Why "Dare to Know"?

See here for a full explanation.

"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] "Have courage to use your own understanding!"--that is the motto of enlightenment.

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a proportion of men, long after nature has released them from alien guidance (natura-liter maiorennes), nonetheless gladly remain in lifelong immaturity, and why it is so easy for others to establish themselves as their guardians. It is so easy to be immature. If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need not exert myself at all. I need not think, if only I can pay: others will readily undertake the irksome work for me. The guardians who have so benevolently taken over the supervision of men have carefully seen to it that the far greatest part of them (including the entire fair sex) regard taking the step to maturity as very dangerous, not to mention difficult. Having first made their domestic livestock dumb, and having carefully made sure that these docile creatures will not take a single step without the go-cart to which they are harnessed, these guardians then show them the danger that threatens them, should they attempt to walk alone. Now this danger is not actually so great, for after falling a few times they would in the end certainly learn to walk; but an example of this kind makes men timid and usually frightens them out of all further attempts.

Thus, it is difficult for any individual man to work himself out of the immaturity that has all but become his nature. He has even become fond of this state and for the time being is actually incapable of using his own understanding, for no one has ever allowed him to attempt it. Rules and formulas, those mechanical aids to the rational use, or rather misuse, of his natural gifts, are the shackles of a permanent immaturity. Whoever threw them off would still make only an uncertain leap over the smallest ditch, since he is unaccustomed to this kind of free movement. Consequently, only a few have succeeded, by cultivating their own minds, in freeing themselves from immaturity and pursuing a secure course.

But that the public should enlighten itself is more likely; indeed, if it is only allowed freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable. For even among the entrenched guardians of the great masses a few will always think for themselves, a few who, after having themselves thrown off the yoke of immaturity, will spread the spirit of a rational appreciation for both their own worth and for each person's calling to think for himself. But it should be particularly noted that if a public that was first placed in this yoke by the guardians is suitably aroused by some of those who are altogether incapable of enlightenment, it may force the guardians themselves to remain under the yoke--so pernicious is it to instill prejudices, for they finally take revenge upon their originators, or on their descendants. Thus a public can only attain enlightenment slowly. Perhaps a revolution can overthrow autocratic despotism and profiteering or power-grabbing oppression, but it can never truly reform a manner of thinking; instead, new prejudices, just like the old ones they replace, will serve as a leash for the great unthinking mass.

Nothing is required for this enlightenment, however, except freedom; and the freedom in question is the least harmful of all, namely, the freedom to use reason publicly in all matters. But on all sides I hear: "Do not argue!" The officer says, "Do not argue, drill!" The tax man says, "Do not argue, pay!" The pastor says, "Do not argue, believe!" (Only one ruler in the World says, "Argue as much as you want and about what you want, but obey!") In this we have examples of pervasive restrictions on freedom. But which restriction hinders enlightenment and which does not, but instead actually advances it? I reply: The public use of one's reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among mankind; the private use of reason may, however, often be very narrowly restricted, without otherwise hindering the progress of enlightenment. By the public use of one's own reason I understand the use that anyone as a scholar makes of reason before the entire literate world. I call the private use of reason that which a person may make in a civic post or office that has been entrusted to him. Now in many affairs conducted in the interests of a community, a certain mechanism is required by means of which some of its members must conduct themselves in an entirely passive manner so that through an artificial unanimity the government may guide them toward public ends, or at least prevent them from destroying such ends. Here one certainly must not argue, instead one must obey. However, insofar as this part of the machine also regards himself as a member of the community as a whole, or even of the world community, and as a consequence addresses the public in the role of a scholar, in the proper sense of that term, he can most certainly argue, without thereby harming the affairs for which as a passive member he is partly responsible. Thus it would be disastrous if an officer on duty who was given a command by his superior were to question the appropriateness or utility of the order. He must obey. But as a scholar he cannot be justly constrained from making comments about errors in military service, or from placing them before the public for its judgment. The citizen cannot refuse to pay the taxes imposed on him; indeed, impertinent criticism of such levies, when they should be paid by him, can be punished as a scandal (since it can lead to widespread insubordination). But the same person does not act contrary to civic duty when, as a scholar, he publicly expresses his thoughts regarding the impropriety or even injustice of such taxes. Likewise a pastor is bound to instruct his catecumens and congregation in accordance with the symbol of the church he serves, for he was appointed on that condition. But as a scholar he has complete freedom, indeed even the calling, to impart to the public all of his carefully considered and well-intentioned thoughts concerning mistaken aspects of that symbol, as well as his suggestions for the better arrangement of religious and church matters. Nothing in this can weigh on his conscience. What he teaches in consequence of his office as a servant of the church he sets out as something with regard to which he has no discretion to teach in accord with his own lights; rather, he offers it under the direction and in the name of another. He will say, "Our church teaches this or that and these are the demonstrations it uses." He thereby extracts for his congregation all practical uses from precepts to which he would not himself subscribe with complete conviction, but whose presentation he can nonetheless undertake, since it is not entirely impossible that truth lies hidden in them, and, in any case, nothing contrary to the very nature of religion is to be found in them. If he believed he could find anything of the latter sort in them, he could not in good conscience serve in his position; he would have to resign. Thus an appointed teacher's use of his reason for the sake of his congregation is merely private, because, however large the congregation is, this use is always only domestic; in this regard, as a priest, he is not free and cannot be such because he is acting under instructions from someone else. By contrast, the cleric--as a scholar who speaks through his writings to the public as such, i.e., the world--enjoys in this public use of reason an unrestricted freedom to use his own rational capacities and to speak his own mind. For that the (spiritual) guardians of a people should themselves be immature is an absurdity that would insure the perpetuation of absurdities.

