By Steven Mahone.
What would happen if a dyed-in-the-wool secularist was given the opportunity to speak
with students from one of the most religiously conservative school districts in the country?
Well, I had the privilege of finding out first hand.
The Classical Academy (TCA) is an affluent, public
charter high school in north Colorado Springs, so imagine my surprise at receiving an invitation
to represent the secular and scientific viewpoint for a week-long seminar titled "Worldviews:
The Scientific, Religious, and Cultural Underpinnings of Our Society". The school is situated
two miles from Focus on the Family (an evangelical stronghold for 19th century Christian "values")
and New Life Church, a 10,000-member mega-church that was once pastored by Ted Haggard. (You might
recall that Haggard had a parking lot "altercation" with Richard Dawkins when Dawkins attempted to interview him for a BBC special.
You can't help but appreciate the irony when six months after he admonished Dawkins for living a lie behind
the veil of science, Haggard was caught with methamphetamines and a male prostitute.) Also sharing
the same zip code with the school are the corporate headquarters for Compassion International, The
Association of Christian Schools International, and Cook Ministries. I bring this up only to set the stage
for my mindset before I ever arrived at the school's parking lot.
There were five, 45-minute sessions with 20 different students attending each presentation. I was to
participate on the first day, an intelligent design/theistic evolutionism advocate would be there for
the second day, a rabbi for the third, a Christian pastor for the fourth, and an Islamic scholar would
round out the panel on the last day.
The school was very accommodating and polite from the moment I arrived. After signing in with the armed
guard at the front desk (welcome to the post-Columbine and Sandy Hook world of public education), I made
my way through the halls to room 222 (Room 222!). I took
my seat and acknowledged two posters that were hung on the back wall: "Faith is the art of holding on to
things in spite of your changing moods or circumstances. CS Lewis." And "I have spent most of my time worrying
about things that have never happened. Mark Twain." I gave a ten-minute opening statement where I stressed
that evidence is the best criterion to determine what is true. Science is not infallible but over time it is
self-correcting, and no one is immune to its indifference for any idea or claim that doesn't work. I elaborated
on the failed Pons-Fleischmann
cold-fusion experiment as an example of how science recovers from its mistakes. I told them that almost
certainly there are no ghosts, vampires, demons, or extra-terrestrials among us, not because I am too stubborn or
arrogant to believe in such things, but because the lack of facts to support such assertions means that your
time is better spent elsewhere. Ultimately, we are responsible for what is good and we must be accountable for
finding the remedy to what causes our despair. I purposely steered clear of directly commenting on religion, but
that, as you can imagine, was unavoidable when the question-and-answer session began.
Here is a representative sample of the questions I answered throughout the day (I have changed the names
in the interest of good manners):
Cassie: So you don't believe that there is a heaven?
ME: By heaven, I assume that you mean an eternal existence of some sort after death. How could anything
that lasts forever not be a hell? Consider something pleasurable, like a scoop of Rocky Road once a week. Eternity
would mean that you have to eat an infinite amount of ice cream and there would be an infinite number of bowls and
spoons to clean up afterwards. Think about that for a moment. But hey, if I'm wrong, will you put in a good word for
me with the heavenly kitchen crew? [Big laugh from the audience.]
Cassie: Umm, no. I am afraid you're on your own.
William: If you don't believe in absolutes, how do you determine what is right and what is wrong?
ME: Well, I don't know for certain that are no absolutes, but I am pretty sure that neither you, your Principal,
nor the Prime Minister of Japan know either. So, even if there are, how does that help us? On the other hand, since
all humans share a common biology and similar senses for experiencing the world around us, what is far less difficult is
figuring out what is probably right and probably wrong. This, I believe, is a much better point from which to start.
Todd: Doesn't it seem much more likely that God put us here with purpose and meaning rather than by random chance?
ME: Okay, which God? And why would he/she/it design the universe so that almost all of it is totally hostile to us humans?
On our own planet, two-thirds of the surface is under water and has been inaccessible except for the last 75 years or so, and
just getting to the next solar system appears to be precluded by the very laws of nature. Perhaps our purpose is to build on
the insight of those billions who came before us, and our meaning can be derived by the knowledge that we pass on to the billions
who will come after us.
Julie: Are religion and science compatible?
