But are religion and personal, private belief the same thing? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Of course not, and like with virtually every complex phenomena, there is no bright demarcation line. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be considered distinct at points outside the blurry lines near demarcation. At the most private, personal beliefs are not publicly shared, and then are not subject to public scrutiny or critique. At the least private are proselytizing religions, which are most open to the same critique. I would suggest that Daniel Dennet's proposal that all children be taught about all of the major religions of the world without a suggestion that one or another is the "right" one at public schools would be a great way to approach the subject, to counteract what could be considered the indoctrination of children into a particular religious heritage and dogma.

Ah, so your question was exactly that: is there anything on the Geertz side, say, that at least aspires to scientific rigor as Harris did? Harris may not have succeeded but at least he properly identified the goal. Yes?... — Srap Tasmaner

Probably right.

So what do you think of the sort of cracker-barrel statistical approach I presented earlier? — Srap Tasmaner

It says to me that culture structures intellectual functioning and that policing my own personal "beliefs" won't change anything at the group level--that something like a Kuhnian paradigm shift is needed to prevent outcomes like war, genocide, impoverishment, etc.

It says to me that culture structures intellectual functioning and that policing my own personal "beliefs" won't change anything at the group level--that something like a Kuhnian paradigm shift is needed to prevent outcomes like war, genocide, impoverishment, etc. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

We're still waiting, as Billy Bragg said, for the great leap forward.

But you're back in the usual bind here. Granting for the sake of argument that Kuhn is right about how one paradigm replaces another, and that the reasons are extra-scientific, it remains that the coming paradigm has to have been created, has to be seen as a contender, has to have achieved some prestige for it to be in a position to take over when the old guard retires or dies.

People still have to do stuff for change to happen, even if you can't just make change happen by doing stuff.

Of course not, and like with virtually every complex phenomena, there is no bright demarcation line. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be considered distinct at points outside the blurry lines near demarcation. At the most private, personal beliefs are not publicly shared, and then are not subject to public scrutiny or critique. At the least private are proselytizing religions, which are most open to the same critique. I would suggest that Daniel Dennet's proposal that all children be taught about all of the major religions of the world without a suggestion that one or another is the "right" one at public schools would be a great way to approach the subject, to counteract what could be considered the indoctrination of children into a particular religious heritage and dogma. — Reformed Nihilist

Personally, I think that Ken Wilber's analysis of the stages of consciousness / moral understanding offers a lot more than I have heard from Daniel Dennett or any other theorist in mainstream academia. You know, the part about moving from ethnocentrism to worldcentrism.

And, honestly, when I hear people like Dennett talk about "religion" I think that they are talking about some bogeyman or straw man. I doubt that "Us" vs. "Them" and "Us are right, them are wrong" is how a lot of people would characterize their religious experience. It certainly in no way characterizes my religious experience.

Regardless of your opinion on Dennett in general, I would be curious if you dispute that it would be a worthwhile enterprise to teach the cultural/social phenomena of religions to children in public school, and if so, on what grounds?

We're still waiting, as Billy Bragg said, for the great leap forward.

But you're back in the usual bind here. Granting for the sake of argument that Kuhn is right about how one paradigm replaces another, and that the reasons are extra-scientific, it remains that the coming paradigm has to have been created, has to be seen as a contender, has to have achieved some prestige for it to be in a position to take over when the old guard retires or dies.

People still have to do stuff for change to happen, even if you can't just make change happen by doing stuff. — Srap Tasmaner

But doesn't evidentialism require every individual to structure/organize his life around "the evidence"? And, like I said before using a criminal investigation and trial as an illustration, isn't "the evidence" something that is inherently biased and the result of who has the power to allocate resources for activities such as evidence gathering?

If something greater than an individual self overwhelmingly determines what choices are available to him/her, then I think it is absurd to think that outcomes would have been different if he/she had just taken responsibility for the contents of his/her own mind and policed them the right way.

