Educational Nonsense

The material I wish to review is used in the United Kingdom educational system. The study guide unit for students is titled “Unit 4: Religious Philosophy and the Ultimate Questions,” from ZigZag Education (2010).

After reviewing the statements in these lessons for children, I thought it would be helpful to add some sanity (and critique). I will simply go through the material as it is presented, citing the statements from the lesson and then commenting. This seems especially important these days as this material is used in schools that claim to have a religious point of view. The critique below follows the sections of the student guide.

­­­­­­­­_________________________________________

Section: The weaknesses of general revelation

“Holy books are open to different interpretations about what they reveal about God, e.g. at the Red Sea was God a Saviour, saving the Jews, or was he callous in killing the Egyptians?”

The question itself creates a false dichotomy. Saving the Jews does not imply callous behavior toward the Egyptians. Furthermore, the question ignores virtually all the context of the story, framing the episode as if it were a one-dimensional ethical problem. In addition, it imports ideas not found in the text. The story is about sovereigns, kingdoms and authority, not about who or who is not a Saviour. If this material is to teach the “weaknesses” of general revelation, how does the fictitious ethical dilemma demonstrate that general revelation, which does not include the specific event of the crossing of the Red Sea, is insufficient? General revelation is about evidences or lack thereof for all men due to the environment of all men. Historical events are culture and time dependent and are not “general” revelation. General revelation is typically about planetary considerations, evidence from intelligent design and cosmological observations. Historical “revelation” is not a part of this category.

“Nature and all life can be interpreted as being the result of random chance, not God’s creativity.”

At least this statement is within the scope of general revelation. Of course, virtually all human experience can be “interpreted” in multiple ways, but that is the issue, not the weakness. To suggest that nature and all human life can be viewed as the result of random chance is neither rational nor justified. Presenting this as a weakness of general revelation misses the point. The weakness is not in general revelation, which is a rational and understandable position. The weakness is in the paradigm one brings to the “facts.” But there is no mention of paradigm influence here. Their statement is paradigm dependent. Any adequate critique of general revelation at this level must deal with paradigms, not the interpretations after the application of a paradigm.

Section: The strengths of special revelation

“The massive impact of special revelations on an individual is conclusive proof they were from God.”

Unfortunately, just as this material misrepresents the idea of general revelation, so it similarly confuses special revelation with psychological certainty. Note the statement says “special revelations,” plural. This means the authors had direct spiritual personal encounters in mind since the religious idea of special revelation (singular) is not about God whispering in your ear but rather about precisely those events that these authors suggest fall within the category of general revelation, namely, the historical events of God’s interactions with men, whether in physical demonstration or writing or prophetic announcement. These kinds of events can be investigated precisely because they are not private. They have public context. Either Israel crossed the Sea of Reeds or it did not. Either Jeremiah delivered a message concerning the immanent Babylonian captivity or he did not. Either he said what is recorded or he didn’t. These are not private events capable of being understood only by the participant. What the authors call special revelation is what theologians and philosophers call mysticism. And while it is psychologically true that the mystic claims an understanding of the absolute reality of his encounter, this is not “special revelation” as normally understood.

By the way, the idea of “conclusive proof” is not part of special revelation (singular) either. It is evidence, not proof. A mystic can claim absolute proof, but he cannot demonstrate it since his claim is not open to public review. The authors of this material either do not understand what special revelation is, or they have deliberately misrepresented it in ways that discredit the idea.

Section: Revelation as reality can cause some problems for the religious believer.

“If revelations reflect the reality of God, then why are there differences in information between religions? For example, Christians, from the Bible, are given information which allows them to drink alcohol. For Muslims, Allah’s words in the Qur’an are that alcohol is forbidden.”

What? Doesn’t this example assume that all claims of “revelations” come from the same God? That’s why there’s a conflict. But who claims that the Christian God is the same as Allah? The underlying assumption that causes the problem here is never articulated. Obviously, if God and Allah are not the same, then there is no problem about conflicting instructions. The real problem is which one is really God.

Section: Are experiences of God reality or illusions?

“Reality: They are conclusive proof for the person who has had the experience that a God exists. What is real is based on our own reasoning. A person has rationally decided that God has intervened in their life. Reasoning is the basis of all truth. Therefore, the experience is real to them.”

