I like this guy!

[rusmeister]

In brief, Fist,
I do not see the question of evolution as the litmus test. I DO see the question of truth being individual and personal, or being something that affects people regardless of their beliefs, as such a test. By that standard the system is at least 98% effective.

In CSL's "The Screwtape Letters, ch 1,

MY DEAR WORMWOOD,

I note what you say about guiding our patient's reading and taking care that he sees a good deal of his materialist friend. But are you not being a trifle naпf? It sounds as if you supposed that argument was the way to keep him out of the Enemy's clutches. That might have been so if he had lived a few centuries earlier. At that time the humans still knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not; and if it was proved they really believed it.

They still connected thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life as the result of a chain of reasoning. But what with the weekly press and other such weapons we have largely altered that. Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn't think of doctrines as primarily "true" of "false", but as "academic" or "practical", "outworn" or "contemporary", "conventional" or "ruthless". Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don't waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true! Make him think it is strong, or stark, or courageous—that it is the philosophy of the future. That's the sort of thing he cares about.

It is the 'dozen incompatible philosophies' that make a man able to simultaneously say he believes in God and a literal heaven and hell, and then turn around and say that that is 'just his point of view'. The one comes from that one hour a week of church vs 30 hrs a week of school. The one tells them the truth, although cut off from Orthodoxy, more and more pastors and ministers have begun to doubt the absolute nature of what they teach. The other constantly reminds them that it is all "personal" and "individual".

As to physical attacks, I don't think that they are reliable evidence of anything in particular, particularly regarding what I have been talking about. You look to the media - owned by certain people whose vested interests are in promoting certain points of view, that for the most part coincide - and you don't see what they don't report. As a perception, it is very incomplete and unreliable.
I would have to defend cyberweez to a degree and point out that slavery developed PRECISELY in the colonies that were founded for commercial reasons, and that it was forbidden where they were founded for religious reasons. (I think Sola Scriptura and human nature kicked in in the South to justify the spiritual schizophrenia of slave-holding and its clear contradiction to all of Christian history.)

As soon as you speak of "advances" or "progress" you are using specific yardsticks of good that differ from mine. Where we agree on progress we then disagree in various places on what precisely was the most significant factor resulting in the good.
On change, we agree. Only I hold that the changes that public ed is responsible for are largely for the worse. And again, 'succeed' and 'success' must be defined and agreed upon by both of our standards to have any validity.

I still haven't seen any evidence to suggest they can't. I still say I can discuss infinite sets, or gravity, or the internal combustion engine, without any overarching philosophy. Why on earth can't I??

I have posted arguments. You have evidently not read them - at any rate you certainly have not responded to them. Just go over my last few posts.

Education is among the least objectionable things that can forced on us, imo. And if a lack of education - not being able to read; not being able to do basic math; not have skills in any field; etc - leads to crime, poverty, etc, then I'm not opposed to forcing education on everyone.

Obviously we disagree strongly. I charge that the wealthy are just as thoroughly criminal as poor people, that poverty is NOT a crime, and that education IS the single most objectionable thing forced on us. Basic skills require no school to obtain them. Just a little time here and there from a caring person.

In your two problems, you segue to the second on the assumption to the answer to the first, where we already disagree.

But we want to make sure it's happening, right?

Why? Why should I assume that I love other people's children more than their parents? And that I am better qualified than those parents to determine what is best for the child?
(A public solution might be offered for orphans and abandoned children, but even there, we would fight tooth and nail over the philosophy on which that education was to be based.)

As long as we don't agree on what 'good' is, we can't agree on anything else.

I realize that a lot of my stand is unconventional - I encourage you to read what I wrote (and quoted) carefully - and the education thread I linked to earlier, with a lot of my personal experiences for which some of you stated a preference to quoting GKC or Lewis, and to ask questions where you really don't understand. We aren't going to agree - I am coming to a point where I think that even if someone (of your loved ones) came back from the dead, you would not believe - that the Gospel story about the rich man and Lazarus is right. But maybe, just maybe, we can attain understanding.

