A few weeks ago I was sitting in a classroom anticipating the start to my required ethics course when the professor walked in and posed the question, ‘What is the difference between morality and ethics?’ The students had a variety of replies, including: Morality is religious, whereas ethics are based on science; morality is personal, whereas ethics are applied to society.
After hearing these explanations, my professor said, “In my belief system, morality and ethics are not very different, but we call it (a set of personal standards) ethics to make those (value) judgments.” This statement assumes that each person has a belief system that is only true for him.
If truth is based on one’s beliefs, then if I decide something is false, it becomes false. Conversely, if I think something is true, it becomes true.
In reality, two different people often hold opposing views. The question then comes down to who is right. If truth is based on one’s own beliefs, no value judgment can be made, neither person is inherently right nor wrong.
Within democracy, determining societal right and wrong then becomes a question of numbers. For example, how many people believe murder is right vs. how many people believe murder is wrong. However, there’s a problem with this kind of thinking because peoples’ opinions don’t always match what is true.
This brings us to education. Without absolute truth educators cannot teach their pupils anything because there is no fundamentally right thing to teach.
Their job becomes oppressing their views on their students. Conversely, if there is absolute truth, and a professor claims to have a certain understanding of the truth, learning through critical evaluation can occur.
Unfortunately, even this is not possible within our current education system. Take evolution, which is taught in primary schools as a fact, without an opposing view, including that of intelligent design. Students presented with only one side of this debate are denied the tools necessary to make an educated decision. This is when education becomes indoctrination.
The American education system preaches the doctrine of naturalism, which is an understanding of the world in scientific terms without supernatural explanation. The exclusivity of this view in our education system is enforced by a miss-interpretation of Jefferson’s words, “separation of church and state,” that began in 1947 with Everson v. Board of Education.
These words are taken from a letter to the Danbury Baptists written January 1, 1802 in which Thomas Jefferson stated, “legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
Jefferson’s original intention was to prevent the federal government from interfering with the free exercise of religion. Jefferson states the same idea again in the Kentucky Resolution, 1798, “No power over the freedom of religion… (is) delegated to the United State by the Constitution.”
He states it yet again in his Second Inaugural Address, 1805, “In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general (federal) government.” Yet again he states it in a Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808, “I consider the government of the United States as interdicted (prohibited) by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises.”
Jefferson’s words, originally indented to ensure the “the free exercise of religion,” have been twisted to exclude all religions, except naturalism, from American public schools.
It is time to restore a balanced classroom environment by abolishing all of the laws concerning the “establishment of religion or prohibition thereof.”
Until the judiciary repeals these laws, I challenge you, my fellow students: bring the other side of relevant moral issues back into the classroom.
I cannot understand how someone who is arguably intelligent and has gone through proper schooling can make this argument. If you really want beliefs taught in the schools, especially in the sciences, you will have to realize what your "theory" of evolution has done. It has allowed us to find ancestral similarities, and test pharmaceuticals on animals other than humans. It allows us to find the ancestor of a bacteria or a virus that causes disease so we can find the point of origin. It allows us to make drugs, and to genetically modify organisms. The fact that life-forms have the ability to evolve, and that we know many of the mechanisms allowed for leaps in medical science. What has intelligent design done? Nothing. The belief that an unknown being has created everything from scratch does not allow for assumptions that can be made using evolutionary theory. To argue that the only way for one to practice their religion is to deny years of experiment and progress is fallacious. No, science may not know the philosophical Ultimate Truth. But it can, and does, give you many of the provable rules of the physical world you live in. It doesn’t try tell you the Ultimate Spiritual Truth, and that is what separates science from religion. And to teach a Monotheistic based theory alongside science shows preference to a specific set of religions, which goes against the disestablishment of a State religion.
Might I ask, Mr. Tsoi, that you be more careful in your assumptions when formulating an argument? Your argument hinges on the assumption that your professor’s statement leads to the conclusion “that each person has a belief system that is only true for him” However, you ignore the possibility that one’s personal value set of values could be wrong, consequently resulting in the formation of an untenable value judgment.
Putting this aside, your calls for the teaching of Intelligent Design must be predicated on a misunderstanding of the purpose of a science course. Intelligent Design merely attempts to infuse science with unsubstantiated religious rhetoric and falls victim to the same criticisms it makes of evolution by failing to account for the emergence of a complex Creator. Science is for verifiable facts, and presently, evolutionary is the consensus of the scientific community. Intelligent Design might have a role in a philosophy course or some other course on the history of ideas, but it has no role in science.