This statement is so confused in its internal logic that it’s a wonder anyone can make sense of it. Once again, the authors assume the issue is private revelations, not special revelation as a technical term in religion. But what they claim is nonsense. While it may be true that the experience of a mystic convinces that person of the reality of God, it is not true that what is “real” is based on our own reasoning. This is a positivist view of the real. What is real is rational and what is not rational is not real, according to positivist doctrine. The problem is obvious. If I define reality only in terms of what is reasonable, then I automatically exclude anything I do not find reasonable. Extended to the entire human race, what this means is that the human mind is the arbiter of all truth. That doctrine has been an utter failure in human history in spite of its constant resurgence and longevity. Do human beings actually only operate in the world according to what they deem reasonable? Hardly. Myth, legend, emotions, cultural influences and a host of other avenues present themselves as claims on humanity even if they are not subject to reason. In fact, I would suggest that most of our ordinary behavior is not reasonably deduced. It is simply patterned after what we believe regardless of rational demonstration. Therefore, while the claim that a person who has decided God has intervened in his life might convince him of the reality of God, this is not necessarily a reasoned claim. It is simply a claim, and if it is not open to critique, then that is all that it is.

Now the authors make a tragic logical mistake. Claiming that “reasoning is the basis of all truth” is nothing more than an assumption. Anyone who believes in revelation will dispute this claim. Furthermore, how could the claim be reasonably justified? The claim itself invalidates any argument to the contrary. If I claim that culture and tradition are the basis of all truth, the claim of the authors requires me to dismiss such an idea as “not based in reason.” Therefore, the claim circumscribes the field of knowledge before examination. As if this were not enough, the authors suggest that as a result of reason as the basis for all truth, whatever a person experiences will be “real to them.” But this is nonsense as well. If reason is truly the basis of truth, then my personal experience is not the basis for my truth claim. It doesn’t matter what I experience. What matters is what is reasonable. And the fact that the authors suggest that it is “real to them” is sheer conventionalism. That means truth is what I determine it to be based on my experience. But this contradicts the claim that reason alone determines truth. The authors have confused experience and truth, reason and personal claims, and provided no basis for their assertion that there is any difference between my “reasoning” and reality. The logic of these authors is in fact, self-contradictory, but apparently that critique escapes them. Perhaps they have had an “experience” instead.

Section: Illusion

“A person’s experience of God cannot be proof that a God exists to anyone else other than the person who has had the experience. To all other people it is possible suggestive evidence that a God exists. The experience, is only based on ‘abstract evidence’ (things you cannot see/hear) not ‘physical evidence’ that you can see for yourself.”

Amazing! According to this definition of evidence, electrons do not exist (as just one example). Since I cannot “see or hear” an electron, then all the evidence supporting the claims of particle physics are merely “suggestive” and “abstract.” By the way, this also means that any claim based on history is also merely suggestive and abstract. I can’t see or hear the Declaration of Independence as signed on July 4, 1776, so I do not have first hand (see/hear) evidence of the event. Therefore, it is merely suggestive and abstract. The existence of Napoleon is the same, or of Ramses II, or Jesus Christ. The definition of evidence provided by the authors is so truncated that it is ridiculous. No one operates in the world in this way. The lack of “physical evidence” is not a basis for claiming that a statement is an illusion. If it were, virtually all humanity would be deceived.

Topic 3: The Problems of Evil and Suffering

2. Man-made suffering/moral evil – e.g. war/murder/rape

“These are caused by humans and are deliberate acts of unkindness, hate and selfishness. ‘Evil’ is something immoral or wicked. Man-made suffering can cause huge amounts of personal pain, anguish and suffering. They are caused by human ‘free will,’ i.e. humans having the ability to choose their actions.”

Is it true that all war, murder and rape are caused by deliberate acts of unkindness, hate and selfishness? Are all these the direct result of human “free will”? If you answer, “Yes,” then you are setting yourself up for the argument that God caused some wars or that God, who knew human beings would bring about this moral evil, created them anyway. Not all wars are acts of unkindness. Is a war that eliminates a threat to human well-being an act of unkindness simply because it is a war? When people defend their right to life in a war, are they selfish and unkind? You can immediately see that the definition is once again too narrow to be of much value. Life is more complicated than these authors suggest.

“If God exists, why does he let people suffer? Therefore, some people say that the existence of evil and suffering suggests God does not exist because he is supposed to be good and thus would prevent suffering and evil which causes pain to humans.”

This is the standard, and grossly insufficient, naïve formulation of the argument from the existence of evil. Who determines that a good God must prevent evil and suffering? In this argument, the assumption (unjustified) is that if God is good He would do xyz, but this is the product of human determination of what is good. This argument fails even in the strictly human arena. Was the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima “good”? The answer depends on the calculation of human misery suffered or avoided. And who determines that? When did Man become the judge of the behavior of God?