[rdhopeca]

A school's place is not for "philosphical indoctrination", in particular if the school is a publically financed school. It is to teach the student basic and (at later stages) some advanced skills to prepare them for the world they are about to enter. It is to prepare them for entry into society via socialization. While you may claim that this indoctrination happens by default, I have never seen or found such an agenda...no anti-Christian pamphlets in my math book, etc etc.

In fact, it's my opinion that schools should teach a healthy dose of skepticism about things that can't be proven in some fashion. Schools should teach students to question the laws of physics and determine for themselves, if possible, the truth of these laws. It is obvious science has changed, and technology has changed, and religious views have changed, and without skepticism and questioning there would be no new ideas. This is particularly important when it comes to psychology, sociology, and philosophy. Each student needs to find and determine for themselves what their answers are in life, and they can only do this by questioning and experimenting, not by indoctrination and forcing of belief.

Quite frankly, if you are against the schools doing this in a public fashion, I have to question both the strength of your faith and the strength of your message as a parent. If your faith is so weak, and your ability to present it is so weak, that it cannot stand up to questioning, and it cannot stand up to your child being exposed to other versions of the world, then I would argue it's on you as the person of faith to strengthen what you do at home. Teaching religion to your child is no different than teaching the anything else, like language, or reading, or morality. Kids are not stupid, and most of them will follow your example. If you don't like the message of the public school, take them out and go pay for a private school that teaches them what you want.

I sincerely doubt that we'll ever agree on these points, which is why I have stayed quiet for the most part on this. To be honest, the more you argue this point, Rus, the more resistant I become, because the fundamental basis of your argument...the Orthodoxy is the One Truth and should be taught as such...is fundamentally flawed: It is one of many "truths", that should be exposed as a possible belief choice to students (which I have no problem with) and studied with an equal, and hopefully, accurate eye on its history, as with all the other possibilities. If you feel that this is not done, then put your child in a school of your choosing.

Ironically, my children will likely attend private schools for the quality of education. I will trust that my skills as a parent and my message as a parent will allow me to impress upon them the importance of questioning and exploring the world around them while they are forcibly indoctrinated, in a way no public school ever could, into a specific worldview. It is a worldview I don't mind them having, as long as they are offered the option of arriving at that worldview of their own choosing and as a result of their finding themselves, not some blind devotion to a presented philosophy falsely presented as the "One Truth".

[aliantha]

But, see, Rob, you've been brainwashed to believe that Christianity is only one of many truths....

I've been largely staying out of this, too, mainly because Fist has been doing such a fine job of arguing all my points <bows to Fist>.

I gather, tho, that the optimal educational system that Rus and Cybrweez are proposing was along the 18th century lines -- is that right? When kids were taught to read using the Bible, yes? And maybe got an 8th grade education before they had to go to work to support their families?

Is that what you want the US to go back to? Because if so, you'd be turning us into a Third World backwater.

Maybe I'm brainwashed, but I'm not about to support a faith-based public education system. Sorry.

[Cybrweez]

Hahahaha, America in 18th century was considered Third World backwater? That's news to anyone who knows history.

And the idea of questioning, I didn't know it was exclusively an atheist idea. And here I thought most scientific discoveries before 19th century were by religious people, in West, specifically Christian. I'm just clueless how that happened, b/c of course Christians are not allowed to question anything. Fist already mentioned something similar, this idea that forbids questioning, and that therefore its faith is weak. Only when you break the chains of religion, and realize nothing is true, can you question. Ah, I must've been brainwashed (to actually think there's an absolute) to not see it clearly.

[Seven Words]

Hahahaha, America in 18th century was considered Third World backwater? That's news to anyone who knows history.

And the idea of questioning, I didn't know it was exclusively an atheist idea. And here I thought most scientific discoveries before 19th century were by religious people, in West, specifically Christian. I'm just clueless how that happened, b/c of course Christians are not allowed to question anything. Fist already mentioned something similar, this idea that forbids questioning, and that therefore its faith is weak. Only when you break the chains of religion, and realize nothing is true, can you question. Ah, I must've been brainwashed (to actually think there's an absolute) to not see it clearly.