But would a society of pastors, perhaps a church assembly or venerable presbytery (as those among the Dutch call themselves), not be justified in binding itself by oath to a certain unalterable symbol in order to secure a constant guardianship over each of its members and through them over the people, and this for all time: I say that this is wholly impossible. Such a contract, whose intention is to preclude forever all further enlightenment of the human race, is absolutely null and void, even if it should be ratified by the supreme power, by parliaments, and by the most solemn peace treaties. One age cannot bind itself, and thus conspire, to place a succeeding one in a condition whereby it would be impossible for the later age to expand its knowledge (particularly where it is so very important), to rid itself of errors,and generally to increase its enlightenment. That would be a crime against human nature, whose essential destiny lies precisely in such progress; subsequent generations are thus completely justified in dismissing such agreements as unauthorized and criminal. The criterion of everything that can be agreed upon as a law by a people lies in this question: Can a people impose such a law on itself? Now it might be possible, in anticipation of a better state of affairs, to introduce a provisional order for a specific, short time, all the while giving all citizens, especially clergy, in their role as scholars, the freedom to comment publicly, i.e., in writing, on the present institution's shortcomings. The provisional order might last until insight into the nature of these matters had become so widespread and obvious that the combined (if not unanimous) voices of the populace could propose to the crown that it take under its protection those congregations that, in accord with their newly gained insight, had organized themselves under altered religious institutions, but without interfering with those wishing to allow matters to remain as before. However, it is absolutely forbidden that they unite into a religious organization that nobody may for the duration of a man's lifetime publicly question, for so do-ing would deny, render fruitless, and make detrimental to succeeding generations an era in man's progress toward improvement. A man may put off enlightenment with regard to what he ought to know, though only for a short time and for his own person; but to renounce it for himself, or, even more, for subsequent generations, is to violate and trample man's divine rights underfoot. And what a people may not decree for itself may still less be imposed on it by a monarch, for his lawgiving authority rests on his unification of the people's collective will in his own. If he only sees to it that all genuine or purported improvement is consonant with civil order, he can allow his subjects to do what they find necessary to their spiritual well-being, which is not his affair. However, he must prevent anyone from forcibly interfering with another's working as best he can to determine and promote his well-being. It detracts from his own majesty when he interferes in these matters, since the writings in which his subjects attempt to clarify their insights lend value to his conception of governance. This holds whether he acts from his own highest insight--whereby he calls upon himself the reproach, "Caesar non eat supra grammaticos."'--as well as, indeed even more, when he despoils his highest authority by supporting the spiritual despotism of some tyrants in his state over his other subjects.

If it is now asked, "Do we presently live in an enlightened age?" the answer is, "No, but we do live in an age of enlightenment." As matters now stand, a great deal is still lacking in order for men as a whole to be, or even to put themselves into a position to be able without external guidance to apply understanding confidently to religious issues. But we do have clear indications that the way is now being opened for men to proceed freely in this direction and that the obstacles to general enlightenment--to their release from their self-imposed immaturity--are gradually diminishing. In this regard, this age is the age of enlightenment, the century of Frederick.

