Conversation with a Textbook

Pathways-Banner

You won’t believe what this textbook said.

This is a conversation I had with a few pages of the new edition of  “Pathways,” a Social Studies textbook used in grade 8 classes.  The section was called “Religion and Civilizations.”

Me: Since you are written for use in public schools, it must be a little dicey when you talk about religion given that you are supposed to remain neutral on this sort of thing.  What do you see as the relationship between religion and civilization? 

Pathways:  “Religion is an important aspect of civilization.  In many civilizations, both in the past and in the present, religious beliefs are one way a civilization defines and describes itself.  Religion also influences people’s values and actions.” 

Me: I see.  And why do we study religion in grade 8?

Pathways: “Learning about different religions allows us to understand the civilizations to which these religions belonged.”

Me: That shouldn’t upset too many people, but as a religious person myself, I’d consider this a bit of a limited view.  Religion is more than a means by which we understand others, but I guess you’re limited in how much you can say about religion and still maintain your neutrality.   Tell me, what is your view on why we have religions in the first place?

Pathways:  “Human beings have always asked what we call ‘big questions.’  You have probably asked them, too.”

Me: Yes, I love the big questions.  That’s one of the reasons I like to blog.  But just to make sure we’re on the same page, what do you mean by big questions?

Pathways: What happens to me after I die? What is the difference between right and wrong? Why am I here? Why do bad things happen? How was all this created?

Me: Yes, these are pretty much the same as my questions.  I’ve heard them called worldview questions, and you are right; everyone asks them and everyone answers them (whether they admit it or not).  So what do these “big questions” have to do with why religion exists?

Pathways: “Human beings like to have answers to their questions.  Having answers make us feel more secure.” 

Me: Whoa! I might be jumping ahead here, but are you one of those people who think that the function of religion is to create a feeling–a feeling of security?   A safety blanket for the weak?  I’ve heard some ardent atheists call it a crutch for those who can’t face “reality.”   Aren’t you supposed to be neutral on issues of faith?  I mean, it is a pretty low view of religion, isn’t it?  I mean, most religious people understand that any security they may feel is merely a by-product of the more important search for truth and meaning–religion itself is actually a product of this search.   I understand I’m not being neutral either, but I don’t think it’s possible.  Is there no sense in which the big questions that religion answers might be rooted in a search for objective truth?

Pathways:  “[T]hese big questions cannot be answered the same way ordinary questions can be.”

Me:  “Ordinary” is a bit of a loaded word the way you are using it, it’s it?  Ordinary as in more “factual”?  Just because they cannot be answered in the same way–or are harder to answer–does not mean the answers aren’t true.  Anyway, you were saying something about the difference between big answers and “ordinary” answers?  Can you elucidate?

Pathways: “For example, science tells us that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen.  This is based upon creating a hypothesis and then using experiments to discover if our original ideas were correct.  With religion, people have to accept answers that are based on non-scientific evidence. “

Me: I’ve noticed your word choice.  Did you know you consistently use the term “us” when speaking of knowing and the word “people” when speaking about believing?  I thought it was interesting how you distance yourself, and, consequently, your readers from the act believing.   Where were we?  Oh yes, you said that ordinary questions are the ones that can be answered empirically and big questions can’t be answered empirically so their answers are non-scientific.  That sounds bad when you put it that way.  Are you implying they are just sorta made up?

Pathways: “In effect, [people] have to accept them based on their beliefs (faith).”

Me:  You are saying that something can’t be” correct,” unless it is proven empirically: with scientific evidence.  That means the only things that can be true are things having to do with the properties, history, and function of matter.  This would make sense, I suppose, if matter was all there is. 

Hold on a minute!  If you think that, you just answered a big question: “Is matter all there is?”  This is not an “ordinary” question, it’s a big question.  You can’t know if you are correct because this answer is based on non-scientific evidence.  If you are going to be answering big questions, I might accuse you of being religious.  Then what would happen to your neutrality? 

But let’s move on.  How do you explain why we have so many different religions?

Pathways: “Different Faiths, Different Answers”

Me: Could you elaborate?

Pathways: “There are many religions in the world, and each one has different answers to the big questions.” 

Me: Which one is right?

Pathways: “Which one is right? No one religion has the ‘right’ answers, because the big questions have no scientifically provable answers.”

Me:  So a religion can only be right if it is scientifically proven to be right?  That’s not very rational, is it?  It’s not even logical.  If all religions are different, some much be getting closer to some “correct” answers than others, even though it can’t be proven “scientifically”; it’s only logical.  Let me ask you this.  Isn’t a religion that teaches to love of one’s neighbours a little closer to the truth than one that teaches it’s OK to kill innocent children?  It’s not scientific proof, but it’s rational; correct in another type category, yes? 

But, I digress.  Your claim to neutrality seems to be a little suspect; you seem to have very clear views as to how we understand the beliefs of others, but you aren’t really admitting when you accept answers that are based on non-scientific evidence.  I’m not sure that you are suitable for use in a public school, because you seem to support one set of unscientifically supported beliefs, over all other sets.  My concern is for the students.  What do you say to a grade 8 student who is thinking about the big questions?  I don’t think it would be appropriate to explicitly discourage them from being involved in religion.

Pathways:  In Canada today, there are many different religions.  If you were looking for a religion to belong to, you could find out what different religions say about the big questions.  Then you could choose the religion with the answers you are most comfortable with, or that fit best with what you already think. 

Me: Are you saying it doesn’t really matter what religion someone belongs to? At least you are consistent.   Do you suggest that the choice between religions is to be based on feelings or preexisting ideas?  I understand that you think you are being equally fair to all religions, but you are not really.  I think it’s much more accurate to say you are being equally unfair–degrading all of them.

People aren’t looking for comfort when they ask and answer the big questions, they are looking for truth because they believe they can find it.   Given this, people can’t just shop for a religion as they do for a dress–take the one that fits.  If you are going to respect religion, you must recognize that the individual conforms to religion, not the other way around. Your suggestion as to how to pick a religion is legitimate only if all religion doesn’t really matter, or are equally silly.  

Aren’t you really saying that we ought not to take our religion too seriously?

Pathways:  “Even if you had a different religion than your friends, that probably would not matter too much.  If fact, you could probably learn something from each other.”

Me:  By that statement, it is clear you are advocating religious tolerance.  Good, but your are trying to achieve tolerance by viewing religious beliefs as “not mattering too much.” 

True tolerance is only possible if we take each others beliefs seriously.  Wouldn’t the picture of true tolerance be a materialist, such as yourself, talking with a Christian and a Muslim over a good cup of coffee, disagreeing, but enjoying the company, the conversation, and the coffee all the while respecting the sincerity of each other’s beliefs? 

Wouldn’t this be a better picture to present to grade 8 students? 

2 Comments

  1. Hey Trent,
    Great blog, very creative, thoughtful and insightful.
    Alan

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© 2019 crossing the line

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