18th Century America in comparison to CURRENT levels would be a 3rd world backwater.

Most discoveries in the West were done by believers. But rejection of learning is a fundamental inescapable meme in Christianity. Tree of Knowledge, remember? Most organized denominations of Christianity today are not anti-knowledge. However, by refusing to countenance any questioning of the faith, you create a tendency to simply dismiss questions as "It's just how God made it. Don't question God" when speaking of research-type questions. This is NOT a blanket statement that accurately describes ALL Christianity (or all Christians). But looking at how often in history that is repeated, it IS a tendency of the faith in general.

[rdhopeca]

Hahahaha, America in 18th century was considered Third World backwater? That's news to anyone who knows history.

And the idea of questioning, I didn't know it was exclusively an atheist idea. And here I thought most scientific discoveries before 19th century were by religious people, in West, specifically Christian. I'm just clueless how that happened, b/c of course Christians are not allowed to question anything. Fist already mentioned something similar, this idea that forbids questioning, and that therefore its faith is weak. Only when you break the chains of religion, and realize nothing is true, can you question. Ah, I must've been brainwashed (to actually think there's an absolute) to not see it clearly.

I did not say Christians weren't allowed to question. In fact, I firmly believe that faith acquired through questioning and experimentation (and hey, I even said this at the bottom of my post) is a good, and often stronger choice, for that person, rather than choices imposed.

What I DID say, was, that if you can't handle getting your point about your faith across while your child is in a publically financed secular education environment, then that's on YOU, and not on the school, and take your child to some other school where they will be taught what you want them taught if you aren't able to deal with it. And I would question the strength of your faith if it can't stand up to questioning, in particular the "One Truth". And no point did I say Christians don't, or shouldn't, question things themselves.

[aliantha]

Hahahaha, America in 18th century was considered Third World backwater? That's news to anyone who knows history.

18th Century America in comparison to CURRENT levels would be a 3rd world backwater.

What 7W said. If y'all want to go back to an educational model whereby formal education largely stopped with grade school, and a high school diploma was considered higher education, feel free to set up your own school district and do that. Because that's the vaunted past you're talking about.

[rusmeister]

A brief response to Rob -
I get the impression you haven't really read my posts - if you had, you would know that I am not speaking at all about what the schools formally teach, but what is taught indirectly by the very design.

I do think 19th century education superior on the whole to 20th. We may have access to far more knowledge, but we sure as heck do a lot less with it.

It's not a question of a faith standing up to questioning at all. It's not even a fair fight if that philosophy (truth is individual) is taught to children who do not have the tools to defend themselves from a constant barrage, at every level. 30+ hours of exposure every week, during the most productive/formative hours of the child's day vs a couple of hours on evenings and weekends at best. It's like talking about sending unarmed kids to fight Panzer tanks. It's a totally unfair fight. Talking as if parents were "afraid" just makes no sense in that context.

[rusmeister]

18th Century America in comparison to CURRENT levels would be a 3rd world backwater.

This requires extensive definition. What does "level" mean? Are we talking about collected amounts of knowledge? (in which case, agreed, but see that as irrelevant) or about individual erudition, and genuine ability to think critically, etc? - in which case, totally disagree.

Most discoveries in the West were done by believers. But rejection of learning is a fundamental inescapable meme in Christianity. Tree of Knowledge, remember? Most organized denominations of Christianity today are not anti-knowledge. However, by refusing to countenance any questioning of the faith, you create a tendency to simply dismiss questions as "It's just how God made it. Don't question God" when speaking of research-type questions. This is NOT a blanket statement that accurately describes ALL Christianity (or all Christians). But looking at how often in history that is repeated, it IS a tendency of the faith in general.

But rejection of learning is a fundamental inescapable meme in Christianity.

This is completely false. if it were not, believers would not have made those discoveries you do acknowledge. I think you are confusing some aspects of rural American fundamentalism with Christianity as a whole.