Regardless of your opinion on Dennett in general, I would be curious if you dispute that it would be a worthwhile enterprise to teach the cultural/social phenomena of religions to children in public school, and if so, on what grounds? — Reformed Nihilist

It is the spirit of the policy, not the letter of the policy, that matters.

A policy conceived in the spirit of "Religion is bad! We must educate children about this monster!" won't make a positive difference.

But if the spirit of the policy is "The bigger the map of the physical, social and spiritual world you develop, the more rich and fulfilling your life can be", then, yes, teach children what intellectuals/scholars have said about religion--along with scientism, the Enlightenment/modernity (you know, what postmodern theorists have to say about it), physicalism / philosophical materialism, etc.

But good luck getting either spirit legislated into official policy: formal education is increasingly seen as nothing more than factories churning out technicians to perform the tasks that AI does not take over, not as a process through which to gain any understanding or appreciation of things.

Here's an example that has real-world consequences:

In Pew Research Center polling in 2001, Americans opposed same-sex marriage by a margin of 57% to 35%.

Since then, support for same-sex marriage has steadily grown. And today, support for same-sex marriage is at its highest point since Pew Research Center began polling on this issue. Based on polling in 2017, a majority of Americans (62%) support same-sex marriage, while 32% oppose it.

http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
Changing beliefs don't directly cause the laws to change, but it's hard to imagine the latter happening without the former. What's more, you have to assume the aggregate shift represents either many individuals changing their minds or generational replacement, but that leaves unaddressed why younger people would have different views than older people.

But I can see you have a more teleological or even eschatological view of things than I do. I still can't help but think what people think matters.

Snyder comes in here not as someone denying that beliefs are important, but as resisting that oversimplification. For instance, he says you misunderstand Hitler's radicalism if you think of him as being really, really, really anti-Semitic. He refuses to explain what happens in Lithuania, for instance, by saying that Lithuanians must be more anti-Semitic than other Europeans. Snyder is controversial, but the book is absolutely worth reading. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, it would be a gross simplification to argue that the Nazis were just very anti-Semitic. They were just thugs with ownership of a massive war machine and were intent on conquering land and people for their own uses. Really, not that much different from the British empire but qualitatively more brutal. Of course, they believed that they could accomplish this which is why they decided on the course of conquest.

I think the spirit is that indoctrination is bad, and making sure that children can make properly educated decisions regarding religion. I would hope that we all could agree with that. I think it would be wrong to pass any judgement, either pro or anti. Just teach kids what people believe. Like Joe Friday used to say "just the facts ma'am ".

I would suggest that religion offers little of value that can't be acquired otherwise, and there is at least some reason to believe that it underpins some of the worst parts of our nature — Reformed Nihilist

Stalin and Mao didn't seem to be motivated by religion not were their underlings who carried out their mass murders. If you are looking for a common theme across most large scale massacres, it is probably desire for money, land and the power that comes with it. The Belgium and French that armed the Rwandan Hutus and arbitrarily created the Tutsi and Hutu "races" (sort of disgusting) did it for money and natural resources. It's a pretty ugly works when it comes to lust for money but we can't outlaw money or bankers (though we can throw them in jail as they did in Iceland).

Social dynamics (which accounts for resource aquisition, but also in group identity issues) does a pretty good job describing Mao and Stalin or Rwanda, and is based on significant research. I think that trying to boil it down to a quest for money or resources is as much of an over simplification as ascribing it all to relegion.

I don't think there was any group identity motivating the Belgium and French arming of the Rwandans nor of the neo-conservative desire to invade Iraq. If one wishes to understand what goes on among the elite of the world (who pretty much start all large-scale wars) one only has to follow the money. As a common denominator it is quite common. Actually, I can't think of an instance where it isn't there. Of propagandists will use every tool at their disposal to whip up the armies into a frenzy.

I think the spirit is that indoctrination is bad, and making sure that children can make properly educated decisions regarding religion. I would hope that we all could agree with that. I think it would be wrong to pass any judgement, either pro or anti. Just teach kids what people believe. Like Joe Friday used to say "just the facts ma'am ". — Reformed Nihilist

My experience in public elementary and secondary school felt like indoctrination, not my experience in Sunday school and the church sanctuary.