A prince who does not find it beneath him to say that he takes it to be his duty to prescribe nothing, but rather to allow men complete freedom in religious matters--who thereby renounces the arrogant title of tolerance--is himself enlightened and deserves to be praised by a grateful present and by posterity as the first, at least where the government is concerned, to release the human race from immaturity and to leave everyone free to use his own reason in all matters of conscience. Under his rule, venerable pastors, in their role as scholars and without prejudice to their official duties, may freely and openly set out for the world's scrutiny their judgments and views, even where these occasionally differ from the accepted symbol. Still greater freedom is afforded to those who are not restricted by an official post. This spirit of freedom is expanding even where it must struggle against the external obstacles of governments that misunderstand their own function. Such governments are illuminated by the example that the existence of freedom need not give cause for the least concern regarding public order and harmony in the commonwealth. If only they refrain from inventing artifices to keep themselves in it, men will gradually raise themselves from barbarism.

I have focused on religious matters in setting out my main point concerning enlightenment, i.e., man's emergence from self-imposed immaturity, first because our rulers have no interest in assuming the role of their subjects' guardians with respect to the arts and sciences, and secondly because that form of immaturity is both the most pernicious and disgraceful of all. But the manner of thinking of a head of state who favors religious enlightenment goes even further, for he realizes that there is no danger to his legislation in allowing his subjects to use reason publicly and to set before the world their thoughts concerning better formulations of his laws, even if this involves frank criticism of legislation currently in effect. We have before us a shining example, with respect to which no monarch surpasses the one whom we honor.

But only a ruler who is himself enlightened and has no dread of shadows, yet who likewise has a well-disciplined, numerous army to guarantee public peace, can say what no republic may dare, namely: "Argue as much as you want and about what you want, but obey!" Here as elsewhere, when things are considered in broad perspective, a strange, unexpected pattern in human affairs reveals itself, one in which almost everything is paradoxical. A greater degree of civil freedom seems advantageous to a people's spiritual freedom; yet the former established impassable boundaries for the latter; conversely, a lesser degree of civil freedom provides enough room for all fully to expand their abilities. Thus, once nature has removed the hard shell from this kernel for which she has most fondly cared, namely, the inclination to and vocation for free thinking, the kernel gradually reacts on a people's mentality (whereby they become increasingly able to act freely), and it finally even influences the principles of government, which finds that it can profit by treating men, who are now more than machines, in accord with their dignity. "

I. Kant
Konigsberg in Prussia, 30 September 1784

Our Philosophy of Home Education

Am finally going beyond the reasonable range of the laptop. Thought I would leave here with a summary of our Philosophy of Home Education.

We home educate because, given the proviso that our children choose this form of education:

1. It provides the best opportunity for our children to address the theories that are active in their minds. When a theory is active in their minds, they are able to think rationally and creatively about it. When they are coerced, or forced to enact a theory that is not active in their minds, they are not able to think rationally or creatively about the theory. In seeking to maximize the chance of addressing active theories, the maximum in terms of flexibility and opportunity is necessary. With Home Education, the world is at our feet and we may do as we will to explore it.

2. We believe knowledge is tentative. We can never know that even our best theories are indeed truth-like. We may dismiss apparently poor theories through criticism and falsification, but we should always be looking to improve upon even our apparently best theories. We therefore do not presume to prescribe a curriculum, since we can neither predict the growth of knowledge, nor can we accurately predict the theories that will be active in the minds of our children. Instead we offer what we regard as our currently best theories tentatively. Even our best theories are up for criticism and possible refutation.

4. As well aspiring to be critical rationalists, we are all, currently, of humanist persuasion. We believe that the human mind is the great hope for the advancement of the human race and for the improvement of the human condition. We believe therefore that it is desirable to maximise the chances for critical and creative thinking. We derive motivation and inspiration from the thought that we are trying to work for future generations. We derive pride and comfort from the past achievements of mankind, and excitement from speculations as to what mankind may achieve in the future.

This is the core of it, but for more information on the above: Taking Children Seriously.

Bye for now.

Faith and Placebo Effect - More News

It seems that the hypothesis of the link between the placebo effect and faith in God is gaining some ground. The New Scientist this week reports that those who meditate whilst concentrating on the idea that God is loving, can keep their hands in painfully cold water for nearly twice as long as those who meditate with thoughts such as "I am joyful". The placebo effect is proposed as a possible cause, though there is no mention as to what the placebo effect could entail, despite last week's partial revelation in the same magazine that the placebo effect is a result of an opioid hit. (See Placebo Effect Envy below).

