A conversation with a Christian : the secular society

A preamble : For some time I've chatted with a Christian friend of mine from Sydney about lots of different things. One of those discussions were about the secular society we have shaped, and whether that's a good or a bad thing, especially in contrast with religious freedom and how that impacts things like our educational system.


I must note to my foreign readers that in Australia there are Scripture classes in primary and high schools that are run by volunteers in the community, and you'll usually find some guy from the local church who comes in and teaches about the bible and bigger issues such as life and death. You can opt out of it, and even though it's mostly Christian scripture, there are other instances of other religious as well.


So far there has been no non-religious alternative to this, but lately the New South Wales government have pushed through an ethics course that people can choose instead.


For some bizarre reason this has gotten lots of Christians up in a tiff. My conversation here started on Facebook, but due to limitations of how long I can write there (and based on the promise that this might be the last one of these we do), I decided to post it here. Enjoy, and I'm sorry you're missing out on some context from previous conversations; I think you'll get the gist.

---

First of all, I'm sorry these chats bore you and that you feel we're not going anywhere. Let me know, and I'll stop interacting with your Facebook, that's cool. The problem for me is finding a time free to talk, but we could give that a try. I prefer the beach, of course, but I'm not fussy. But I'll make this last (and possibly too long) stance here to clear up a few things.

“The entire school curriculum and ethos is secular!!”

You say that as if that's a bad thing, even from a religious view point. First we need to define secular, I think, before we leap into song about its horrors. The word comes from that part of your Christian life that takes place here on Earth before you go to heaven (or worse). It has developed into the important notion of treating all people on earth under equal terms, first from all the denominations of Christianity (38.000 and counting) that couldn't agree on which doctrine was the true one, and much later added that other religions also have their views that might be right since no one can make their God demonstrate the real truth without any doubt. So, we must all agree to at least a platform where we can all agree on the premises, and add our own private religious beliefs on top.

Surely this is a good thing? The only people not happy with this are people who think their opinion should trump everyone else's, but luckily most Christians I know and meet are not of this kind. They seem to be understanding of the common platform, probably understood through their own denominational bickering through the last 2000 years that state pretty clearly that the absolute truth is relative. And when truths are relative, it is hard to agree, to get along. Failure to see this leads to extremism, and success leads to, well, secularism.

Is there some atheist connotation attached to the term these days? Some non-Christian direction hidden in the bowls of creating this neutral platform? That might explain things, just like there are bad connotations attached to the very word “atheist” which means nothing more than “non-believer”, that there is agendas and meaning attached to “secular” that you don't agree with? Let's anyway make it perfectly clear that I use the word in the neutral way based on Christian tradition.

The other way there's something wrong with secularism in the educational system is if you think science somehow is wrong, and that is a slippery slope, and can get ugly real fast. It could be based on a faulty understanding of what science is and what it does, or confusing science with what scientists do, or even confusing it with what some scientists do which aren't scientific (there's a good reason in academia scientists make a clear cut between Bob the scientist and Bob the person). The options here are as many as there are fallible people involved in science.

“Religious Scripture occurs in some schools only where there are volunteers willing to provide it.”

Yes, of course. Religion is in the private sphere.

“One reason it is provided is so that people of faith, who don’t have enough money to send their students to private schools, can still have their children receive religious instruction.”

Teaching your children private messages of religion is not the responsibility of the educational system. Religion is a private matter. End of story. Don't even understand why you go there.

“This is an issue of equity. In the 2006 census 63.9% of Australians identified themselves as Christian. Only 11.2% said they had no religion.”

Let's take it even further, and look at the development of the last100 years ;
abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/bb8db737e2af84b8ca2571780015701e/bfdda1ca506d6cfaca2570de0014496e!OpenDocument

In only a few years there'll be as many atheists as there are Anglicans, or Catholics, or all the rest of the Christian denomination put together. There's also an increase in “other” religions on a logarithmic scale, which means they'll surpass Anglicans alone in (calculate, calculate) about 15 years (but I'm sure it'll flatten out slightly, so maybe 20 years). Christianity has gone from 96% to 68% (almost 30%) in 100 years, and within the Christian figures we can still argue culturally vs. devout Christians as well. There is a very wuzzy line that's well-documented in statistics and cultural history. The numbers are telling stories.

These are all world-views, and they can't all be right as a lot of them are mutually exclusive. We need a platform that caters to all these people, and to all the people of the future. You may not like this sharing, but any well-functioning society depends on it.

Oh, by the way, my wife's a teacher, I'm an occasional teacher, my family is full of teachers, my wife's family equally so. Some of my best friends are hard-core teachers (one of them even teaches philosophy! The horror!), so no need to think I don't know the educational system, neither here or in other parts of the world.

“Check out through the Department of Education website – every policy is there. Millions of words to excite your secularist sensibilities.”