Like I said in the discussion about people submitting to science, thinking critically about the material, especially in math and science class, was not on the radar until I got to college.

My private, church-based religious education, on the other hand, encouraged things like thinking critically about popular interpretations of Scripture, avoiding legalism, etc., the way I remember it. I certainly never experienced or witnessed admonishment for questioning the material or not taking it seriously. I can't say the latter about my science education in my youth.

You're free to choose whatever method you prefer to arrive at your conclusions, however I would personally recommend choosing academically researched, peer reviewed studies over personal intuitions. That's the route I'm going to take on this matter anyways.

You understand why anecdote is not a good basis for drawing conclusions? I really don't find your anecdote very compelling, not only because my experience is almost completely the opposite, but more so because I understand the fallibility of anecdotal evidence in principle.

You're free to choose whatever method you prefer to arrive at your conclusions, however I would personally recommend choosing academically researched, peer reviewed studies over personal intuitions. That's the route I'm going to take on this matter anyways. — Reformed Nihilist

Academic research is all about tenure and keeping the bosses happy. I can't remember the last time I found anything interesting coming out academia. It's the last place I would turn for scholarship. It's all a commercial business and because I hang out with professors, I'm pretty comfortable with this position. In general their opinion of academia is lower than mine because they have to live with it on a day to day basis.

Again, you're free to use whatever method you choose, but I'll take studies over your intuitions.

Again, you're free to use whatever method you choose, but I'll take studies over your intuitions. — Reformed Nihilist

Of course you will as well most others. That is why banks and corporations fund these institutions-to ensure their interests are well represented. It's easy to buy academia. Those who don't tow the line (as they did in graduate school) are banished, or worse yet hounded. Academia is a lovely, lowly community. No backbone. Just that cherished promise of tenure.

Of course you will as most others. That is why Banks and corporations fund these instructions. To make sure their interests are well represented. It's easy to buy academia. Those who don't you the line (as they v did in graduate school) are banished, or worse yet hounded. Academia is a lovely, lowly community. No backbone — Rich

And your evidence for this is what? What you're saying sounds exactly like a garden variety conspiracy theory. Why should I believe it isn't?

And your evidence for this is what? What you're saying sounds exactly like a garden variety conspiracy theory. Why should I believe it isn't? — Reformed Nihilist

Are you seeking an academic study on how academia bends over backwards to please whoever gives it give it money? I'll give it a look and see. Maybe, I'll come up with something.

Lacking, such a study, I'll just have to depend upon my own experiences working with and observing academia. What I've observed, is that above all, academia cherishes those who will continue it's tradition of towing the line. To worship those who bring in the money. That is how one gets the prize of tenure. Those who don't get it (and I know plenty) feel the sense of ultimate freedom and allow themselves the pleasure of letting out their disdain for the institution. It takes a while to get there.

You understand why anecdote is not a good basis for drawing conclusions?... — Reformed Nihilist

What conclusion did I claim could be drawn?

I really don't find your anecdote very compelling... — Reformed Nihilist

What did I try to compel?

not only because my experience is almost completely the opposite,... — Reformed Nihilist

Again, nearly every time I see/hear discussions about "religion" the "religion" being scrutinized and "religion" as I have experienced it are apples and oranges respectively.

but more so because I understand the fallibility of anecdotal evidence in principle. — Reformed Nihilist

Oh, you mean like "My grandfather smoked a pack a day and never got cancer".

I never said anything like that. I illustrated, again, "religion" according to people like Daniel Dennett = apples; "religion" as I have experienced it = oranges.

I can't refute Dennett's version of "religion" because, like I said, if every time you see it or hear about it it walks like a straw man and talks like a straw man, it is most likely a straw man. Or a bogeyman.

Now if it is fundamentalism that the "religion" alarmists have in mind, then it starts to make sense--the stuff about indoctrination, and the like.