Lastly, it erroneous to call for the abolition of laws concerning the “establishment of religion or prohibition thereof.” EVEN IF Jefferson’s intention was not to establish a solid wall of separation between Church and State, how do you suppose that we incorporate religious teaching without impinging upon the free exercise of others’ religion? Additionally, since we would always need an opposing viewpoint for a critical evaluation of the truth, how are we to teach all religions in a class? Is it only yours that matters?
I wanted to make a well thought out, logical rebuttal of this pitiful excuse for an article. Seems a few other people have already done it, and probably better than I could.
Seriously, what’s required to write for the Mustang Daily these days? A cat walking on a keyboard would both make more sense, and have a better rhetorical style than this author.
And that’s the “Absolute Truth.”
While a few others have commented on the writing style and some of the key points the author, I would like to ask him where he would draw the line.
Should we teach that we are thetans [aliens], as proposed by Scientology?
Should we teach that females were made from Adams rib?
Where should schools draw the line? Rather than having to make that decision, they have decided that schools should teach provable facts, such as evolution, mathematics and other sciences. If a student is curious about the other side of things, let them seek outside resources by attending church, GE classes, or seminars.
My no means should our tax money be wasted on teaching these ideas to public school students. If you’re that upset about, I believe that Westmont may be a better university for you.
To the mustang editors, this guy continues to write ludicrous columns. I generally enjoy seeing the other side of things, as it encourages me to think about things from a perspective that I wouldn’t normally, but so far this column has been babbling about nothing in particular at all, with very little thought put into arguments.
ugh.
You’ve made the awful assumption that a factual truth should be treated the same as a moral “truth”. You’re reducing complex issues of morality into black and white terms, which solves no problems. There is no absolute moral “truth,” the world is too full of greys to create black and white absolute moralities. What is good act in one circumstance can be evil in another. I don’t even agree with calling absolute morality “absolute truth.”
A factual truth can be resolved by examining unbiased, falsifiable evidence. Science exists to do so. You don’t find ID in science because there’s no peer reviewed, falsifiable evidence for it. Simple as that. A moral issue? again, not so simple.
Seperation of Church and State exists to preserve freedom of religion. That is, to let the people be free to choose their beliefs for themselves without the government telling them what to believe. With freedom, comes the responsibility to be fair to people of ALL religions, not just a certain narrow interpretation of Christianity. Therefore, actions the government takes cannot favor one religion. If you want christian, you must let islam, scientology, and pastafarianism’s beliefs also be taught. And that wastes everyone’s time.
With regards to your conclusion in which the view of relativity leads to educators “oppressing their views on their students”; any judgment leading to a differing perspective (and whatever may follow from that) is merely the same situation with different characters and ideas. Realizing this, the only thing I can do is to throw up my hands and conclude it’s non-sense to judge other people on purely ideological grounds. Truth is an idea; any proofs of truth as anything more than an agreed upon set of ideas is non-sense and easily questioned. As humans I believe we cannot be free of judgment, but it is only practical and necessary to do so in matters which concern us (this is a product of evolution). Furthermore, other ideologies, as long as they do no invade upon my freedoms, do not concern me.
What follows from my above position is that I am selfish, and that not only am I, but also you. After all it is you who wrote this article in which you seek answers for yourself through the process of writing and perhaps through feedback such as this reply. That you are looking for something (be it out of curiousity, chance, despair, etc) is more significant than the stance you end up taking in defining yourself, which is not at the root of what you are trying to express. To get to there, I would place more importance on why I am asking the questions, rather than on the answers I can come up with which satisfy me.
Do you expect a classroom discussion to lead you to any insight as to why you are asking these questions in the first place?
Seriously, again?
Mr. Tsoi‘s arguments and ideas are contrary to practical reality, and are obviously based on reasoning founded in a religiously indoctrination. This is especially true with respect to his opinion on the practical reality of evolution. Evolution has been debated thoroughly by academics and laymen alike for 150 years. Biologists agree that evolution is the most well supported idea in modern biology, and that almost all other ideas in biology support and tie into the theory of evolution. Our country fails to provide enough education in science and mathematics currently, and I fear for what would happen if our country was controlled for a long period of time by people who share his irrational skepticism of evidence-based, practical reality.
Correction:
Mr. Tsoi‘s arguments and ideas are contrary to practical reality, and are obviously based on reasoning founded in religious indoctrination.
Dear Nate,
Thank you for continuing to write these articles. At this rate, I’ll have saved almost a dollar’s worth of toilet paper by finals week. Please write more articles. Can you try for friday? I’m planning a bonfire. Thanks in advance.
