Atheism or Religion in the Classroom - Pick One

If you're an atheist and you're reading this, get ready to be really angry.  A public High School History teacher blatantly told his students that believing in God makes sense, and atheism is "nonsense". 

Aristotle … argued, you know, there sort of has to be a God. Of course he's right.  I mean, that’s what you call deductive reasoning, you know. And you hear it all the time with people who say, ‘Well, since we don't know what created God, the universe must've created itself.’ Faulty logic. Very faulty logic...The other possibility is, the universe was created since we know it had a beginning...Your call as to which one of those notions is scientific and which one is nonsense.

Are you mad, atheists?  Do you think we need to legislate this kind of speech right out of the classroom?  You're wrong.

The So-Called Culture War

I lied earlier.  Here's what the teacher actually told his students:

Aristotle … argued, you know, there sort of has to be a God. Of course that’s nonsense.  I mean, that’s what you call deductive reasoning, you know. And you hear it all the time with people who say, ‘Well, if all this stuff that makes up the universe is here, something must have created it.’ Faulty logic. Very faulty logic...The other possibility is, [the universe has] always been there.… Your call as to which one of those notions is scientific and which one is magic.

Now that you know what he actually said, are you relieved, atheists?  Do you support this?  And for the Christians who may be reading this, are you now mad that the teacher got away with this?  Bear in mind that the courts in California ruled this speech immune to the constitution. 

This is somewhat old news, but the central issue here isn't going to go away anytime soon.  If you don't believe me then look here and here and a lot of other places.  People with a right wing ideology call this a culture war.  Religious right-wingers aren't the only ones pushing the so-called Culture War, either.  In a conversation I had the other day with an atheist, I was told that there is a conspiracy to insert Christianity into public schools.  There are two sides here, both claiming the other is trying to take over the classroom.  This sounds suspiciously like a narrative.

How do we determine which side is right so we can legislate the other side out of existence?  We don't, they're both wrong.

Here's the problem: If you're an atheist, and you're convinced there's a conspiracy to sneak religion into the classroom then the first, incorrect quote made you mad, but the second quote probably doesn't bother you all that much.  Similarly, if you're a Christian, the first quote probably doesn't bother you, but you get riled up by the second quote. 

Let's deal with the atheists first.

Science is not Atheistic

Consider a quote by Michael Ruse, which I think is poignant:

If teaching “God exists” is teaching religion – and it is – then why is teaching “God does not exist” not teaching religion? Obviously it is teaching religion. But if science generally and Darwinism specifically imply that God does not exist, then teaching science generally and Darwinism specifically runs smack up against the First Amendment. Perhaps indeed teaching Darwinism is implicitly teaching atheism.

If only I could write so directly and concisely, and with less unnecessary commas.   

Michael Ruse is an atheist, but he's not saying that science is teaching atheism.  To the contrary, he's saying that the so-called New Atheists, in trying to attach their unscientific philosophy of atheism to science (evolution in this case), are attempting to turn science into atheism and therefore they are establishing that science cannot legally be taught in the classroom.  He's saying what I've been saying almost from day one on this website: Atheists are damaging science by trying to pretend that science is equivalent to their philosophy.  He just says it better.

It is terrible to consider that Ruse is not just a lone voice, advocating for ideologically neutral science, but that in advocating to keep science ideology free, he is attacked by atheist ideologues.  He has this to say:

I am not a devout Christian, yet if anything, the things said against me are worse. Richard Dawkins, in his best selling The God Delusion, likens me to Neville Chamberlain, the pusillanimous appeaser of Hitler at Munich. Jerry Coyne reviewed one of my books (Can a Darwinian be a Christian?) using the Orwellian quote that only an intellectual could believe the nonsense I believe in. And non-stop blogger P. Z. Myers has referred to [me] as a “clueless gobshite.” This invective is all because, although I am not a believer, I do not think that all believers are evil or stupid, and because I do not think that science and religion have to clash.

Atheists like Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Meyers haven't just bought into the narrative of the culture war, they are some of the pillars holding the narrative in place.  They're criticizing Ruse because they want everyone to believe that there has to be a war of ideologies, and since the war must take place, their side must win.  Ruse is rational and honest enough to question whether or not the war should be taking place at all, and for that he is attacked.  In an abstract sense, this is the narrative defending itself.  The fear on both sides is that if "we" aren't fighting then "we" are losing. 

Let me also reiterate a point that I've made before: Atheists are not wrong when they argue, on philosophical grounds, the reasons why they believe atheism is true.  So long as they establish that they're arguing philosophy, then they are doing no harm on a scientifically pragmatic level.  However, arguing on philosophical grounds isn't good enough for them, because Dawkins et al. are philosophically illiterate.  So instead they inject their juvenile philosophy into science.

Incorrect Atheistic "Science"

If you're an atheist, think about what upsets you about the idea of creationism being taught in the classroom.  Probably you think creationism is not good science, and of course you would argue that it's religious and therefore legally should not be in school.  Fair enough?

Let's go back to the quote at the beginning of the article then.  The one where the teacher told his students that believing in God is "nonsense".  Here's what some atheists have to say about it:

So glad to see the courts allowing reason to be taught in the class room.

And there's this:

Reading the article, I would agree.  Challenging people's beliefs and getting them to think critically, as well as defend their positions logically with facts. is the sign of a good teacher.