With this framework in play, the authors assert:

“Religious people believe God to be all-knowledgeable (omniscient). Thus, why does he not stop suffering and evil if he knows it is happening? Therefore, some people suggest that God is not all-knowledgeable. He does not know when all suffering is happening or how to prevent or solve it.”

Apparently the authors have never studied theology. Their definition of omniscience as all-knowledgeable (not all-knowing) is strange. “Knowledgeable” is an adjective meaning “intelligent and well informed.”   It is not the same as the attribute “all-knowing,” an attribute that implies comprehension and awareness of all possible information. Furthermore, the suggestion that “some people” resolve this apparent ethical dilemma by suggesting that God “does not know” is ludicrous. A god who does not know what is happening is neither omniscient nor god.

But this nonsense continues.

“If God did create the world then he created all its faults. He created human selfishness, greed and hate which cause pain. He also created the natural world which is responsible for natural disasters. In creating the flawed universe and all its bad designs, he is therefore the creator of all pain, suffering and evil.”

Ah, now it’s perfectly clear. If I create a child with my spouse, and that child is a mass murderer when he grows up, then I am responsible for the evil he brought into the world, right? What nonsense! No one would claim that I am morally culpable for the evil of my child or grandchild unless I directly participated in that evil in some way, for example, I trained my child to hate and kill. But the God of the Bible did no such thing. In fact, He created a world without flaws. His action is not morally culpable simply because Man chose to disobey. This might not solve the greater problem of omniscience, but it demonstrates the authors’ flawed argument and flawed conclusions.

The authors attempt to introduce “free will” as a solution to this dilemma, but they raise the question, “If God created humans, why did he give them ‘free will’? Why did he not make them perfect so that they would always choose to do good instead of evil?” Of course, this equivocates on the idea of “free will.” How can it be “free will” if men always “choose” to do good? No explanation is given. Apparently they assume that the idea of “free will” is so clear that the reader knows what is meant, but even philosophers find that articulating precisely what it means is quite difficult.

The discussion continues with the introduction of the question, “Why does God let suffering happen? (What is its purpose?)” Of course, the two questions are not the same. Perhaps there is no purpose in suffering. Perhaps it is an aberration, something never intended and therefore without purpose. Perhaps suffering is simply evil. Would we say that evil has a purpose? Did God design the cosmos with evil in mind so that He intended evil to fulfill some divine purpose?

The authors then provide eight alternatives to answer the initial question, i.e., the reason God allows suffering. According to the authors, the Christian answer is that suffering is caused by free will. The example is: “Adam eating the apple.” Apparently the actual textual account is of little concern. Popular association with the “apple” is sufficient. The authors suggest that suffering is the result, according to Christians, of “our selfishness and the fact that we want to do what we want.” This causes “hurt” to ourselves and others. But is this really the Christian position on suffering? Is suffering simply the result of “wrong choices” that cause hurt? The suggestion that this is the Christian position makes Christian theology seem impossibly naïve. It also implies that the real issue has nothing to do with sin (a concept never introduced) but rather with human “wrong choices,” ultimately defined as those choices that produce hurt. The multitude of counterexamples and ethical difficulties completely overlooked by this definition is astounding.

Judaism’s answer, according to the authors, is that suffering is “God’s way of trying to discipline humans.” Since the cause of suffering is “free will,” that is, “humans acting in ways that God would not want,” it is difficult to imagine how there can be a human solution to this problem. Apparently, if human beings acted only in ways that God approved, there would be no suffering. This is consistent with the earlier claim that God could have created human beings who would always do what He wished and suffering would not exist. But once again, the implication is naïve. What would it mean for God to create “human beings” who only did what was good? Is suffering only a human problem? Is “hurt” the only concern about suffering? If God uses suffering to discipline human beings, then what is the story of Job all about? Are we therefore to conclude that wherever there is suffering there must be disobedience? That God is the ultimate policeman in the sky, raining down suffering on those who don’t comply?  The authors make no attempt to deal with the complexity of this issue.

Under the heading “How should religious believers respond to suffering?” the document suggests that:

“Christians are taught to endure personal suffering as it is part of God’s plan.

They are taught to ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ and so they should not only have compassion for those suffering, they should actively try to help them.”