Begging the Whistle-Blower!

There are plenty of ex-teachers in the HE community around here. They are, naturally enough, fully aware of the pitfalls of schooling. They see that despite even the very best of stated intentions, schools, more often than not, become suboptimal environments for learning. They are also fully aware that children do not learn in effective way when they are coerced, (since coercion involves being forced to enact a theory that is not active in the mind), and that dealing with large numbers of children who have not necessarily chosen to be there, means that coercive structures necessarily evolve.

So it is always interesting to see what happens when circumstances demand that one of these number must return to their previous profession. One friend is doing precisely this. In the course of the return to this work, she has been given a book list which makes, at times, risible reading.

A brief synopis of one apparently seminal, mandatory text: educational theories about the optimal nature of active learning have reached the schooling community. This is the good news. The bad news is that the schooling community have no idea whatsoever what to do with this information. The book starts with the premise of asking yourself why you would want to teach, and ends with the idea that it is just best not to trouble your pretty head about it!

Am trying to persuade friend to guest blog as an up to date whistle-blower on schooling educational theory, but she is short on time.

Favorite Reads

I should be helping Dh and Ds pick up the junk from the wall they've just knocked down, but this is just not possible when there are such fine writers out there, busy putting out premium op-ed into the blogosphere.

From the last week:

Getting Orwell Wrong at Armed and Dangerous in which the distinction between objective pro-fascism (pacificism) and intentional treason is made, to important effect.

In Praise of Complexity at Norm's Blog in which an apologist for the apologists is given the once over.

and:
Boris' Rag at New Sisyphus for an accurate critique of the British Spectator Magazine.

"Just Another Primate"

An article about humans on display at London Zoo provides an exemplary account of British muddle-headedness. Had this happened in the States, the display would doubtless have been all about the superiority of evolution over intelligent design. As it is here, it is probably more about the endemic British desire to do ourselves and the entire human race, down. (Of course, in so doing, those who do it perversely acquire a covert sense of superiority.)

That aside, the thinking is shoddy not because there is anything wrong with the best theories of evolution, but because an exhibitor considers man "just another primate" and because another states that "when they see humans as animals here, it kind of reminds us that we're not that special."

Hmm, so being the only creature there who could possibly draw this conclusion, even if it is so spectacularly wrong, means that they are really not that special?

Thanks to Andrea for the link.

Placebo Effect Envy

With the news in the New Scientist that the Placebo Effect is real, (placebos delivers an opioid hit to the brain), it is not a great leap to conclude that Marx's dictum "Religion is the opium of the people" is even more apposite and literal than he intended. It seems quite likely that the sense of a Godlike presence delivers an opioid hit, creating a sense of meaning, comfort and purpose. The problem for atheists is that this opiate rush seems to be predicated upon believing that the source of strength is external to the self.

Marx thought the opioid hit a problem, but it seems quite likely that if someone is comfortable with effort, they are more likely to face it. They are more likely to set about looking after their families, working hard and enjoying their time.

So, given its possibly desirable effects, and given that the placebo effect seems to require a belief in an exterior force, how can atheists, agnotics, humanists and such-like, access it's power? Recent conversations with two atheists have offered some insights. To one, it was simply not a problem. The question surprised him entirely. He sets about his life with the required energy, confidence, excitement and peace. To the other, it is a matter of recognising the good.

Everyone for Tennis

Have recently discovered the secret of the most rewarding game of tennis: a Prince Thunder racket and three glasses of champagne. This is a sure-fire way to avoid mis-hits and double faults.

Home Ed Just Not an Option?

The absorbing discussion about home education and schooling continues at Expat Teacher with another poster, US teacher Mo-Lak Jedi, posing the key question: given that home ed is not an option for many families, how could the education system be transformed for the better?

With excellent responses from Chris O'Donnell, and Tim Haas and Daryl Cobranchi, both of HEOS.

Returning Children to Prison

Yet more Truancy Patrol Guidelines from the DfES and the Home Office were issued in July, and as usual if you replaced the word "child" or "pupil" with "adult" or "employee" in this document, you would end up with something so clearly Orwellian that anyone could see this. Yet somehow the vast number of parents in this country accept these conditions for their children. How do they expect their children to become responsible autonomous citizens when their children have to spend the first 16 years of their lives in a state of effective imprisonment?

The Guidelines contain the same old problems of yore, such the old "compulsory school age" hoax and are, as usual, so unclear as to due process, eg: in regard to Home Educators, that you wonder at times how this document could possibly be considered a guideline.