Secularist sensibilities? Hmm, you must have woken up in a foul mood this morning. You're not seriously fighting against a common and neutral platform on which to build our common future and on which you can place any religious idea you like on? Religion is a private matter. What other option than secularism should the common neutral platform possibly be?

I'm sorry, but to me you're sounding more and more like a grumpy old man who's upset that things aren't they way they used to be, that they don't do things the way you like them, in complete disregard for other people's opinions, rights and choices.

Me: ‘Everyone in our society shall have equal choices, even if the choices dropped doesn't like it.’

You: “Everyone accept people of faith if you had your way. Despite the fact that people of no faith make a small minority of the population.”

Now you're being mean-spirited, and blind of reality. I could hash through the statistics again, their future prognosis and the implications they show, but I'd rather focus on something that seems to be sneaking up on our conversation here right now;

“if you had your way” is an insulting non sequitur ; if I truly had my way, you would be better off, as I am a stronger believer in the pursuit of freedom than you'll find in any political or religious agenda. And it's easy to demonstrate the power of this freedom; imagine any other religion being in the position you want to be in. Let's pretend we're a Muslim country, and Scripture classes are not the bible, but the koran. I'm fairly convinced you'd prefer my platform of not having neither rather than the tyranny of some.

I am not your enemy. I might agree that some other secularists might be, atheists even, that would love nothing more than getting rid of all religions if they could, tear down every single church, and be gone with it. But I suspect very strongly you have me mistaken for someone else.

Me: ‘But at the same time I would remove any religious subject that wasn't scientific (ie. Teaching about it, rather than teaching it).’

You: “So which other ‘non-scientific’ subjects should we chuck out at the same time? English? History? Commerce? Your precious ethics classes?”

Why should we chuck out something else at the same time? I said “any religious subject”, not things that are non-religious. I think you're jumping the gun again; I want a secular educational system, nothing more.

“Scientifically prove, that if you can’t scientifically prove something, it can’t be true! Your views on this issue aren’t scientific, they are philosophical. There are other ways of knowing truth, apart from the scientific method.”

This is slippery ground again. What are you expressing truths about? You can always prove truth within a context, but it always comes down to that context and its definitions, constraints and boundaries. If your context is “phenomena in the real world”, then no, there is only one way to express truths within it. If you context is “God”, then sure, exegesis and theology to the rescue. But neither of these systems of context have dichotomological definitions of truth. You cannot impart a truth about God in the real-world. You could have a stab at meta physics, but you'll quickly find that there is different levels of meta before you reach the other boundaries of supernatural (you'll find human logic in there, amongst other things). God as a truth statement in the real-world is nothing but mere opinion. Just like the other way; I can't make truth statements about God, they would be mere opinion. These models don't overlap. So when we talk about science, it has a very specific definition of what truth means and a framework to verify that truth within. Religion has no such thing. You're trying to make a joke using religious reasoning on top of scientific logic. It just doesn't make any sense.

Me: ‘[..] religion is clearly separated into the private sphere, where, even in this country, it belongs by law.’

You: “So because something is in law that makes it right.”

Gee, I thought you opposed to ethics classes? :) This is exactly what they are all about; makes us think and learn about systems of right and wrong, why we make laws, how we enforce them, and whether they are fair, balanced and equal for all.

“All those who have challenged unfair laws in the past should have shut their mouths then. Naughty Gandhi, naughty Martin Luther King, naughty feminists, naughty aboriginal activists – didn’t you all realise that if something is in the law – that makes it right?”

Again you're hopping away on silly assumptions. What is this but a poor attempt to make me look like an ignoramus or something? C'mon, mate, in my last two responses I've explicitly talked about progressiveness, remember? That's what it means; question the status quo, always. There is the law, there is enforcing of it, and then there's ethics to question if they seem right. Surely, truly you're just not concentrating in an effort to score cheap points?

“Given that most people in this country have a faith, and they are equal citizens – who are you to tell them that their views do not count, or their belief systems don’t merit study?”

Again, what you say makes no sense. I'm the one banging on about an equal platform for all, I'm the one pushing for progressive ethical processes, I'm the one pushing equal rights. At what point have I said anyone's view or opinion doesn't count or merit study?

But hey, I bet you wouldn't even agree with the postulate of your own opinion here, either. I know, rhetoric tricks and all, but you yourself have opinions that state that others opinions don't count. You have your platform as well, a platform that lots of people do not agree with. Are you saying their opinions don't count? That we should keep scripture as is because your opinion is that it is best to keep it that way?

“Well you do have a right to say what you think, even if you are in the minority. But you should have no right to impose your will on others. We should all be allowed to express our worldviews freely, without bigots seeking to silence other voices.”