On the rest, your statement seems to indicate a limitation of knowledge (and a debatable one at that) to the English Protestant speaking world (which represents only a quarter of all of Christian history in a relatively small part of the world. If I ask you about Thomas Aquinas or John Chrysostom, (based on your statement) I'll probably get a blank stare and a rush to wikipedia. They are not exceptions, even if they were exceptional people. They GUIDED the thinking of their respective Churches (something that that monkish instinct to preserve knowledge through the "Dark Ages" points out). I'd suggest opening the enormous treasure trove of theology of the first and second millenia - Catholic or Orthodox especially (being as they have the history behind them that disproves your idea).

[rusmeister]

But, see, Rob, you've been brainwashed to believe that Christianity is only one of many truths....

I've been largely staying out of this, too, mainly because Fist has been doing such a fine job of arguing all my points <bows to Fist>.

I gather, tho, that the optimal educational system that Rus and Cybrweez are proposing was along the 18th century lines -- is that right? When kids were taught to read using the Bible, yes? And maybe got an 8th grade education before they had to go to work to support their families?

Is that what you want the US to go back to? Because if so, you'd be turning us into a Third World backwater.

Maybe I'm brainwashed, but I'm not about to support a faith-based public education system. Sorry.

I no longer engage in political agitation, Ali. I think that only conversion to Christianity, ideally Orthodox Christianity, offers any hope, in this world or the next.

The only solution I offer now is to immediately and totally dismantle public ed, and start all over again at the purely local level - like, neighborhood level. That would radically improve education, as parents began to take direct responsibility, refuse to fill the corporate Dilbert-type molds made for us and even prefer lower standards of living for the sake of their children. However, most people have automatic incentives to reject that. No employee of the public system could accept the dissolution of their bread-and-butter, and no parent who depends on the system to baby-sit their children (nearly all) could accept it, so it ain't gonna happen.

[rdhopeca]

A brief response to Rob -
I get the impression you haven't really read my posts - if you had, you would know that I am not speaking at all about what the schools formally teach, but what is taught indirectly by the very design.

Or maybe I read them, and don't necessarily agree with you? In either case, you have the option of putting your kid in a private school with the design you desire.

It's not a question of a faith standing up to questioning at all. It's not even a fair fight if that philosophy (truth is individual) is taught to children who do not have the tools to defend themselves from a constant barrage, at every level. 30+ hours of exposure every week, during the most productive/formative hours of the child's day vs a couple of hours on evenings and weekends at best. It's like talking about sending unarmed kids to fight Panzer tanks. It's a totally unfair fight. Talking as if parents were "afraid" just makes no sense in that context.

The same could be said of media and other things that inundate our families with messages we deem improper. You have the option of putting your kid in a school that will do what you ask, or at least be more conforming to your message. Take it. Otherwise, do your very best to instill your beliefs upon your children and hope that they are smart enough to follow your example. But don't assume that your way / style of education is the best for all students, in particular in a publically funded education system. And don't take a rejection of your practices as yet another sign of the persecution of Christianity.

[Cybrweez]

I thought this was common knowledge, but you all do know education started in this country b/c of Christianity? And that it didn't ban the Bible or prayer until mid 20th century? And that it wasn't some static thing? And yet most of the founding fathers of this country, and plenty of others we might call genius, had very little formal training, and did alright for themselves. The idea that going back to a simpler (and a HELL of a lot cheaper) form of education, which taught critical thinking (or wisdom) would somehow mean we only know what we knew in 18th century is patently nonsense.

But rejection of learning is a fundamental inescapable meme in Christianity.

Ok, sure. Just show me the OBJECTIVE proof, and then we can talk. If I had it memorized, I'd quote the verse in Isaiah where God says, 'come, let's reason together'. But probably, God meant to reject learning/questioning.

But looking at how often in history that is repeated, it IS a tendency of the faith in general.

No 7W, its a tendency of those who want to control others. Whether religion, philosophy, politics, economic class or whatever is used to gain control, doesn't change the fact that people want to gain control over others. You might look at our current govt for an example. I guess those who think the current admin is reaching for too much shouldn't blame those in charge, but rather, democracy.