From the document:
"Home educated children and others educated outside the school system are not the target group for truancy sweeps. It is not always necessary to confirm a child's status as home educated but there will be occasions when officers will need to do so. Although legally not required to, some families do register with their local authority as home educated and are given accreditation. This enables easy discussions between home educated children, their parents and those carrying out the sweep. Local authority officers can also telephone their colleagues to confirm children's status if they doubt a child's status".

But aside from all these same old problems, there is a new level of Orwellian state intervention which has resulted from the implementation of the Children Act of 2004.

From the document:
"Local authorities have a duty under the Children Act 2004 to make arrangements to promote co-operation between themselves and various other bodies with a view to improving the well-being of all children in their area, including those educated outside the school system. This covers their:- physical and mental health and emotional well-being; protection from harm and neglect; education, training and recreation; the contribution made by them to society; and social and economic well-being. In order to fulfill this responsibility authorities, when encountering children on truancy sweeps, may need to ask questions to help them access appropriate information".

Does this mean that a police officer can stop a child on the supposed basis of finding out if they are truanting and then start asking all manner of extremely personal questions? The fact that the child's emotional well-being is more than likely to be all the worse for being stopped by a truancy patrol could never possibly occur to these educrats.

Oh stop with all this punitive madness and start thinking creatively instead.

An Argument for Home Education

For an explanation of the likely superiority of HE over schooling, see David Deutsch's mail at theTaking Children Seriously Website

On the Argument for Schooling

There has been a tantalising exchange of views between Chris O'Donnell at his US Home School Blog and Expat Teacher.

Expat started it off by providing an argument supposedly for schooling, declaring that:

There are three options for the goals of education: Democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility.

To start with, if one is to take this particular hypothesis seriously, it is not immediately clear why it is supposedly an argument in favour of schooling. What we do have here is a theory about the goals of education and since schooling is not synonymous with education, the argument does not seem to answer the problem it purports to solve, ie: to provide the argument for schooling. It is not at all clear either whether schools can actually achieve these goals, or whether schools can uniquely achieve these goals. Expat also doesn't want to address the issue of why HE fails in this regard, so we cannot even infer a clear argument from this source either.

In point of fact, if one were to take these goals seriously, it is very questionable whether schools are the best place to achieve them. Schools, routinely being authoritarian institutions, do not offer a genuine model of democratic equality, nor when children are coerced, as they frequently are in schools, does it offer the chance to learn in a genuinely efficient manner in a way that would underpin genuine social efficiency. Finally, for good measure, by keeping children firmly in their place, schooling does not offer the chance of genuine, freely initiated social mobility.

By way of a contrast, rational criticism and creative thinking, which are the very tools that do underpin democratic equality, genuine social efficiency and the possibility of social advancement are much more possible outside of school, where the constraints of authoritarian schooling do not present a problem and where a parent can offer theories tentatively and help a child enact their autonomy.

For more explanation on what I mean here: the statement "There are three options for the goals of education: Democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility" can be used to demonstrate certain epistemological problems very nicely.

Firstly, it makes manifest the problems of authoritarian pedagogy. There is seems to be an assumption here that teacher knows best. Indeed it rather seems that the teacher believes themselves to know things for certain, that these ideas are irredeemably, infallibly right. Even if this is not the case, and teacher is holding these theories tentatively, there would, in a school situation, be very little opportunity to question these assertions deeply, which to all intents and purposes means that these assertions seem infallible.

This is, of course, very poor epistemology and one very good reason not to send kids to school, since it is a commonplace problem there. Knowledge is, of course, always tentative and up for improvement, and though we may dismiss bad ideas through falsification and criticism, we cannot know that even our best ideas are the very best. I only remember a couple of examples of this epistemology being modeled throughout my whole time at school. (University was significantly better in this regard, incidentally.) Most of the time we were led to believe that we should believe what we were told, since it was unquestionably right.

This declaration also seems to demonstrate the epistemological error of assuming that you can pour knowledge into the head of someone else as you would water into a bucket, since it is seemingly predicated upon the idea that the declaration of goals is sufficient to their realisation. This is not the case. Learning takes place in the mind of the learner when theories are active within the mind. The learner is responsible for this. Imposition of ideas into a mind that is not addressing the ideas results in coercion, ie: being forced to enact a theory that is not active in the mind. This in turn results in an inability to apply reason and creativity to the theory.

