Occasionally a line of questioning / dialogue opens up in a thread which deserves to be put in the spotlight. This is one of those cases. It all began yesterday when The Atheist Missionary questioned me on what it is appropriate to teach a child. I’ve reproduced the nuts and bolts of that conversation below. My final starred response is original to this particular post. For ease of reference I’ve rendered TAM’s statements in a delicate powder pink and mine in a robust royal blue.
The Atheist Missionary
Randal, do you think it’s reasonable to teach a child that a human being walked on water, later died, started to rot, came back to life and ascended to heaven (wherever and whatever that is)? Is that reasonable?
Randal
I take it that this is a token of a general type of question. But what is the type? Is it this? “Is it reasonable to teach a child about extraordinary unrepeatable events that one believes occurred in the past?” If that’s the type of which your question is a token then I’d answer: it depends. Sometimes it is reasonable and sometimes not. And that includes the specific instance you note.
The Atheist Missionary
It won’t surprise you to hear that I believe it is improper to “teach a child about extraordinary unrepeatable events that one believes occurred in the past“. This is religious indoctrination and I must admit that I believe it is commensurate to abuse.
[An aside: “commensurate to abuse”? Goodness! Strong words from the Missionary!]
Randal
Here’s one extraordinary unrepeatable event that I believe occurred in the past: the Big Bang. Are you saying I shouldn’t teach my child this occurred? That seems strange to me. I thought you were a man of science.
The Atheist Missionary
If you can look at me with a straight face and suggest that the Big Bang is of commensurate probability to the supposed miraculous events described above, I’ve got some oceanfront property in Okotoks that might interest you.
Randal
I pointed out that by your own criterion you couldn’t teach your own children that the Big Bang occurred. (Yes, I was setting you up. I admit it.) You then make a reference to “probabilities”. As you say, “If you can look at me with a straight face and suggest that the Big Bang is of commensurate probability to the supposed miraculous events described above, I’ve got some oceanfront property in Okotoks that might interest you.”
That’s a whoppingly inadequate response. In fact, it is little more than a rhetorical quip which aims to draw attention away from the fact that faithful adherence to your own principle would preclude you from teaching the Big Bang. So I will assume that you would not in fact follow that principle. So which principle would you follow then? What is the class of reports on unrepeatable, unique past events would you consider verboten for your children and why?
The Atheist Missionary
“The reason why I would be willing to “teach” the Big Bang and not Bible miracles is due to the fact that there is overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that the Big Bang occurred.”
*Randal
Great, so now we have a new criterion. You now say that an unrepeatable unique past event can be taught as having occurred to our children if a consensus of scientific experts agrees that the event in question occurred. But doesn’t that seem bizarrely narrow to you?
Here’s an example of why. Let’s say that you have a family heirloom — a crystal commode — which was won by your great grandfather after he got three Royal flushes in a row in a game of poker. (Get it? Commode? Royal flush?) We know of the event through the written testimony of your great grandfather, the testimony of two other people who were there, and the acquisition of the commode itself.
Are you telling me you’d have to wait for a consensus of scientific experts to render a judgment on whether your great grandfather got three straight Royal flushes before you would share that story with your children? Forgive me for being informal but Dude, that’s just plain silly!
A Sober Poetic Conclusion
How quick we are to call “commensurate to abuse”
Teaching that differs from what we assume
In righteous indignation we issue a rant
And then make up our principles … by the seat of our pants