Sincerely,
Frightened student trying to make the most of this horseshit
PS. Today’s article was poorly written. If you only publish once a week, I expect well-written, coherent lunacy.
the following is a copy of the email i sent to mustangdailyopinions:
Today’s “first things first” was the most inane and intellectually bereft article I have read in the Mustang Daily in a very long time. Tsoi’s argument breaks down from the instant he attempts to casuistically establish the context from which Jefferson evokes the “separation of Church and State”. His interpretation seems to imply that Jefferson intended for religious institutions to be exempt from governmental influence, but that religious ideologies can and should influence government (education in this case). Such claims suggest either an intentional sophistry or a profound ignorance of Jefferson’s positions on the matter. His true dispositions regarding religion, society, and science are translucently expressed in the following quotes:
“Priests…dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.” -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820
(also, take note that Jefferson adamantly denounced any reference to the supernatural, going as far as writing his own version of the Bible which removed all miracles and supernatural events)
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
(Jefferson’s religious aversion likely having stemmed from the influence religious clergy had over Philadelphia government)
Later in his article, Tsoi goes on to state that science should be presented in conjunction with other non-scientific theories (namely evolution/intelligent design). However, if this were so, how are we to discern which ideas and theories are valid and which are rubbish? If Christians are able to get intelligent design taught in schools, who is to say that Scientology’s theories (involving aliens) shouldn’t also be taught (since the government is barred from showing preference for any particular religion). Surely, there must be some sort of weeding out process, where legitimate theories are separated from superfluous, nonsensical rantings. Such a process has already been developed, and it is called “science”. In science, every hypothesis is subject to experimentation and rigorous critical evaluation before it is taken seriously. Even then, if evidence seems to contradict a well-established scientific theory, the theory is indiscriminately thrown out. This suggests a kind of dynamic doctrine which continually submits to evidence; contrast this with religious doctrine which remains intact in spite of overwhelming opposing evidence – which doctrine is more credible?
More often than not, a blind eye must be turned on evidence for one’s belief system to survive. As is such, proponents of intelligent design have blindfolded themselves to the fact that their theory has failed the previously described screening process – deeming it nonsense. Every argument for intelligent design – from “specified complexity” to their current flagship “irreducible complexity” – have been debunked, though they are still perpetuated. Additionally, the overwhelming evidence (vestigial, embryonic, fossil, etc.) for evolution has made it as factual as the theory of gravity (ie. general relativity), if not more so. But why should it stop at evolution? Tsoi suggests that the lack of supernatural explanations taught alongside scientific ones is detrimental to our education system. Therefore, all science with naturalistic explanations should undergo a “critical evaluation” in academia (despite already having done so in peer reviewed journals). Surely a Scientologist’s ideas regarding electromagnetism (with respect to “auditing”) should be considered and taught alongside Maxwell and Faraday’s ideas since “naturalism” (science) is a religion (as Tsoi explicitly claims in the 3rd from last paragraph in his article).
Furthermore, science’s “opinions” regarding disease prevention, antibiotics, and vaccinations should be considered from the perspective of the Church – though the Pope already jumped the gun with the asinine claim that using condoms would only worsen the AIDS epidemic in Africa. And perhaps voodoo should be taught to medical students so as to be unbiased with respect to “naturalistic” Western medicine (both equally valid “religions” right?). Of course, such a system would be unstable – initiating an intellectual regression towards cretinism – where proponents are as dense as they are gullible.
I only choose to dispute one point. Not there is ample room in your treatise for argument.
And that is your statement that morality is religious. You are rather unequivocal here, but have nothing with which to back it up.
I tire of this inane conclusion, by extension, that atheists such as myself, by our nature are amoral.
And I reiterate my comment from last week. Dude! Brainwashed!
…and the piano cat plays off another lousy Mustang Daily column…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clfAq1xSevc&feature=player_embedded#
Nathan’s two articles thus far have been terrible. I have enjoyed reading the conservative columns over the years, and they have generally been both topical and educated. The Mustang Daily might be trying to make a mockery of the conservative perspective, because I know there are better columnist candidates out there.
Bring back the Libertarian column.
Nathan, I must commend you for a very well-reasoned column. With everyone creating their own reality in postmodern thought, you’re right to say that we can neither teach nor have a valid basis to disagree. Furthermore, your reference to Jefferson’s letter regarding the Danbury Baptists was spot on. Although Jefferson’s view of the Creator shifted over the course of his life, he was an absolute proponent of religious freedom. Thank you for bringing up such an important topic.