ME: [Brief pause, and then Todd chimed in.]
Todd: Not really. I mean religion and faith are personal and different for everyone, right? Science applies equally to
everyone, regardless of what they believe. It's like, people who pray and don't get vaccinated are just as likely to get sick
as people who don't pray and don't get vaccinated. So religion and science are different things. It's like asking if airplanes
are bicycles are compatible — sure they are, but one gets you to places the other one can't.
ME: Yeah. What he said. [My second big laugh of the day.]
Virginia: What about 5+3=8, isn't that an absolute?
ME: A magnificent observation. And the answer is — sort of. You see, there is a number system where 5+3=10. It's called
octal, and I assure you that it's just as valid and consistent as the more familiar base 10 system that we are used to using
in our everyday arithmetic. There is no secret or privileged viewpoint here; all that's required is that you take the time to
understand how it works.
Mr. G [one of the teachers, who could not contain himself any longer]: How do you account for the inerrant information contained in the Bible?
ME: Look, not to be disrespectful, but stories about a talking snake and a universe that is only six thousand years old
seem wholly consistent with a source that is decidedly not divine! Can you really point to any holy book that has helped us
to better understand how the laws of nature unfold?
At the end of the day, I thought about the two posters. I reflected on the teacher's misguided passion, and I wondered what the other
presenters were going to say on subsequent days. No matter, really. There is always more to say and always more to learn. Not just
for the students but also for people like me. If a conservative, white-bread school like TCA can reach out and listen to what
someone like me has to say, then I am encouraged. Our kids may just do all right. Then, just as I was about the leave the building,
I felt a tug at my elbow. It was Cassie, the young woman who had condemned me to my own devices when eternity calls. "Mr. Mahone,
I am not sure what made me say such a thing to another person. I will put in a good word for you." So, like the Bill Murray character in "Caddyshack", who was granted total consciousness on his deathbed by the
Dalai Lama — I, too, have got something going for me.
Steven Mahone is an engineering professional and board member with Colorado Citizens for Science. He can be reached on
Twitter @1manslogic.
46 Comments
John Harshman · 24 February 2015
This public charter school, based on how you describe it, seems avowedly religious. How do they get away with that?
eric · 24 February 2015
gdavidson418 · 24 February 2015
I sort of hate to say it, but saying that 5 + 3 = 10 in the octal system really is an equivocation.
When it comes to math I think we can say that matters are absolute, but only within certain assumptions. Maybe more importantly, while 5+3=8 works for us quite reliably (basically, we treat it as absolute), it's not impossible that this has nothing to do with the truth of the "real world," which could be utterly unknown to us except through our highly distorted understandings, like Kant evidently thought. That seems rather unlikely with what we know--notably, about evolution--but there's no getting outside of ourselves to know absolutely that the world is much as we suppose it to be (spatially, at least).
Absolutes don't work very well, it seems. But the similar look of symbols in different number systems isn't an example of this apparent fact.
Glen Davidson
John Harshman · 25 February 2015
Scott F · 25 February 2015
If I recall correctly, the "proper" answer is that the mixing of "absolutes" and "math" is a category error. First, when most people talk about "absolutes", especially in a context like this, they are talking about human logic as applied to the real world, most importantly (in this context) the real world of human emotion, justice, religion, fairness, etc. They are seeking an "absolute" (often simple) answer to complex moral and emotional questions. In contrast, "math" is a wholly artificial human construct. In contrast, "math" is a set of axioms and rules applied to those axioms. There are "absolutes" in math, only because we define them to be such. Change the axioms or rules, and the "absolutes" change. It is "absolutely" true that there is only one line through a point that is parallel to another line. Except when you change the rules, and that "absolute" is defined away.
It's true that math can be used to describe reality, but math isn't reality.
Whether that is an entirely accurate description or not, I'm not certain. But, I would say that to the superficial level these students are talking about, it is basically true. If not absolute.
Dave Luckett · 25 February 2015
As I understand it, it can be demonstrated that there is no mathematical expression, not even 1=1, that can be proven without axia from outside the mathematical system being used, and that this is true for all mathematical systems whatsoever. That is, even within mathematics itself, there are no absolute truths.