And so on.  In other words, atheists are okay with the teacher inserting atheism into the classroom so long as he's criticizing creationism as well.  These atheists have bought into the culture war, so they want their side to win.  Of course, if the teacher had been a Christian advocating God, then we would need to use the courts to shut him up.  But take a look again at what the teacher said:

And you hear it all the time with people who say, ‘Well, if all this stuff that makes up the universe is here, something must have created it.’ Faulty logic. Very faulty logic...The other possibility is, [the universe has] always been there.… Your call as to which one of those notions is scientific and which one is magic.

This isn't scientific.  Not only is this not scientific, it runs contrary to science.  We know with a good deal of certainty that the universe has not always existed.  Last I heard the theory of the Big Bang hadn't been overturned.  So his belief that the universe has always been around is no less "magic" than saying God created the universe.  Of course, even if the universe was eternal, it still doesn't answer the philosophical question of why there should be something rather than nothing - which is a yarn I don't want to untangle just now.

By the way, that word "magic" is just an awful word.  Atheists love to use it to make Christian philosophy sound like nothing more than parlor tricks.  This is a juvenile form of rhetoric, and it needs to go away.

Here we have an atheist promoting an ideology that runs contrary to science in the classroom, and getting away with it.  He's doing precisely what atheists accuse Christians of trying to do.  But atheists don't mind.  In fact, they're supporting what he's doing.  They don't even see the inherent contradiction in the situation. 

The reason, of course, is that these atheists who support this sort of thing don't care about the science, they care about their ideology.  They care about winning the culture war, because they've bought into the narrative that the war has to be fought and won by one side or another - hopefully their side.

Atheists justify their intrusion into science by claiming that Christians are involved in a conspiracy to sneak religion into science.  But why are the Christians trying to get religion into science?  Because they think there's a conspiracy to get atheism into science.  Both sides feel justified doing what they do because the "enemy" on the other side is doing what they do.  It's a self sustaining feedback loop.  Neither side can stop and ask if they should be fighting in the first place, because if they aren't fighting then the other side wins.  And on that note...

Science is Not Christian

Here's where I have to upset all two of my Christian readers.  However, the sword cuts both ways, and if it's wrong to insert ideology into the (science) classroom, then Christianity is no exception.  

Current science simply does not confirm religion to be true.  But the good news is that it can't prove atheism true either.  It's irrelevant, in a general sense.  You don't need to feel like science is pushing religion out of the public sphere - this is a lie.  It can do no such thing.  Ideologues can claim that science is pushing religion away, but that's their problem. 

Just because some on the secular side are trying to use science to get atheism into the classroom does not mean that you need to react by doing what they do.  That is, you shouldn't feel like you're losing the culture by not getting religion in the classroom.  The fact is, you can't do this legally.  The only way to really win this fight is to make sure that atheists aren't able to get their religious views into the classroom.  You can do something to stop this without breaking the law yourself. 

I hate to make this argument, because I know some people who read this and know me who are creationists and don't realize that I'm not, but I have to.  Creationism simply isn't scientific.  The best available evidence today says the universe is over a dozen billion years old, and the earth itself is several billion years old. 

If you push for literal creationism, are you doing this for rational reasons, or because you want science to support your religion?  I think one should carefully consider their answer to that question.   

Are you fighting the battle because you want your side to win, or because you want science to win?  If you want your side to win, what if you don't actually have to be fighting in the first place?  Why don't we just shut both sides down?  Consider that scientific thinking doesn't have anything to do with either ideology. 

As Christians, we should keep fighting, but not to get our ideology into the classroom.  Rather we should be fighting to show people that science is not an ideology, which will thus be a rational, practical way to keep atheism out of the science classroom.  In a way you still win, but you have to change your criteria for winning.  This applies to atheists as well - everyone wins.  This doesn't mean we've lost some culture war, it just means that we can fight to help people realize it shouldn't be fought in the first place.  

Final Note

The legislative action needs to stop.  There's a trend in this country towards expressions of social dominance orientation via legislation.  Yes, there is a legal issue at work in debates like this, but all too often we feel the need to unnecessarily create laws, or legal precedences, to shut down people we disagree with.  We should be afraid of doing this.  The existence of laws (or legal precedence), created for this reason, is the absence of freedom.  

Even though I think that teacher I quoted at the beginning of this post is an idiot, he should be allowed to say what he wants to.  Furthermore, if a teacher wants to tell his students that he thinks atheism is stupid and that they should believe in God, that should be fine too.  What's wrong with people expressing themselves in a public setting, even if it is a public school?  It may be somewhat inappropriate, given the setting, but it's their freedom to express themselves that should be upheld.  The only thing that needs to be legally protected from ideology is the school curriculum. 

But if you're an atheist, especially, that probably isn't good enough.  After all, there's a conspiracy of irrational and ignorant religious intrusion in the classroom, right?  So, if a teacher were to tell his students that they should believe in God, he has to be stopped not because of the law, and not because of science, but because you believe that we need to shut religion out lest it shut atheism out.

Of course, when children or young adults are involved the situation changes.  Paradoxically, at a time when our young Americans should be learning that it's okay to think critically and express themselves freely, some in this country feel the need to use the law to "show" these kids that critical thought and freedom of expression aren't welcome in America.  It's pathetic.

Take the story that sparked this post, or this story about a prayer mural.  Both involved an atheist or Christian teen suing someone to shut down freedom of expression.  With this narrative, we're helping to create a generation of Americans who are trained to use the law to control people they disagree with.  I can't think of anything less American than that.  Public schools are not, or should not be, training grounds for fascism.

Forget the conspiracy theories.  Forget this "culture war".  Because no matter what side wins, we'll lose two important things.  1).  Some of our freedom of expression.  2).  An ideologically neutral pursuit of science.  

As is the case, always, with these battles of ideology, no matter what side wins, we all lose.