Even then it is difficult to take the "religion" alarmists seriously--their understanding of religious fundamentalism does not coincide with religious fundamentalism as it has been explained to me by sources such as professor of anthropology Richard H. Robbins in Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism.

And what is your exposure to academia? How many professors have you discussed this with? How many have you observed? Are you familiar with how post secondary institutions are funded? Are you suggesting that all academia worldwide is crooked, or just in your country of origin? Do you have any training or knowledge in methods to observe, document and analyse data in such a way as to ensure it is free from your own personal biases? These would all be relevant pieces of information regarding your credibility to make a trustworthy assessment on the subject. Without that, you're just someone on the internet claiming to know more than the experts.

Are you seeking an academic study on how academia bends over backwards to please whoever gives it give it money? I'll give it a look and see. Maybe, I'll come up with something. — Rich

What about that professor in Colorado who did research--obesity research, I believe--funded by Pepsi or Coca-Cola (I forget which one) that concluded, surprise, soda consumption is not responsible for certain negative health outcomes. I don't remember the exact details, but he got perks from Pepsi or Coca-Cola like staying in expensive hotels, trips to nice vacation destinations, etc. Again, I don't remember the exact details, but I think that that is a fairly accurate outline.

There was definitely the appearance of a conflict of interest.

What about that professor in Colorado who did research--obesity research, I believe--funded by Pepsi or Coca-Cola (I forget which one) that concluded, surprise, soda consumption is not responsible for certain negative health outcomes. I don't remember the exact details, but he got perks from Pepsi or Coca-Cola like staying in expensive hotels, trips to nice vacation destinations, etc. Again, I don't remember the exact details, but I think that that is a fairly accurate outline. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

What goes on in academia lies somewhere at the intersection of pathetically sad, hysterically funny, and dreadfully disgusting. To obsrve what people will do to their own moral ethics for the sake of tenure, which are barely even given out much nowadays. I know a few who refused to bend and buckle to the will of the system, and they were properly hounded out of academia along with anyone who associated with them. I find academic research so distorted that I am surprised that anyone relies on it. It shows you how out of the mainstream I find myself.

I never said anything like that. I illustrated, again, "religion" according to people like Daniel Dennett = apples; "religion" as I have experienced it = oranges.

I can't refute Dennett's version of "religion" because, like I said, if every time you see it or hear about it it walks like a straw man and talks like a straw man, it is most likely a straw man. Or a bogeyman. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Different people can have different experiences of the same thing. That doesn't make it a different thing. Some people hate cilantro, some people like it, but it's still cilantro. What you and I and Dennett are talking about is the same thing if we're all speaking English and using the word in a conventional sense. I know I am, and I have no reason to believe Dennett isn't, so unless you're intentionally using the word unconventionally, then we're all talking about the same thing. Even if we experience it differently.

I can't refute Dennett's version of "religion" because, like I said, if every time you see it or hear about it it walks like a straw man and talks like a straw man, it is most likely a straw man. Or a bogeyman. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I never asked you to refute his conception of religion. I asked if it was reasonable to teach children the facts about what different religions believe, without treating any one as right or wrong, in publicly funded schools? You could still answer that question if you wanted.

Here is an article about the Coca-Cola professor: http://www.denverpost.com/2015/12/26/cu-nutrition-expert-accepts-550000-from-coca-cola-for-obesity-campaign/

How about this quote from the article: "The Coca-Cola connection highlights the secrecy surrounding much of the corporate money pouring into CU’s prestigious Anschutz medical campus."

Different people can have different experiences of the same thing. That doesn't make it a different thing. Some people hate cilantro, some people like it, but it's still cilantro. What you and I and Dennett are talking about is the same thing if we're all speaking English and using the word in a conventional sense. I know I am, and I have no reason to believe Dennett isn't, so unless you're intentionally using the word unconventionally, then we're all talking about the same thing. Even if we experience it differently. — Reformed Nihilist

Yeah, if we are talking about something concrete, like the Reverend Billy Graham, then it's oranges and oranges.