I am at a loss to find any Christian theologian who teaches that suffering is a part of God’s plan, that God intended human beings to suffer since creating them. To suggest such a solution is to paint God as an incredible ogre, willing to allow the suffering of millions in order to fulfill some plan of His own, which, by the way, we are not privileged to understand. This view of God and suffering is precisely why most intellectuals rejected the Christian God. He appears as a vicious prankster playing a life and death game with His creation. It is, however, consistent with the kind of gods we find in ancient pagan cultures. Perhaps the authors have confused Babylon with Jerusalem.

According to the document, Judaism’s answer to the question is that “giving to charity is a duty from God.” In order to fulfill this duty, Jewish believers must care for creation and others. Is that it? Is that all? The Jewish solution boils down to duty? In other words, compulsion? It might be ethical rather than physical, but the result is the same. I am obligated to help others. Not a word is offered concerning the greater issue of the goodness of God in a world of pain. There is no mention of the essential nexus of yetzer ha’ra and yetzer ha’tov. In the end, Judaism is merely a set of rules, demands to act in a particular way that is pleasing to God. No explanation why is given. Once again, the basic assumption follows the religious pattern of ancient pagan mythology, not the Hebrew Bible.

As for Islam, the authors suggest that “Zakah” is one of the five pillars of Islam, requiring its adherents to give 2.5% of their annual income to help those in need. “To help those in need and relieve suffering is an essential part of Muslim belief.” What the authors fail to mention is that Zakah applies only to Muslims. There is no need for Muslims to care for anyone outside the faith, and, in fact, pain and suffering on the part of infidels is the direct intention of Allah. The authors paint Islam in favorable light without expressing any concerns about Islam’s underlying exclusion of most of humanity.

Turning to the question of the afterlife, the document offers the following:

“Some people see suffering as a test from God. God is seeing if a person remains faithful to him during their pain and does not reject him. If they pass the test he will reward and bless them in this life or the afterlife.”

“If a person’s suffering leads to their death, then comfort can be taken from the fact that the person who has died has gone to Heaven and is now at peace, no longer suffering, and is with God.”

On the basis of these two citations, we should bring back the Inquisition. After all, passing the test of suffering that leads to death is a sure way of finding peace in Heaven. I wonder what picture of God is represented by these statements. God tests us with suffering. If we die, we get to go to heaven. If we don’t die and remain faithful, we will be rewarded. What kind of God does such things?  The utter naïveté of these authors is astounding. Simplicity might be a virtue but simple-minded is not.

The next section is on evil. The definition is interesting.

“An evil act – This is deliberate, cruel behavior done in the full knowledge that it is wrong and will cause pain and suffering to the person/people it is inflicted upon.”

Notice that this definition requires prior acceptance of a standard of behavior, a deliberate intention to reject the ethical obligation and a result that produces human pain and suffering. Under this definition, unintentional sins are excluded. Evil is only the product of rejecting what is fully known as an ethical obligation. Furthermore, destruction or desecration of the environment is not evil if it doesn’t result in human suffering. Cruelty to animals is not evil. Violations of sacred prohibitions are not evil since they don’t cause suffering to humans. In fact, under this definition, the only things that are truly evil are those that harm another person or persons. This truncated definition is certainly inadequate. It restricts evil acts only to the realm of human behavior. There is no attempt to elaborate the distinction between holy and profane nor is there any discussion of evil that results from unintentional behavior. With this definition, all that is necessary to prevent evil is to ensure human beings comply with an accepted ethical standard.

The consequences of this definition are revealed in the subsequent section, “Where does evil come from?” Four answers are provided.

First, evil and suffering are “random, negative” forces in the world. They are just part of life and must be accepted as such.

Second, evil is the result of God-given free will. “Adam and Eve, took fruit, which they were not supposed to under God’s instructions, from the ‘tree of knowledge.’ Due to this, human beings have the ability to see the difference between moral and immoral – good and bad behavior.”

Third, “some people believe that evil comes from Satan.” “God is in a constant battle against Satan who causes all evil and suffering on earth.”

Fourth, “many people believe that evil is a state of mind.” The explanation of this statement is a declaration of psychological revenge. If we experience something bad, we commit bad acts in order to make other people feel like we do. The suggestion is that if we have a good life, then we won’t experience the “emotion of hate” and will not commit evil acts.

As commentary of these four answers, we must note that the first answer is certainly not true of any religious believer, regardless of the religion. Only those who reject all religion would suggest that evil is just natural random cosmic operations. In fact, the very word “evil” has no meaning in such a reply. If all that happens is simply the result of randomness in the universe, then it is not possible to label any part of these events as “evil,” since “evil” is a moral category.