Where on earth did this tirade come from? I suspect from someone who is overly frustrated with not having his opinions rated higher than that of progress. You may not have noticed, but you are talking freely. However, talking freely doesn't mean that what you say must be agreed with, or even have a valid point. I meet people on corners who have very strong opinions on what politicians should be killed, and the funny thing is that under the banner your proposing, his opinion is as valid as yours and mine. No, I don't think all opinions are valid nor should be equally treated, but I'd protect your right to say so with my life.

Me: ‘Are you saying rules of conduct signifies ethical understanding?

You: “Yes discipline does signify ethical understanding, because when a child is disciplined they are told why what they did was wrong, and are shown the consequences of their actions.”

Wow, I think you're showing off how you live in a bubble of blissful Christian discipline. But then, maybe you are perfect, and every time you discipline someone you also explain what they did wrong, why it is wrong, and explain how the consequences are just. (And perhaps your idea of what discipline is cut clear, as well) Seriously, I'm not buying it. As a utopian dream it might have merits (although I'd struggle with the core sentiments in other ways, but that's a psychological conundrum), however I call outright horse manure on “discipline signify any ethical understanding.” Most people have no clue as to what the ethical implications of their actions are! People are driven not by what they think, but by what they know. Knowledge is often too close to dogma (which is why science don't claim absolute knowledge, unlike religions who claim it all the time) There's a reason the expression “practice what I say, not what I do” is my favourite pogrom of all times, and it stands as an example of human fallibility.

At this point I'm sure you'll tell me that that is the struggle between sin and the holy spirit, and perhaps there's a certain Cartesian truth to that (well, Spinozzian, actually). But it's still not satisfactory. Do you kill people who work on the Sabbath? No? But that's the ethical thing to do, don't you know? Yes, that's the good old “what part of the bible are you agreeing with, and why” postulation, but I say it here for a reason; what is Christian or biblical ethics? Let's pick on something less obvious: Do you allow female preachers? What would you do if you caught one preaching? The bible doesn't tell you what to do, so how do you discipline that woman (I can assume stoning would be biblical culturally acceptable, but what now these days?), how do you tell them that they did wrong (Paul wasn't keen on it, but Jesus is silent on the matter, however Jewish culture is definite), how do you explain the correctness of that discipline? How do you, in fact, even talk about definitions of Christian ethics in such a blatant modern phenomena? Not sure about Australia, but Norway has female priests. Yay, or nay? If nay, how does your ethic work out discipline and the knowledge you claim is there behind it?

“Of course I believe in religious freedom. I don’t believe in forcing anyone to believe what I believe. People should be free to say what they think on these issues. But, I’m not the one trying to silence the religious voice in public schools or the public domain. And once again I will remind you that Scripture is not exclusively for Christians – even Bahai run scripture classes.”

Then it's all good. We all have choices. Even Bahai's, right? And now, even atheists or those who don't have volunteers from their favourite religion come in have a choice. That should make us all happy. Yet you are unhappy.

“From our discussions your dogma is very clear: 1. Secularism is superior to religious faith, 2. Scientific knowledge is the only way of truly knowing something, 3. People of religious faith should not have a voice in public schools or discourse"

1. No, 2. No, 3. No. How can you have missed all that?

“You have been very consistent and unwilling to change your viewpoint Alex.”

I'm sorry, but you need better arguments first. There are some fundamental differences between our world-views. Personally I think I'm fairly balanced already; I demand the middle ground for all. That's it. No more. Middle ground, a neutral platform. And if you feel that I should compromise those views, then this whole discussion thing is down the gurgler. I'm not piling on my political views, nor my religious views, just my views on what the middle of society needs to be so that it is FAIR FOR ALL. And that I won't budge on.

“Yet you have given me no convincing reason to abandon it. So why should I change?”

Well, I haven't argued that you should, so now you're just grasping at straws thinking anybody who's not with you are automatically against you. Sorry, but the world doesn't work that way, but I meet a lot of Christians who have been taught that this is really so. I blame doctrine, of course, but your mileage may vary.

“Paul was unwavering and uncompromising when it came to the truth of who Christ was – the resurrected Son of God. It was Jesus who defined Paul’s worldview, as he does mine.”

Happy to go into theology and exegesis, if that is what you want, but I doubt it. You again bring up concepts such as “the truth of who Christ was” as if stating it as a truth makes it a truth. Remember we're both stuck here on planet Earth for the time being, here in the natural world. This is where we have our conversation. Truth statements made here do not apply there, for good of for worse.

I'm sure my understanding of Paul would baffle most believers, because I don't take it for granted that the written word or fantastical story in any shape or form have truth value all in of itself. And that is, sadly I'm sure you think, science in a nutshell.

“I find these long typed chats tiresome Alex.”

Ok, this was the last one, then.

“let’s discuss these issues on Skype some time.”

Ok, but finding the time we both got time is going to be a pain, I guarantee it.

“I would rather deal with one issue at a time. Preferably, I would rather discuss the source of both our worldviews which is the underlying cause of our disagreements.”

Sure, sounds good. Until a possible next time, take care.