalah but not Judaism) is unlikely to cause useful gain. He believes that real gain requires real discipline and commitment ( likely to a “real” religion you were raised in) and that the worst course of all is picking and choosing bits and pieces of many religions.

He later mellows some of this with stuff about the possibility that God is just the cosmos, and being religious means being good in “real life.”

This makes me wonder:

What is the typical believer’s perception of the useful end of religious practice? Peace of mind in the face of travail? Immortality? Self discipline? The acceptance of others? Personal gain? Is there a typical view? Do fundamentalist practitioners believe that their behavior is what is most likely to achieve the goal most important to them? For instance, does the abortion clinic protester looking for peace of mind get serenity while (or after) screaming at the evil-doers? Does the death penalty advocate believe his own immortality is more likely if others are killed? Are they all just showing off for their peers? Looking for customers? Is fervent belief in a 6000 year earth age a mark of self discipline?

I have my own opinions, but I wonder what believers would say (if they thought about it) and to what degree they would agree on the relative priority of benefits.

I tend to agree with the blogger in some respects. Commitment and depth are valuable. I also prefer people who live their religions in a kind, tolerant and consistent way. But I disagree with the assumption that the test of a worthwhile path is found only in deep tradition, and that people shouldn’t pick and choose. By that measure, only the oldest religion would be worthwhile.

A bigger disagreement I have is the assumption that individuals are somehow unqualified to judge part of a religion without adopting the whole thing.

I remember long ago visiting a retired Catholic priest to ask him to translate some old family letters. He began asking about my churchgoing, and when I told him “I don’t agree with the Church” he replied “Who are you to question the Church?”

I was offended at the very question. How could anyone doubt my right to make choices?

Much of this blog struck me the same way.

My premise is that I can trust myself more than I can trust your dogma and much more than I trust your judgment of me.

I believe the only test that can be applied to spiritual/mental/religious behavior is:

What’s the goal?

and:

Is what I’m doing working?

Who can say that growth of any trend follower is less real because they picked out what felt right to them?

This site caught my eye this morning on reddit. What’s interesting is the “boilerplate” associated with each course. Check out the entry for Calculus:

Students will examine the nature of God as they progress in their understanding of mathematics. Students will understand the absolute consistency of mathematical principles and know that God was the inventor of that consistency. Mathematical study will result in a greater appreciation of God and His works in creation. The students will understand the basic ideas of both differential and integral calculus and its importance and historical applications. The students will recognize that God created our minds to be able to see that the universe can be calculated by mental methods.

Now I appreciate pushing for a deeper understanding/appreciation of the connections in our world. Pondering the beauty of mathematical consistency and wondering about it’s role in life is a great thing. I would argue that the utility is diminished by refusing to apply the same search for consistency towards religion, but hey, other than that, I appreciate diversity and different modes of appreciation. After all, it’s just a little selective emphasis.

What bothers me about this are two things. First, how banal this approach becomes. I can hear Ben Stein reciting this course description over and over. I can imagine the rigid world of the committee that “just loved” this course catalog. Does anyone believe this glorifies their god? If you’re going to be formulaic, choose a place where formulaic works.

Second; I lied. The emphasis does bother me. If you’re going to screw around with math, how badly will you butcher science, history and geology. How one sided will you be, and what will that produce? Will their American history talk about the role of religious people and the bible in promoting slavery? I doubt it. I’m sure separation of Church and state won’t be there. Hmm. Let’s see.

AMERICAN HISTORY
ELEVENTH GRADE
Students will evaluate the past and learn from its lessons (I Corinthians 10:11), and become effectual Christians who understand “the times” (I Chronicles 12:32). Students will study the history of our country beginning with the Civil War with a biblically integrated filter as they examine the political, social, and economic perspectives. An emphasis will be placed on the major wars, the industrial revolution, and the settlement of the frontier, requiring students to critically analyze the cause and effect relationships of events in history.

GOVERNMENT/CIVICS
TWELFTH GRADE
Students will evaluate the past and learn from its lessons ( I Corinthians 10:11), and become effectual Christians who understand “the times” (I Chronicles 12:32). Students will study the foundational documents of our founding Fathers built upon as they formulated the ideals upon which our country was established. Such documents include: The Magna Carta, The English Bill of Rights of 1689, and the Mayflower Compact. Students are equipped with an understanding of the basic principles contained in these documents, and are able to identify their dependence upon biblical and Reformation principles, leading them to an understanding why the American system is meant for a religious people.
I used to have discussions with a friend who is a young earth creationist. He’s one of the smartest people I know in many, many ways. His view, was that you could remove everything from public education that conflicted with young earth creationism and still have a good education. This would reduce the conflict religious people feel at sending their kids to heathen schools and make the world a better place.

My view was that the age of the earth (and the universe) is a basic premise, on which many other things depend. If the universe is 6000 to 10000 years old, real geology can’t be taught, the speed of light and the size of the universe can’t be taught, and much of physics must be ignored. While I’ve become more aware of and somewhat more sympathetic to religious parents concerns, I’m firmly convinced that keeping faith and public education separate is the best way to be fair to everyone. My opinion is that their (fundamentalist) teaching makes the world a worse place, filled with intolerant people used to twisting facts to fit their world view, and feeling entitled to ignore everyone else’s views.