It seems to me that any goal of education should be constructed upon the basis of what actually happens in the learning process. To deny the basics of how the mind works in the setting of educational goals, is equivalent to deciding to walk round the world without addressing the fact that humans are not constructed in such a way as to make this possible. Given that learning takes place in the mind of the learner and that you cannot simply imprint an idea upon his mind, this being a physical impossibility, the goal of education should be to facilitate the theories that are actually active in the mind of the learner. Therefore, far better to respond to questions that the learner asks. This way one will have a much better hit rate with regard to providing information which will receive active criticism and creative thought.

Schools do not easily have a chance to do this. At the very least, they are frustrated in achieving this goal since they cannot address the active theories in the minds of a class of some 30 odd children. More often than not, though, this aim wouldn't even be adopted by the staff, since traditional pedagogy is the unquestioned ethos of most schools.

HE is frequently superior to schooling, since there is a much greater chance that an adult can be on hand to answer a child's questions, to address the theories that are active in the mind of the child. Plus, HE adults very frequently hold this as their stated intent.

So in answer to the question, "why do you teach your child?", I would say that education should, given that it takes place solely in the mind of the learner, be about giving children the opportunity to address the theories that are active in their minds. Given that theories are always up for improvement, I would not dream of setting a curriculum of pre-prescribed ideas, but will offer my theories tentatively. In addition, given the fact that a child will need to enact their autonomy within the context of society, it is almost inevitable that a discussion of issues such as civic responsibility (or the other goals that Expat mentions) will emerge. Indeed the learner may choose to adopt these goals, but this process does not involve an coercive imposition of any of these goals. What would be the point? Coercion limits rational criticism and creativity and therefore does not optimally or genuinely contribute to any of Expat's stated goals of education.

Science and Religion Mix, Cont'd

Problems with the criticism of religious faith.

From the article:
A certain Dr. Hauptman is of the opinion that "Belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science, this kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race."

Both these assertions are generalisations and are therefore at times, inaccurate. It is quite conceivable that a scientist could live with two entirely different systems of thought, and choose to practice one without reference to the other. It is even conceivable that a scientist could take those parts of either system of thought and transfer compatible elements from one to the other. For example, certain types of religious thought involve humility in the face of truth, an awareness that we cannot be certain of our knowledge. This is completely compatible with scientific enquiry, where theories may be falsified, but cannot be verified and best practice involves holding even our apparently best theories tentatively.

His second assertion, that religious belief is damaging to the human race, is not true. Religious belief MAY be damaging to the human race, e.g.: religiously based prohibitions over the use of stem cells may well have cost people their lives, but it is also the case that religious belief will have furthered scientific endeavors, for example, in giving scientists greater motivation to work harder in the belief that this is their duty to God and his fellow men.

The problems with the above criticisms are commonplace in attempts by atheists to discredit religious faith. Dawkins also frequently makes this kind of error which involves not dealing with the fact that religion is a complex mix of a huge variety of ideas, some of which are useful, meaningful, rational and constructive and tally well with and could inform good science. Good criticisms should attempt to deal with the object of criticism as it really is and recognise the value of the good parts.

Bush Didn't Lie

New Sisyphus has really done his homework on this one. He explains in some detail how the contention that Bush knowingly lied about WMD when he made the case for going to war is false.

Scientists on Mix of Science and Religion...cont'd.

Problems with the Defense of the Mix of Scientific Method and Religious Faith.

From the article:
Some scientists say simply that science and religion are two separate realms, "nonoverlapping magisteria," as the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould put it in his book "Rocks of Ages" (Ballantine, 1999). In Dr. Gould's view, science speaks with authority in the realm of "what the universe is made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory)" and religion holds sway over "questions of ultimate meaning and moral value."

An atheist may be wondering here why it is essentially impossible to answer questions of ultimate meaning and moral value solely within the realms of both scientific and philosophical, as opposed to metaphysical, enquiry. Why is it that science, containing as it does, at least some fairly plausible part-explanations of how the universe works, is necessarily incapable of providing philosophy with sufficient material with which to construct answers to questions of ultimate meaning and moral value?

Atheists may reasonably assert that theories that purport to describe the world, be they scientific or philosophical, can indeed provide mankind with very satisfactory ontological and ethical systems. For example, a philosophical theory about how humans think and learn, provides an explanation for the effects of coercive behaviour. (Coercion is a matter of enacting a theory that is not active in the mind, with the consequent reduction in the ability to reason and be creative.) This simple perception has the potential to have all manner of ethical and political implications.

