Day 2: Questions Asked and Answered

Day 2: Questions Asked and Answered

1.  Review of yesterday's Dennett video and the big questions it raises.  Below here is a sample answer to the question, "Comment on the video."  See?  Simple question, complex answer.
2.  We continue with the next two videos (see yesterday's post) and addressed the main points of them.

Some of the discussion that the "Epistemology" video elicited included these ideas:
1. We are sometimes willing to lie to ourselves (ignore the actual truth)  to make ourselves feel better (raise our self-esteem).
2. The only honest job is the magician's - she/he tell you that they will deceive you and they do!

Some of the discussion that the "Ethics" video elicited included these ideas:
1. The Greater Good Principle" - when deciding upon the Ethics of an issue, does it matter that a greater number of people will benefit?
2. Although we all agree that generally it is not right to lie, there just might be situations where lying is the ethical thing to do (would you tell the axe-murder where your parents were enabling him to go an hack them?)
3. Do ethics apply to other living creatures like genetically modified lab animals, animals used for product testing, etc.?

Video #1: Dan Dennett: Responding to Pastor Rick Warren

Dan Dennett’s ideas concerning religion and how we must collectively use the study of it to further societal progress are extremely interesting. He states that instating universal education of world religions is the only suitable practice in an advanced, democratic society that will promote generations with an approach to all faucets of life sans religious intolerance and thus, the skepticism and prejudices nurtured by growing up ardently following one religion. In fact, he suggests that what we know as democracy cannot function properly without such an institution.

Universal education of world religion is indeed an exciting idea. To me, however, it is less plausible of an idea to instate than is presented in the video. I’m not saying Dennett’s idea is bad, in fact, I agree that in all areas of education, children should receive as much unbiased, factual information as they can. This includes math and English and second/third/fourth languages, in history, geography, current events, law, business, etc. The basis of Dennett’s proposal is to provide student s with FACTS about world religions. But on topics so broad and so very polluted with matters of opinion and contradiction, how is it possible to teach general religious lessons on just the facts? And, how is it possible to mediate a respectful discussion where fact versus interpretation within religion can be dissected without offending anyone, or causing serious ideological conflict?

Not only is there a huge grey space between what is a fact and what is interpretation when looking at religions, today it is an incredible challenge to make any statements concerning the nature of any one religion without risking the anger of its followers. For an international example, Islamic religion dictates that women should be treated differently men in many ways, such as where each gender is allowed to pray in a mosque (for women it is in the back or basement, out of sight) or how a woman is allowed to present herself in public. When international organizations look into primarily Islamic countries and see gender inequalities it is virtually impossible to help women living in unjust and potentially dangerous situations because the issue at hand involves denouncing the morality of another’s religion. In my mind, the terrible abuse women in many Arab countries live with is not a question of religion at all, but of sexism and misogyny. But what rights do I have which allow me to state what is and is not a fact or an unfair interpretation within Islamic tradition… what right does anyone have to do so?  This argument is firmly established around the world and stands between anyone calling on the morality of religion and the validity of their point, regardless of whether it is something concerning human rights, or another cause.  Even in Canada, our unyielding acceptance for multiculturalism has created such a strong vehemence against anyone that disrupts the principal of universal acceptance and tolerance that debating the ethics of someone’s theological beliefs paints the inquisitor as racist, judgmental and hostile. Thus, in our country, it will be the teachers who administer these lessons Dan Dennett calls for that will face ostracism for presenting certain “facts” about religion and that will certainly make enemies while doing so.

Regardless, Dennett’s point concerning the function of democracy is valid. Our governmental philosophy cannot work properly if our population is not as educated as is possible. Where religion is concerned, many current events occurring within our own borders could perhaps be understood better by Canadians with a formal, multicultural religious education. With this, when public discussion is raised around issues such as abortion and civil rights such as gay rights, less absolute ideologies would bash against one another and more tolerant discussion and debate could be held – and progress reached. Today when one of these issues is raised, the choice you have is to fall in behind one side or the other – with vigor – or to be labeled as an uncaring or uneducated individual. Dennett’s model proposes that the majority of people religiously educated would be able to see for themselves both sides of the argument and then jump right into problem solving. If we could get rid of the challenges surrounding public discussion and debate over the ethics involved with individual religions and positively educate students on the history and practices of these ancient and revered institutions, then our democratic system would certainly have new potential to flourish and progress.