RE: [asa] Book TV on C-SPAN 2

For now I'll limit my discussion to science rather than potential areas of
government propaganda. I'm not sure you're wrong about the legal question,
but at some point in secular education there must be an advocacy of one
point of view or another. If the science teacher tells the class, "We can
use the scientific method to study nature" and "Nature operates according to
laws and forces, such as electromagnetism, etc.", that's good science. It's
even considered good Christian theology, that nature is governed by order
and law rather than random whims of pagan deities. But it advocates this
point in contradiction to, say animism or certain variations of polytheism.
At some point, teaching science is going to contradict some philosophy or
theology, and who can say that such positions (as good science) are
unconstitutional because they contradict someone's religious preference? If
we were unable to teach anything that didn't offend someone's philosophical
beliefs, there wouldn't be any instruction at all.
 
As I stated in a previous e-mail today, I'm not sure I want certain
militantly atheistic secular biology teachers teaching my kids about
religion, but this post was about the possibility of doing so
constitutionally. I think your previous post was on the mark, that *how*
such statements are made could affect the constitutionality of the statement
("some people believe such and such" rather than making absolute statements
about compatibility with or rightness of a particular viewpoint).
 
Jon Tandy
 <http://www.arcom.com/>

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Opderbeck
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 2:10 PM
To: Jon Tandy
Cc: ASA list
Subject: Re: [asa] Book TV on C-SPAN 2

But the problem is that, as valid as this purpose may be, it is directly
endorsing one religious viewpoint over another. That the government cannot
do.
 
Again, think through the consequences outside this one context. We could
just as well support a public school teaching that "the use of aggressive
interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, is not necessarily at
odds with religious faith." This might serve a valid secular purpose,
particularly if, say, the government were trying to extract information from
suspected terrorists and public opposition were making that process
difficult. But many religious believers would say that torture is always at
odds with their faith, and so the statement endorses one religious view
about the propriety of such techniques over another.
 
As you hopefully can see, there are infinite possibilities for government
propaganda and mischief when the government is permitted to endorse a
particular contested religious view because of some putatively higher
purpose.
 
 
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net> wrote:

Pim wrote:
 
After all, one may point to a valid secular purpose to point out that
evolutionary theory is not necessarily at odds with religious faith. It is
far different from the position that evolutionary theory and fact are at
odds with religious faith, a position which serves no valid secular
purposes.
 
 
This, it seems to me, is a profound statement, although it appears contrary
to consistent logic on the surface. I will summarize your point,
substituting "scientific" for the more controversial term "evolutionary":
 
1. Asserting that a scientific theory is not necessarily at odds with
religious faith serves a valid secular purpose. Your point is, the "valid
purpose" is to make the teaching of science more palatable or easy to bear
for those who hold a particular religious viewpoint.
2. Asserting that a scientific theory IS at odds with religious faith DOES
NOT serve a valid secular purpose. Whether it be atheism trying to
establish the falsity of religion, or religion trying to assert the falsity
of science, both points are a philosophical/religious purpose, not a secular
one.
 
And I think, your use of the term "valid secular purpose" has to do with the
legal judgment that instruction in the (secular) classroom must serve a
purpose toward the end of secular education, not the furthering of purely
religious goals. Is this a fair summary of what you are saying?
 
 
Jon Tandy
 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Feb 26 15:31:02 2008