But something abstract and ambiguous like "religion"--something that, to my knowledge, nobody has satisfactorily defined/demarcated--can mean many different things. And the "religion" that people like Dennett talk about is very strange and foreign to me and looks a lot like part of a straw man argument. Again, it looks like what they are really talking about is fundamentalism.

I have found plenty of sources, including Terry Eagleton--who I am pretty sure is an atheist--who say almost the same things that I am saying here.

I never asked you to refute his conception of religion. I asked if it was reasonable to teach children the facts about what different religions believe, without treating any one as right or wrong, in publicly funded schools? You could still answer that question if you wanted. — Reformed Nihilist

The way I recall it, you asked me specifically about Daniel Dennett's idea. I responded that if Daniel Dennett is the inspiration then it is a bad idea.

I then said that if it was going to be done with a spirit more appropriate for a public institution of learning then, by all means, teach children what scholars/intellectuals say about religion.

The "facts" and "without treating any one as right or wrong" language betray a political agenda. Instead, teach what archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, historians, linguists, philosophers, political scientists, psychologists, religious studies scholars, and sociologists have said / are saying about religion. It probably won't make many adults happy--the evangelical atheists, the religious conservatives, the secularists, etc.--but objective truth does not take sides and would give children a powerful tool to defend against the various political interests, left and right; agnostic, atheist and theist; secular and traditional, who are trying to control their lives.

The way I recall it, you asked me specifically about Daniel Dennett's idea. I responded that if Daniel Dennett is the inspiration then it is a bad idea. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

That's the genetic fallacy. You can't conclude an idea is bad based solely on it's source. Even if Dennett was the most fallible, wrongheaded thinker in the history of human thought, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

I then said that if it was going to be done with a spirit more appropriate for a public institution of learning then, by all means, teach children what scholars/intellectuals say about religion. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Where did scholars and intellectuals come from? I'm talking about teaching children. I think Aquinas might be jumping ahead a little. How about just teaching them about the basic tenets and orthodoxy of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, etc.? No value judgements or critiques. No justifications or apologies. Just the facts.

The "facts" and "without treating any one as right or wrong" language betray a political agenda. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

How is withholding value judgments betraying an agenda? It is the opposite.

Instead, teach what archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, historians, linguists, philosophers, political scientists, psychologists, religious studies scholars, and sociologists have said / are saying about religion. It probably won't make many adults happy--the evangelical atheists, the religious conservatives, the secularists, etc.--but objective truth does not take sides and would give children a powerful tool to defend against the various political interests, left and right; agnostic, atheist and theist; secular and traditional, who are trying to control their lives. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I think you are talking about teens or young adults, not children. I am referring to starting to teach children about religion at the same time as we start to teach them about everything else in school. Basically starting at 5 years old.

That's the genetic fallacy. You can't conclude an idea is bad based solely on it's source. Even if Dennett was the most fallible, wrongheaded thinker in the history of human thought, even a stopped clock is right twice a day... — Reformed Nihilist

I judged the idea based on its inspiration , not its "source".

Where did scholars and intellectuals come from? I'm talking about teaching children. I think Aquinas might be jumping ahead a little. How about just teaching them about the basic tenets and orthodoxy of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, etc.? No value judgements or critiques. No justifications or apologies. Just the facts.

How is withholding value judgments betraying an agenda? It is the opposite.

I think you are talking about teens or young adults, not children. I am referring to starting to teach children about religion at the same time as we start to teach them about everything else in school. Basically starting at 5 years old. — Reformed Nihilist

If there is a political struggle, like with sex education, then no matter what curriculum we end up with it has the baggage of the agenda of various political interests.

A "save them from indoctrination" education is not about the well-being of students. It is powerful elites using students as pawns in a political battle.

I don't care what age the instruction starts at, the material should be designed to help develop a critical perspective that can be used for a lifelong process of self-education and creatively contributing to society.

Creating lifelong narcissists whose modus operandi is being McCarthyists paranoid about indoctrination is not a good idea. Giving people the power to be effective responsible, autonomous self-educators and independent thinkers is.