Only don't ask me to demonstrate it. I can't. The only difference between me and the young woman who implied that 5+3=8 is an absolute truth is that I know I'm ignorant. For example, I wonder whether the theorem above, that there is no mathematical expression that can be proven without axia, etc, is an absolute truth. Beats me.
But at least I know it beats me.
TomS · 25 February 2015
eric · 25 February 2015
Carl Drews · 25 February 2015
Cassie displayed the ability to recognize that she made a mistake, and to correct it graciously. That ability is essential for anyone who wants to practice science or religion seriously. Cassie is certainly "putting in a good word" for Mr. Mahone now in her prayers. And for Mr. Mahone to receive that word graciously means that there is hope for us all. Thanks for the post!
TomS · 25 February 2015
DS · 25 February 2015
"Perhaps our purpose is to build on the insight of those billions who came before us, and our meaning can be derived by the knowledge that we pass on to the billions who will come after us."
This is a brilliant answer. I certainly intend to steal it. No matter what they say about this guy after he leaves, no matter how they try to dismiss the points he made, this seed will still have been planted.
Religious advocates try to claim that a life without religion is meaningless and full of hopelessness and despair. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, I usually find that being told that you were born a sinner and nothing you can do is ever going to change that is far more depressing. At some point these students are going to have to learn that wanting something to be true is not the same as it actually being true.
callahanpb · 25 February 2015
I'm ambivalent about the 5+3=8 example.
On the one hand, I agree that writing 8 as 10 octal is not relevant. It is a true proposition about numbers, not about representations of numbers, so changing the representation is kind of a cheat.
Other the other hand, even "+" is not always defined to be addition on an infinite domain. In context, it could represent addition some modulus, e.g. 7, in which case 5+3=1. Typically, the modulus would be specified, but it could be omitted if it was understood. In fact, "+" represents concatenation in many programming languages, so "5" + "3" = "53".
Finally, the truth of 5+3=8 assuming we understand what it means, only holds relative to particular axioms. It appears that these axioms are very useful, particularly to the extent that they correspond to our understanding of reality, but it's not entirely clear what makes them privileged above some other set of axioms.
The mere fact that you can vacillate a bit over the absoluteness of 5+3=8 puts its absoluteness in doubt. But this may also be besides the point. In fact, there may be some absolutes that form the very basis of logic, so it is silly to try to show that everything is a matter of interpretation. We certainly behave as if we believe a few things without question. This does not contradict the main point that beyond a certain level of complexity, the nature of truth is more subtle.
Mike Elzinga · 25 February 2015
eric · 25 February 2015
TomS · 25 February 2015
TomS · 25 February 2015
Sorry, I made a typo. I meant to say 1 = 8 (mod 7).
callahanpb · 25 February 2015
callahanpb · 25 February 2015
callahanpb · 25 February 2015
TomS · 25 February 2015
eamon.knight · 25 February 2015
The title of the seminar, "Worldviews: The Scientific, Religious, and Cultural Underpinnings of Our Society", is a huge giveaway. It's standard evangelical propaganda that holding the correct Christian "worldview" is vitally important -- the wrong worldview leads to the disintegration of society, dogs and cats living together, etc. It particularly tends to come up in creationist rhetoric -- you have to apply the "Biblical" worldview so as to interpret those fossils "correctly". But worldviews don't exist in the way fundamentalism claims, and society doesn't rest on them that way.
Still, props to the school for allowing representatives of opposing "worldviews" to speak for themselves, instead of just straw-manning them internally. One wonders what sort of further discussion and student work will come out of it. And those students seem more thoughtful and enlightened than the teacher does (which happens, quite a lot, in schools of all stripes).
Matt Young · 25 February 2015
Mr. Knight's comment hits the nail on the head and also harks back to Mr. Harshman's question, how do they get away with it? Lax oversight by sympathetic local school districts, I suppose, is part of the answer. At the risk of going wholly off task, I just came across an article, A dozen problems with charter schools, in the Washington Post. In fact, one of the comments by someone called "inteach," sums up the article in about a dozen lines.
In the spirit of that comment, may I make an even baker's dozen by adding a thirteenth problem with charter schools: Many are tantamount to private religious schools operated with public money. I do not know what I mean by "many"; perhaps others can be more quantitative.