The second answer demonstrates that the authors either have no serious comprehension of the biblical texts or they have deliberately ignored the texts. Clearly the Bible does not teach that the disobedience of Adam and Eve produced evil, nor does it teach that the Tree was the “tree of knowledge” or that eating from the tree resulted in the ability to distinguish “moral from immoral.” The Tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not about moral and immoral acts. Obviously, the commandment not to eat from the Tree presupposes a knowledge of moral and immoral. Otherwise the commandment makes no sense. Furthermore, to misconstrue the Tree as if it were about “knowledge” is to imply that the biblical prohibition attempts to prevent human beings from knowing! Finally, the authors’ answer demonstrates once again that the real problem in their minds is God. The statement that “due to this,” that is, the fact that God gave human beings free will, the existence of evil suggests that it is God who is to blame for the mess. Had He not given free will to men, there would be no evil and life would be wonderful. Obviously, the authors’ conception of what it means to be human is grossly inadequate and a complete misunderstanding of the biblical view.

Skipping comments on the third and fourth answers (above), the document offers answers to the question, “What is the nature of evil?”

The first answer is that evil is an “impersonal force.” This is followed by the comment that “humans are naturally sinful.” “Evil is therefore like a magnet we can be drawn to at times.” The suggestion is that human beings are created with a natural propensity to sin and that the source of evil in the world is this internal dysfunctional element. The introduction of the concept of sin is surprising since no prior definition of sin has been offered. One suspects that the authors confuse evil with sin since they view evil as a purely human issue. Furthermore, the statement that “humans are naturally sinful” is given without justification as if it is a completely agreed-upon fact. Once again we are left with the conclusion that God created us this way so it is God who is ultimately to blame.

The final answer to the question of the nature of evil is that evil is a “psychological phenomenon.” “Evil exists within the human mind. It is the result of human behavior and how we choose to act. Behavior is the result of our upbringing.”

This is quite an amazing statement. First it suggests that evil isn’t real. It is only mistaken beliefs. The argument, of course, is in line with Christian Science. But the next statement even departs from that position. If evil is the “result of human behavior” then it is clearly not simply in the mind. It has real presence in the world. So the two statements are actually contradictory. Finally, the statement that “Behaviour is the result of our upbringing” is ridiculous. If this were true then free will and the ability to choose actions other than those of our past would be impossible. This is psychological determinism. It suggests that we are merely the products of whatever past we happen to have, completely beyond our control. Under these circumstances, it’s difficult to imagine what “evil” would mean. How can something be evil if it is the natural and inevitable result of past conditioning?

The discussion continues under the heading, “What is the problem of believing in God and the existence of evil and suffering in the world?”

Two statements deserve attention. The first is this: “Religious people believe God to be all-knowledgeable (omniscient). Thus, why does he not stop suffering and evil if he knows it is happening? Some people suggest that God is not all-knowledgeable, He does not know when all suffering is happening or how to prevent and solve it.”

Once again we see the confusion between “all-knowledgeable” and “all-knowing.” We also find that the subsequent question is a red herring. The implication of the question is that an all-knowing being would stop suffering if he could. The question is formed in a way that presupposes the application of an ethical requirement to stop suffering. We mentioned before that this ethical requirement underlies the entire section.   But it is inadequate. It forces the reader to accept an answer that is neither biblical nor theologically coherent.

That answer is the suggestion that since God does not stop suffering He either doesn’t know it is happening or He is powerless to prevent it. But either solution denies the reality of God. A God who doesn’t know or can’t perform is not God. Such a being is simply a limited person and does not in any way represent the biblical view of God. But the authors do not allow the formulation of a question that seeks to reconcile God’s unlimited knowledge and power with the presence of evil. In the end, the reader who accepts their formulation of the question must conclude that belief in such a god is nonsense.

In the next section, a remarkably politically correct statement finds its way into the document. “Muslims try to live in peace with others,” says the text. In contrast to Christians, the text asserts that, “It is not up to them to seek justice. That is Allah’s job.” Furthermore, “A Muslim should stand up and fight against injustice and evil.” I suppose we are to conclude that jihad is the approved Muslim fight against injustice and evil since Muslims really want to live in peace! Apparently killing Jews is a fight against injustice and is therefore an attempt to live in peace. I can think of an expression that characterizes these entirely politically-correct claims, but it would not be allowed in print!