So the facts of the matter yield theories which explain what happens to humans. Explanations of the facts provide a possible basis for the development of an ethical code but the question then arises as to why and how we should ascribe value to these explanations. Do we not need a metaphysical force in order to convince us of the value of behaving well?

Of course, the presence of a problem does not necessarily mean that we can easily construct a meaningful answer to it, though you often would not be able to draw this conclusion if you were to take an oft-repeated argument in favour of religious faith seriously. This argument in favour of belief in God runs something like this: since we cannot apparently provide satisfactory answers to our ontological and ethical problems without a belief in a supernatural God, He must therefore exist. Hmm.

However, it is in fact perfectly possible to achieve a sense of worthiness and inspired imperative for our actions without the help of divine edict. We can quite reasonably choose to believe in the possibility that humans can subsequently solve any ontological or ethical problems that people may experience. In fact the laws of physics would seemingly suggest that such a thing is perfectly possible...(as described by Frank Tipler in his theories about the Omega Point, for example.) It may just be that people of the future will regard this period of history as almost unimaginably barbaric. Humans in the past have demonstrated an extraordinary capacity to solve problems and we cannot know which problems we will successfully solve in the future. What we can do therefore is put ourselves in the best possible position to attempt to solve these problems. This vision of hope alone is sufficient to provide a sense of meaning that in turn provides the impetus and inspiration to enact a moral system. (Home Education is often a consequence of adopting such theories!)

So rather than absolving ourselves of the responsibility for creating meaning and value by transferring these tasks to a supernatural being, we instead assume complete responsibility for it, in a way that feels empowering and exhilarating since it involves affirming the unique nature and unlimited potential of rational man.

Some may argue that the tentative nature of this system is a poor substitute of the conviction of faith, but it needn't be. The excitement of thinking that solutions can potentially be found is inspirational and the satisfaction of knowing that dearly held theories (whilst tentative) have withstood every criticism so far, and are all the more credible for it, is more than enough to generate hope and energy in their application.

Further from the article:
Dr Collins, a scientist who came to religious faith after a period of atheism quotes an argument from "Mere Christianity," by C. S. Lewis. "In the book Lewis, an atheist until he was a grown man, argues that the idea of right and wrong is universal among people, a moral law they "did not make, and cannot quite forget even when they try." This universal feeling, he said, is evidence for the plausibility of God".

More plausibly, it is evidence for the theory of evolution, since humans have evolved a number of capacities which have achieved a certain uniformity through the success of their characteristics and which therefore give rise to similar moral systems. It is not necessary to create another cause in the form of God here since there is no demonstrable evidence for it, there is a perfectly satisfactory explanation already and the existence of God simply creates further problems of demanding another set of explanations, such as about how was God created, and how he causes all of mankind to have similar views on matters of morality, even when they expressly do not believe in Him.

Also from article:
"Dr. Collins said, he does not embrace any particular denomination, but he is a Christian. Colleagues sometimes express surprise at his faith, he said. "They'll say, 'How can you believe that? Did you check your brain at the door?" But he said he had discovered in talking to students and colleagues that "there is a great deal of interest in this topic."

Yes but that doesn't address the issue of whether or not Dr. Collins has taken leave of his senses. A failure to address questions directly is often used as a way of attempting to defend religious faith from criticism.

Scientists on Mix of Science and Religion

Many thanks to Daryl at HEOS for this link to a New York Times article on how scientists square religious faith with scientific endeavour. I agree with him entirely that it is good to see Intelligent Design theory dismissed out of hand, and that the absense of snark is also very winning. But I would also say that neither the scientists' religious explanations nor the atheist attack upon them are entirely satisfying... for next post, I think.

Top Universities

The top universities in the world can be found ranked here. Home Educators of our acquaintance have recently got into the 2nd, 23rd and 26th ranked universities.

Apparently the table is based on a range of criteria, including research and academic excellence as well as the number of Nobel prizewinners among alumni. The list should also serve to give the lie to the notion that the States is incapable of producing the above.

Back to Normal

Phew, I have to say that is a bit of relief. He's finally gone. The strain of living with an downright gorgeous 20 year old, straight As, economics undergraduate and one of the best young golfers in the UK was beginning to tell.

