I have to wonder what the rest of the world thinks about the recent outbreaks of violence in Middle Eastern and other Muslim countries, supposedly in response to an amateur video that lampoons the Muslim icon, Mohammad. I'd also be curious to know the rest of the world's thoughts about the individuals who produced the video that sparked the violence.
For years I've been lecturing to college students about the perils of zealotry and in believing things for which there is no evidence. It never ceases to amaze me how passionate (to put it lightly) so many people are about their beliefs -- even beliefs that appear to be unsupported by evidence. The "My religion is the real religion" mentality (which I call religious bigotry) has never contributed to world peace. For example, the video that depicts Mohammad unfavorably is a classic example of religious bigotry. Was it necessary to make a video to purposely denigrate a dissimilar religion? Moreover, the Muslims who have attacked innocent Americans (e.g., our embassy personnel) for the actions of other Americans unambiguously exemplify racism. Religious bigotry mixed with racial bigotry almost always is a recipe for disaster.
Some suggest that a solution to these problems is to educate children about the importance of religious tolerance. I suppose that would be a nice start for minimizing social conflicts based on religion. But I think there is even a better solution to these problems. Why not provide children with a religious education? Explain to children that many people have different ideas or perspectives about the origin of life, why we're here, the afterlife, and so on. And parents could take their children to a different place of worship (temples, mosques, churches, and so on) each month to learn about the perspectives held by the followers of diverse religions in the world. Parents also can teach children about the importance of asking for credible evidence that would support the beliefs and tenets of the religions. And after exploring the array of religious faiths, parents can encourage their children to decide for themselves, when they feel like it, which religion, if any, they want to embrace. And parents can tell their children that if they conclude that there is no merit to any of the religious faiths, the parents will respect their choice to be a non-believer. To a reasonable person, that is what religious education is.
However, that is not the type of religious education most people provide to their children. For most, educating their children about religion entails taking their children, weekly, monthly, or yearly to the parents' place of worship exclusively. The children are instructed repetitively about the veracity of the religion held by the parents. And if the children were to inquire about other religions, in all likelihood, they are told the other religions are less valid or are even falsehoods. So, it should be of no surprise that the vast majority of adults embrace the same religion as their parents (which, typically, is the same religion embraced by their particular culture or region in the world). It is not accurate to assert that most people choose their faith.
This latter type education is not religious education. It is religious indoctrination. I encourage all parents to stop treating religious education as an oxymoron and instead provide a real education in religion that includes examining critically diverse religions and their tenets. Asking the leaders of diverse religions to provide credible evidence for the most basic of their religions' tenets (e.g., a "soul," "heaven," "angels," even a personal God) is crucial in helping our children develop critical thinking skills and discern for themselves fantasy versus reality, facts versus myths, and so on. I think this is a better solution for addressing some of the religious-based violence in the world.
Children develop critical thinking by being allowed to think independently and ask questions for themselves, not by being told who to question and what questions to ask. Also, why is it necessary to ask leaders to "provide credible evidence" about their beliefs? You know that's not possible, right? Faith is not evidence-based; faith it's faith-based. If you want children to respect all people of faith and non-faith (which I assume is the purpose of this article), asking them to confront the weaknesses in faith-based thinking is not the way to do it. Sometimes in trying to cut down the barriers between religious people, we end up erecting barriers between religious people and nonreligious people.
How about this: We teach children about all religions, encourage them to seek their own answers, and let them know we'll love them no matter what.
Wendy Thomas Russell
www.relaxitsjustgod.com
The purpose of me advocating that parents encourage their children to ask for evidence for religious tenets is that, ideally, we'd have a new generation who no longer believes in (and is willing to fight over) beliefs that appear to be purely imaginary.
We're in the 21st Century. Religions have been around for thousands of years and have not solved a single human dilemma. By contrast, science in just the last couple of hundred years have given us vaccines, medicines, clean water, relatively stable homes that withstand most natural forces, and a wide-range of technology that has changed life as we know it. Religion gives humans a false sense of security, that someone is watching over them when it appears that no one is. Just look at the millions of "believers" in the undeveloped world afflicted with dysentery, starvation, and violence.
Yet, we ought not to teach our children to ask parents and religious leaders for evidence for the far-fetched claims they make? Really?
The trouble with this, aside from the fact its a bit disingenuous, is that you're dealing with human beings who have enjoyed some measure of evolutionary success precisely because our tendency to believe in things unseen has permitted us to form complex social structures much larger than tribes or villages. Even science must, at a foundational level, accept certain premises as given although there can never be direct evidence to conclusively prove them true.
We ought instead to teach our children to respect (much more than merely tolerate) the differences of other frameworks and permit them the freedom to choose the framework (or frameworks) that best fits their outlook on life once they reach adulthood. What harm does it do if one person chooses to believe that the universe is a purely rational construct and another chooses to believe that the universe is managed by a benevolent "man in the sky" who occasionally deigns to grant wishes so long as the two understand how to respect one another's differences without rancor?
I believe the the claims of my religion are true and that claims of other religions that are inconsistent with them are false. But I don't think this is matter of any importance--religious claims are speculative and you don't get points off for getting it wrong. Religion is just not important--it's just a fun thing we play with and nothing hangs on it.
Ethics matters. Politics matters. Religion is trivial amusement.
Ironic, isn't it?