[aliantha]

But, see, Rob, you've been brainwashed to believe that Christianity is only one of many truths....

I've been largely staying out of this, too, mainly because Fist has been doing such a fine job of arguing all my points <bows to Fist>.

I gather, tho, that the optimal educational system that Rus and Cybrweez are proposing was along the 18th century lines -- is that right? When kids were taught to read using the Bible, yes? And maybe got an 8th grade education before they had to go to work to support their families?

Is that what you want the US to go back to? Because if so, you'd be turning us into a Third World backwater.

Maybe I'm brainwashed, but I'm not about to support a faith-based public education system. Sorry.

I no longer engage in political agitation, Ali. I think that only conversion to Christianity, ideally Orthodox Christianity, offers any hope, in this world or the next.

The only solution I offer now is to immediately and totally dismantle public ed, and start all over again at the purely local level - like, neighborhood level. That would radically improve education, as parents began to take direct responsibility, refuse to fill the corporate Dilbert-type molds made for us and even prefer lower standards of living for the sake of their children. However, most people have automatic incentives to reject that. No employee of the public system could accept the dissolution of their bread-and-butter, and no parent who depends on the system to baby-sit their children (nearly all) could accept it, so it ain't gonna happen.

Oh ho! You no longer engage in political agitation, but you advocate dismantling the current public education system? What the heck would you call it, then?

I am totally not in favor of your idea AT ALL. I guess I have a much higher opinion of the school system than you have -- and a lot less faith in the ability of people in my neighborhood to teach my kids what they would need to know to survive in the world today. I would have been happy to stay home and teach them myself, if someone had paid me to do it. However, as a single parent, I had to work (and, y'know, have the schools babysit my kids ).

[rusmeister]

But, see, Rob, you've been brainwashed to believe that Christianity is only one of many truths....

I've been largely staying out of this, too, mainly because Fist has been doing such a fine job of arguing all my points <bows to Fist>.

I gather, tho, that the optimal educational system that Rus and Cybrweez are proposing was along the 18th century lines -- is that right? When kids were taught to read using the Bible, yes? And maybe got an 8th grade education before they had to go to work to support their families?

Is that what you want the US to go back to? Because if so, you'd be turning us into a Third World backwater.

Maybe I'm brainwashed, but I'm not about to support a faith-based public education system. Sorry.

I no longer engage in political agitation, Ali. I think that only conversion to Christianity, ideally Orthodox Christianity, offers any hope, in this world or the next.

The only solution I offer now is to immediately and totally dismantle public ed, and start all over again at the purely local level - like, neighborhood level. That would radically improve education, as parents began to take direct responsibility, refuse to fill the corporate Dilbert-type molds made for us and even prefer lower standards of living for the sake of their children. However, most people have automatic incentives to reject that. No employee of the public system could accept the dissolution of their bread-and-butter, and no parent who depends on the system to baby-sit their children (nearly all) could accept it, so it ain't gonna happen.

Oh ho! You no longer engage in political agitation, but you advocate dismantling the current public education system? What the heck would you call it, then?

I am totally not in favor of your idea AT ALL. I guess I have a much higher opinion of the school system than you have -- and a lot less faith in the ability of people in my neighborhood to teach my kids what they would need to know to survive in the world today. I would have been happy to stay home and teach them myself, if someone had paid me to do it. However, as a single parent, I had to work (and, y'know, have the schools babysit my kids ).

That's what I think OUGHT to be done, Ali.
I don't think it CAN be done. "The cloud of the dark side covers all" (Yoda, Ep II)

Of course you are not in favor of it. I predicted that.

I've put just about the max energy I want to here. I'll just say - dig into the history of public schools - where did the system design come from and why - who does it really benefit?

I am becoming ever more skeptical of being able to convince anyone of anything, making all of this forum participation a colossal waste of time. Why should I bother, when no one considers what IS right in my position? It's just like the Gospel parable of Lazarus and the rich man. Even if someone came back from the dead (and I DID come back from the public education system), others will not believe.