It all started badly with me opening the door to what I imagined to be our postman who has long since got used to us, but there instead was W - Dh's younger brother. He didn't bat an eyelid at my dust-covered gardening T-shirt and the crinkled pyjama bottoms. It was only later that I also realised that the top part of me resembled nothing other than Batman's Joker on a bad day since I'd earlier lent my face to Dd for face paint applications. I still haven't established to my own satisfaction whether W didn't mention this fact out of habitual courtesy, or whether he simply fully expected our home to be constituted of mad-looking bag-lady types and children wearing little other than swimming goggles and grass-stains.

W then insisted on helping out with various jobs in the garden, which inevitably meant that he completely distracted everyone around him by taking off his shirt. A succession of mother friends have visited and have blatantly left their children unsupervised in the pool, whilst their attention has been distracted.

One very good thing has come of all this. Dh and his bf who has also been staying, have suddenly started to do an extra lap round the top field, and making the extra mile on the rowing machine! The competitive edge has been a definite plus point of W's stay, as has the amount of extra golfing practice that everyone has put in. With the extra coaching, Ds's chipping is now excellent... about 70% to the green on last count and his long game isn't bad either. Also, lots of cricket practice too...

What am I saying! Come back W!

Humanism Should Trump Creationism but Bets are Off

We here in the UK are lucky insofar as creationism is not pedalled in most of our schools. In the US on the other hand, no less than 13 States have applied to add it to the curriculum.

Perhaps though, we shouldn't be too sanguine about the situation on the UK. The moral education of our children is mostly woefully lax, with parents often abdicating all or most of the responsiblity for this side of education to the schools, and with schools failing abjectly in their brief. (For a start, how can you tell a child that bullying is wrong, when you are, like as not, being a terrible bully yourself?). There is, therefore, an obvious temptation to flail around looking for solutions to this failure in moral education, and creationism could be seen by some to fit the bill.

There are signs that this is indeed happening. The Guardian reports that the government's plans to create 200 new City Academies by attracting private sponsorship to the tune of £2 million pounds, with the sponsors running these academies in partnership with the LEAs, have backfired somewhat, in that almost half of these proposed flagship schools are to be sponsored by religious organisations. At least two of these sponsors, (The Grace Academy, with schools in Coventry and Solihul and the Emmanuel Foundation with three schools), either already teach or intend to teach creationism.

The Guardian also notes that:"In the UK, creationism remains a fringe movement - although the organisers of Creation Fest, a Christian festival held this weekend in Devon which is hosting several Creationist lecturers, say attendance has doubled year on year since they began in 2001".

It is not necessary, however, to fill the educational ethical void with unmitigated nonsense and we must hope that the good sense of the British people will prevail and that they realise there is a workable, rational alternative. By this I mean that we could start to take humans seriously. There are profound reasons for doing so, since humans can be awesome. We could generate prodigious inspiration and strength by acknowledging human achievement. We should be proud of the times when the human race has shown ingenuity, proficiency, confidence, intelligence and courage. We could look to maximise these qualities in ourselves.

However, here in the UK, those of left-wing persuasion have propogated a self-loathing of immense proportions, and elements of the right do little more than despise them for it. Taken altogether, this amounts to nothing less than a total dissipation of belief in mankind, human potential and progress.

Yet theoretical quantum physicists such as David Deutsch and Frank Tipler talk of human potential in truly inspiring and not incredible terms. Despite the commonplace denigration of human achievement and the ever present seductions of religious belief, there is no need to resort to mysticism for an ethical framework or for a reason to live.

Summer School

The past two weeks seem to have left me with the impression that all I have actually done is struggle to put Dd's armbands on and off, but when I come to think about it, we have also amongst other things: canoed, quad-biked, skateboarded, ridden Benny, watched the carnival, gone to select bits of a music festival, (the African percussion group combined with the seshion musicians were not to be missed), gone for a late-night scare-your-pants-off walk in the woods, go-carted, helped at a BBQ, made concrete in a mixer, built some stone steps, helped to clear up friend's burnt-out house, picked up an enormous amount of plums and donated boxes of these to friends, visited the ruins of a colliery, spotted a goshawk and a kingfisher, gone for a ride on a walzer with a sweet-faced blonde pal who earned extra spins and as a result have been unable to walk to quite some time afterwards, had smart meals in, smart meals out, plaster-casted, marble painted, made origami birds, waffles, pizza, and a dahl, played golf, football, cricket and card games, added to Lego City, played Sims, Alien Hominid and Age of Mythology, trampolined, and invented a dance school. In the course of all this we have seen a large number of childrens' friends.

Whatever the weather does from now on, it has felt like a proper summer.