Education, Philosophy and Religion--an Opinionated Post!

If you have been reading this blog, you will know by now that I am a strongly opinionated person, especially when it comes to the environment and education.


I feel strongly that one of the major goals of education, and parenting for that matter, is to raise children to do their own thinking. This means that they need to be taught how to research, to evaluate information, to detect potential biases based on the sources of the information (including parental biases, which we often talk about), and to draw their own, considered conclusions. It also means being open to reviewing those conclusions when new information becomes available.

Because of this, I am one of "those" people who strongly advocate against the recitation of prayers, pledges, etc. in schools. There is a great power in the spoken word, particularly when children are taught to memorize things (prayers, pledges of allegiance, etc.) before they are able to fully comprehend the meaning and ramifications of those words. Who are we to make such presumptions about the beliefs and values of our children, to force our own upon them without allowing them to participate actively in the discussion? Surely such an attitude undermines what education should be!

I am not against teaching religions in the classroom, but I am strongly against teaching religion. The difference here is in the presumption. If we teach that Christians believe x, Buddhists believe y, Hindi believe z, Atheists believe a, Muslims believe b, Zoroastrians believe c, Wiccans believe d, Jews believe e, etc. and attempt to explore the various interpretations of each, then it is educational. When we favour one over the other in our teaching, it becomes manipulative indoctrination. Presenting it such as, I am Buddhist, and I believe y and this is why and this is how it affects my life--this is transparency and this is educational. Presenting it as "but we all know...", "God says / wants" or even, "they believe" is manipulative. It is important to let students learn, reflect, evaluate, decide and revisit their own beliefs. Are the adults "in charge" really so afraid that their own beliefs and values will not hold up to scrutiny that they must exert this control on the next generation? Life is not worth a lot if you must live in constant fear of losing your convictions.

What prompted this was a recent trip to the library to research mythology. I noticed that in creation mythology there were myths from many groups, and they even included evolution as a myth, but good ole Adam and Eve were nowhere to be found. So I looked a little further. Although there were myths from some major religions, there was a conspicuous lacking. Other resources didn't mention evolution as a myth, but they were careful to skirt around modern religions as well. Are the Cosmic Egg, Turtle Island, or the Big Bang any more likely to be story than Adam and Eve? Can we not learn something of value from each of these perspectives?
It does not seem to me to be disrespectful to view Judaic stories as myths (at least not any more than Nordic, Greek or North American Aboriginal stories). According to the New Testament, Jesus taught with parables. A parable is a story; can we not call it a myth? Does the point made become weaker with the label? I would think it might even add some strength. I don't think that the majority of Christians and Jews see the bible as something to be taken completely literally, but perhaps I am making too many assumptions.
There are those who see "other" religions (esp. Islam and Wicca at the moment) as "evil" and "wrong", and a few who like to spread misconceptions about these. Some even call Harry Potter a handbook for Wicca, which is like calling "The Night Before Christmas" a handbook for Christianity IMO. Some aspects may be similar, but Harry Potter has as much to do with Christianity as it does with any religion. I suspect these reactions are born of fear of losing faith in their own beliefs as well as fear of those who are different than themselves.

So we live in a world where Adam and Eve are to be taken as "non-myth", evolution is no longer a theory but a "modern myth", the "Big Bang" is a "scientific myth" and children are not permitted to question the wisdom of their elders in order to learn more. Scientists are to be mistrusted, politicians know best, and the media never lies. Thankfully, there are pockets of reason to be found in which critical thought and discussion is still valued and encouraged.

Nature and Places

I have always become easily attached to wild spaces. There is something that resonates within me when I am surrounded by nature. When I am surrounded by nature, I find I gain a better perspective on life. I become more real, and at the same time, feel my own smallness within the vast universe.

Here is a photo I took last summer, of a log island in a lake that I like to call "Gaia".  On the log there is an abundance of life growing--mosses, lichen, grasses and more. This tiny log has become a home to a vast array of life.

Maybe your are not familiar with the term Gaia. I first encountered it when reading the science fiction of Isaac Asimov. It's a strange place to find an idea that strikes a deep chord of familiar inner truth, I'll admit, but there you have it. Gaia refers to the idea that the earth is one large system, or organism, of which all things of and upon it are a part. Since we (all life) are obviously all interconnected and cannot survive without each other, it isn't a very far stretch of the imagination to see how this would work. Don't buy it? Without plants, we cannot eat. Even purely carnivorous people rely on plants that their food (cows, pigs, rabbits, goats, chickens etc.) requires. Take a look at any food chain to get a better picture of this. And food chains do not tend to exist in isolation from each other, hence the term "food web" that has become increasingly popular.

Then there is waste. Even the most toxic substances we can create will eventually return to the earth in a benign state, given enough time (even nuclear waste will, given a sufficient, albeit extremely long time). If it came from the earth, it belongs to the earth and the earth will recycle it. The earth is quite efficient at doing this--from the water cycle, to the life/death cycle of plants and animals to geology. The surface of the earth is at varying ages depending on where you are, when the most recent volcanic or seismic activity was etc. Land is recycled just as water and life are.

Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, it is an interesting idea, and one worth considering in the larger context. After all, we are all in this together.