[Seven Words]

Rus--

I don't agree with your position, but you often put a perspective on Christian concepts I haven't heard before (yes, I realize it's the Orthodox "thing"). If someone I knew to be dead appeared before me, and said to me "Christ is the only path to the Father", I would become/revert to Christianity right then. That would absolutely settle ALL questions in my mind. But until something happens to me (or objective proof is found) that can ONLY be explained by Christianity (no other belief system can encompass the event), I am not a Christian. I have had experiences which demonstrate amply to me there IS more than just the scientific world out there. But no faith has echoed in my heart and soul, yet.

I respect the sincerity of your beliefs, and your dedication to them. But you do not respect anyone else who disagrees with you. At best, you deem them misguided....more commonly, actively in opposition to everything you value. If this is not accurate, my apologies, it is how you come across to me.

[Fist and Faith]

I still haven't seen any evidence to suggest they can't. I still say I can discuss infinite sets, or gravity, or the internal combustion engine, without any overarching philosophy. Why on earth can't I??

I have posted arguments. You have evidently not read them - at any rate you certainly have not responded to them. Just go over my last few posts.

No, that's not the problem. The problem is that your posts and your Chesterton quotes simply say that it cannot be done. No evidence is offered. If I say it is impossible to cut down the tree in the yard, and I quote someone who says the same thing, I have not offered anything to back up the assertion that the tree cannot be cut down. You are telling me I cannot teach that 1+1=2; 1+2=3; 2+2=4;... outside of a spiritual atmosphere. I say that's nonsense, and I'd like to know what makes you think that. I'm not asking who else has said the same thing, or which words they used when they said it. I'm asking why something that seems so silly to me is, in fact, correct.

[Zarathustra]

I’ve been out of the debate for a while . . .

And the evidence? How about a majority of people on this forum who went through (and probably graduated) public education that all believe what I am describing and are fine with it and only two or three people on the other side of that divide? Shouldn't there be a much more even divide between people who believe in absolute truth and those who don't? Why does everyone use the words "in my opinion" and "from my point of view"? Because they all, by strange coincidence, came to that same view on truth - something we know that, when left on its own, we don't - or because that's. what. they. were. taught?

This forum is not a scientific sample size to make generalizations of an entire country’s education system. I think your impression is incorrect; this forum is skewed toward people who like an author who wrote the wisdom in my signature, for instance, against absolute truths. When you move beyond niche groups like this, atheists and skeptics are far outnumbered in this country by Christians and people who believe in Absolute Truth. How does that happen if we’re all being brainwashed to believe in a relative view of truth?

People say, “in my opinion” when they are giving their opinion. It doesn’t mean they are skeptics. Sheesh. Is there no room in your view of Absolute Truth for personal opinions?? If this is your idea of “evidence,” you have far greater problems with your understanding of education than this conspiracy theory you’ve concocted about a "war." And it’s ironic that you’d even try to use empirical evidence to prove a point about anything—why don’t you just quote some gem from your Absolute Truth to prove it? Yes, I know I asked you for evidence, but my request in itself points out a problem with your position: why would empirical evidence ever need to be consulted if there is only One Truth? Absolute Truths don’t depend upon evidence to be proven. Evidence is contengent, not absolute or necessary.

Well, the answer lies in the fact that you are providing evidence for a claim about our education system--in other words, a claim about (a part of) the world. And this is separate from your beliefs about this Absolute Truth, which is why you don't quote your absolute truth to provide proof for this claim about our education system. You provide "evidence" instead. And maybe this is a clue why schools don't teach Absolute Truth . . . because as soon as you do so, teaching anything at all about the world, like science for instance--which depends upon an examination of contingent and relative evidence--becomes impossible. Science is tentative and falsifiable; how on earth can you teach science and simultaneously insinuate that there is an Absolute Truth?