As I suggested, however, I do not want to get into a general discussion of charter schools. But I think a rebuttal to my thirteenth problem or a serious discussion of the problem of charter schools being appropriated by religious organizations would be in order.
Richard B. Hoppe · 25 February 2015
No one has yet mentioned vector addition, in which (depending on the directions of the vectors), 5+3 can equal anything from 2 to 8. :)
bwogilvie · 25 February 2015
To this question, "How do you account for the inerrant information contained in the Bible?" I would have responded:
Oh, so how many pairs of animals did Noah bring on the Ark? In Genesis 7:2, he brings one pair of every unclean animal, but seven pairs of every clean animal (presumably to allow for sacrifice on the Ark). But in Genesis 7:8-9, he is told to bring one pair of every animal, clean and unclean, on the Ark. So which version is inerrant, and why are they only a few verses apart?
Pierce R. Butler · 25 February 2015
Dave Luckett · 25 February 2015
I suppose charter schools are in effect what we have here, a private sector alongside the public system, except that I know of no "virtual" schools here, the home schooling sector being negligible, and that private schools here always charge substantial fees. Our private schools (which often, confusingly, refer to themselves as "public schools" from the British usage - a "public" school being one that accepts pupils from the general public) are subsidised from taxes on a per-head basis, but not completely, and by necessity must charge fees. Private schooling always costs more, here. Hence, pupils sent to private schools necessarily come from families that are prepared to pay extra for their education, which self-selects its own population. About 34% of all secondary students attend private schools.
I understand that in the US - in theory at least - public money cannot be used to support religious institutions. That is not the case here, where there is no Constitutional impediment. So we have religious schools that teach their religion as revealed truth, and which can, and do, require a "statement of faith" or membership of a specified congregation from both staff and students, which still receive taxpayer funding. But allowing a school to teach a religion is one thing. Allowing schools not to teach any subject, or to teach some perverted version of it, is another.
I understand that while charter and private schools in the US are tested for their educational outcomes, there is no absolute requirement in most States (Michigan, it appears, is an exception) to teach a specific program or to offer a set core curriculum to a set standard. Here, all schools must teach the State-approved curriculum to a set standard. I don't doubt that in some of the wilder outriders, you would find creationists teaching science, and subverting it. But they can't not teach science at all. All seniors must take a science elective, even if it's a soft one, and biology with coverage of the theory of evolution must be offered.
The obvious objection to this system is not that the private schools offer a worse education, by any reasonable criterion. It is that they automatically skim, and also dump unteachable pupils back into the public system.
TomS · 26 February 2015
DS · 26 February 2015
Matt Young · 26 February 2015
eamon.knight · 26 February 2015
FWIW, I think Mahone's answer to the "absolute" question was probably a pretty good one, given the venue it took place in. It really doesn't seem like the best time to open up the can o' worms labelled "Philosophy of Mathematics". I mean, just look at the thread it inspired here....
TomS · 26 February 2015
DS · 26 February 2015
Matt Young · 26 February 2015
Don't quote me, because I am not an expert on fundamentalist Christianity, but I think that, when they talk about the inerrancy of the Bible, they are really talking about predictions or foreshadowings in the Hebrew Bible, such as the verse that "predicts" the virgin birth. All of their so-called predictions, of course, are in reality retrodictions and often are based on tortured readings of the text.
stevaroni · 28 February 2015
AltairIV · 28 February 2015
I think this is a good time to once again point people to AntiCitizenX's excellent series of videos on the Philosophical Failures of Christian Apologetics.
Particularly relevant to the current discussion are Part 2: Absolute Truth and Part 7: Morality Explained, but the whole series is well worth watching.
PFoCA YouTube Playlist Index
logicman · 28 February 2015
Matt, this is a really good post. I like that Mahone told the kids There is no secret or privileged viewpoint here; all thatâs required is that you take the time to understand how it works. Our kids will be exposed to nonsense throughout their lives ... but if they have "permission" to dig deeper then the nonsense will fade quickly enough.
alicejohn · 28 February 2015
Yardbird · 28 February 2015
Yardbird · 28 February 2015
Matt Young · 28 February 2015
harold · 1 March 2015
eric · 2 March 2015
Yardbird · 2 March 2015
TomS · 2 March 2015
Yardbird · 2 March 2015
eric · 2 March 2015