The last major section of the document discusses immortality. It begins with “key words,” including “body,” defined as “the physical and material part of a human,” and “soul,” defined as “the spiritual rather than the physical part of humans.” Of course, these definitions alone set the entire discussion within the Platonic dualism of the West. No defense is given for this philosophical position. It is stated as if it were fact. As a result, it colors all the subsequent discussion of immortality. Consequently, the document states: “Most Christians believe that the spirit, without the body, lives on in the afterlife either in Heaven or in Hell.” The statement, of course, is false. Christian do not believe that a bodiless spirit of each person lives on in the afterlife. While Christians may believe that there is a stage where the body and spirit are separated, there is no Christian doctrine that suggests the afterlife is a continuous bodiless existence. That idea is strictly Platonic.

According to the document, Jews “believe in a spiritual resurrection.” “Jews do not believe in a Hell.” At least the authors acknowledge that “some Jews believe in a physical resurrection of the body,” but then I am not sure what the authors mean by the statement that all Jews believe in a “spiritual” resurrection. As for Hell, it seems that the authors do not accept the Jewish idea of reward and punishment in the ‘olam ha’ba even though it is a standard doctrine of Judaism. One wonders where these authors got their information about Christianity or Judaism. Apparently they have a better appreciation of Islam since they claim that, “All Muslims believe in a physical resurrection of the body, and the soul.” If this is supposed to be a contrast with Christians and Jews, one can only wonder why the authors deliberately left out the same doctrine in the other statements.

Then the authors add the following:

“A belief in a physical resurrection seems unlikely in today’s scientific age.” Why? Because “a body buried in the ground decays, and in cremation, the body is buried and destroyed.” I can only say that either these authors have no idea what resurrection means or they are so committed to materialist science that they refuse to accept the possibility of a miraculous regeneration. I suspect both are true. Furthermore, the statement itself is nonsense. “A belief in a physical resurrection seems unlikely.” But a belief does not depend on “today’s scientific age.” The statement should probably have been, “Believing in a physical resurrection seems unlikely.” A belief is simply that—a belief. The justification of the belief might be unlikely, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a belief. Once we have cleared up this mistake, then the question is whether or not resurrection can be justified in the modern age. But that, or course, does not depend on the state of the body prior to the resurrection since the resurrection of the body is a miraculous event. All these authors really do is 1) display their ignorance and 2) pose the evidence in such a way that they rule out resurrection on the basis of a mistaken idea.

We have nearly reached the end of this educational nonsense. The last question concerns “evidence of immortality.” According to the authors, one of the reasons beliefs in immortality are probably not justified is that “holy books come from a time when there was little medical or scientific knowledge. The resurrection of a physical body today seems an unlikely possibility.” Ah, so because the “holy books” weren’t written by medical experts, they are incorrect. Apparently only recent medical expertise can justify the claim of a resurrection of the body. The statement implies, of course, that whatever these holy books say is mistaken because it isn’t current scientific knowledge. We have come full circle. What is true is only what can be felt or seen (remember?) and since a religious claim about the resurrection can’t be felt or seen, it can’t be true. Since the body deteriorates, it is not possible for God to bring it back to life. This is sheer materialism, the belief that only what can be demonstrated in repeatable scientific experiment is real. But the history of science clearly demonstrate how flawed such a claim is. What was blood-letting if not medicine? Or phlogiston? Or the Bohr model of the atom? All science. All false.

Two final statements deserve comment.

“We know we have a soul as it is that part of us that feels truth and goodness. The mind (soul) is separate from the body.” What can I say? This is complete nonsense passed on as if it is commonly accepted fact. We have a soul because we “feel truth and goodness”? What? Since when did feeling anything make it true, or good for that matter? This statement reduces all spiritual matters to the realm of feelings. Of course, this is consistent with the scientific materialism of the authors, but it demonstrates incredible naïveté or just deliberate avoidance of all the arguments concerning mind/body issues. And the conclusion that the mind, which is apparently equal to the soul, is separate from the body is just one more tenet of scientific materialism, disguised as fact.

My Conclusion:  It is hard to imagine an educational guide that is so filled with assumptions, false information and deliberate misrepresentation as a standard for the education of children.  But make no mistake!  This is propaganda disguised as education.  If this is what is being taught to children in the UK, is it any wonder that our children have no real sense of biblical direction?  Who authorizes such stupidity?  Why do parents allow this to be disseminated in schools?  Where is the concern for intellectual honesty?

Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”  The same applies to the mis-education of today’s culture.