Since you happen to agree with the public education philosophy (strange coincidence!), of course you think it's silly.
I think I have established a rational case that the philosophies are at war, all the more because you are glad that people like me have been weeded out. So much for the pretense of tolerance. The root of what you believe is what I have described. It doesn't matter what I believe, because it can't reflect a truth that also impacts you. Faith doesn't matter and doesn't really reflect ultimate truth. It is nice, it is quaint - so go ahead and believe it - but it is irrelevant to truth. That is what many here believe. Because that is the baseline ideology that is taught. Pounded in over 13 years of school plus whatever university time you put in. It's pretty thorough conditioning.

Once again, how did Neo react in the Matrix on learning that everything he had been taught to believe was an engineered lie? How would you react in similar circumstances? Denial would be the first and automatic response.

What you are describing isn’t merely the “public education philosophy,” it is the global cultural awakening that culminated with the Enlightenment. If you want to say that I agree with this centuries-old trend in human culture, fine. But this has nothing to do with public education. I have questioned my parents’ Christian teaching even before I began public school. It has always seemed counter-intuitive to me to simply believe what others tell me.

Look, you can use popular culture works of fiction (a movie, no less) to criticize me, but your attempt is both nonsensical and bizarre. Why use a work of fiction to convince me about an Absolute Truth? That's even worse than you butchering the idea of evidence. Besides, how do you know you’re not the one who is still inside the Matrix? How do you know you’re not believing the lie? Your particular world-view has been engineered and taught for centuries longer than mine. Mine was the awakening from yours, once people realized that reason and science could explain the things which used to be explained by religious world-views. Neo had physical evidence of the difference between illusion and reality. All you have is a story, combined with an analogy to a movie. And your analogy is completely inapt. What is the equivalent in your world-view to Neo finding his “pod,” and finding the inputs on his body where the machine plugged into him? What is the equivelant in your analogy to Neo able to reproduce the experience of the Matrix in a reliable form that others could share and verify? Neo’s awakening was scientific and empirical. Yours is a myth and a faith. It's a ridiculous comparison. It puts you inside the pod, not me.

My reaction to your position has nothing to do with brainwashing, conditioning, or denial. It’s a rational argument: your position makes no sense. It is illogical. It is contradictory. It’s completely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. It’s indistinguishable from any other mythology, in terms of its truth value.

Your belief that truth is Absolute is itself a personal belief. It doesn’t matter how much you feel your personal belief is true, this personal passion never elevates a belief to a universal or absolute truth. The belief in absolute truth is merely a strategy to elevate your own personal belief over those of other people—a way to insulate your belief from criticism and disagreement (you admit yourself that this is a “war” of philosophies . . . this is your war plan). Otherwise, how could you ever allow anyone to question it? How is it possible to simultaneously teach students that there is one absolute truth, but they can freely question this truth? Any such questioning activity would have to be viewed by your world-view as half-hearted, insincere, and rhetorical—an exercise merely to show its irrefutable nature. It is impossible to simultaneously teach critical thinking and Absolute Truth, because critical thinking requires one to consider the possibility of a particular belief being wrong. But it is impossible for an Absolute Truth to be wrong. What you are really advocating is indoctrination of your personal belief as if it were an Absolute Truth. That is not education, it’s brainwashing. It’s not a philosophy of education at all. It’s a war. And you’re right: you’re doomed to lose. Public education can’t be religious indoctrinization. It’s not because we live under an anti-Christian conspiracy. It’s just that teaching an Absolute Truth is the opposite of education.

[Dromond]

I've enjoyed this thread and want to say to Rusmeisters' rebuttal posts, thanks, they've been enjoyable reading, and have my backing.

And thanks to Rus, your sincerity is obvious...

But the last post by Malik is why I'm saying this now.

Simply outstanding, Malik. You posted what honestly would have taken me hours to formulate and type. ( I don't type worth a damn...I swear the backspace key is the most used on my board) Yet that post is the response I truly wish I'd written. It fits perfectly with my belief. (in spite of my Catholic upbringing and education)

Thanks, Malik.

[Zarathustra]

Thanks Dromond!

[Fist and Faith]

A great quote from Matrix: Reloaded.

Commander Lock: Dammit, Morpheus! Not everyone believes what you believe!

Morpheus: My beliefs do not require them to.