Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should we educate the ignorant/innocent? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Perhaps there might be a case for thinking that it would be an important thing to educate religious people where they might lack proper perspective, or proper historicis, or even where they lack the knowledge to be able to discern fact from fiction.

    But then again the question arises about why one should remove their ignorance or their innocence. If they believe what they believe and are happy for it, then who are we to rob them of their happiness?

    But we can't help correcting someone on their reasoning, their logic, or their assesment of the facts/fiction(s).

    Sometime ago I debated with a Christian who believed that the Bible god was only one true eternal god and that in any other religion no god was ever considered "eternal" or "one"

    I corrected him. This is simply not true because, for example, the god of the eternal in ancient Egypt was the god Heh. Also the god Amun had an "eternal" attribute including the god Ra. The one god was always Neb'w-a, "One god" (referring to Osiris).

    I have also heard from Christians (from another time) that there was only ever one "god" (i.e. Jesus) who was resurrected.

    Again this is simply not true. The god Osiris was resurrected from the Netherworld/underworld. The god Horus was resurrected (after three days!!) as the avenger of Osiris. The god Ra was resurrected as Akhu "Shining"!

    I corrected them.

    I have also heard that Jesus said things that no other has said.

    This is not true! Plato and Socrates said things which could be considered divine. Isn't the "Golden Rule" (or a similar form of)mentioned in the older and more ancient Mahabarata? And didn't Lao Tzu propose the same kind of "brotherly love" that Jesus supposedly espoused? The Sermon on the Mount/plain was supposedly uttered by Jesus, but the story of a god addressing a people from upon-high (usually a hill or mountian top) is very ancient (plus the sayings of Jesus bare many similarities with the utterances of Har-Temu, in the Egyptian mythology).

    So I correct these people; I educate them.

    But is this right? Should we take it upon ourselves to educate people whilst also realising that they might be happy or content in believing what they want to believe?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Technically, you are correct, but they are also correct. For you, Osiris is a god who was resurrected according to Egyptian mythology; for them, they believe there is actually only ONE God anyway, so Jesus can be the only one who was resurrected. So, in effect, you haven't corrected them, but have given your view. To correct them would be to clarify between the two I have described.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    Perhaps there might be a case for thinking that it would be an important thing to educate religious people where they might lack proper perspective, or proper historicis, or even where they lack the knowledge to be able to discern fact from fiction.

    But then again the question arises about why one should remove their ignorance or their innocence. If they believe what they believe and are happy for it, then who are we to rob them of their happiness?

    But we can't help correcting someone on their reasoning, their logic, or their assesment of the facts/fiction(s).

    Sometime ago I debated with a Christian who believed that the Bible god was only one true eternal god and that in any other religion no god was ever considered "eternal" or "one"

    I corrected him. This is simply not true because, for example, the god of the eternal in ancient Egypt was the god Heh. Also the god Amun had an "eternal" attribute including the god Ra. The one god was always Neb'w-a, "One god" (referring to Osiris).

    I have also heard from Christians (from another time) that there was only ever one "god" (i.e. Jesus) who was resurrected.

    Again this is simply not true. The god Osiris was resurrected from the Netherworld/underworld. The god Horus was resurrected (after three days!!) as the avenger of Osiris. The god Ra was resurrected as Akhu "Shining"!

    I corrected them.

    I have also heard that Jesus said things that no other has said.

    This is not true! Plato and Socrates said things which could be considered divine. Isn't the "Golden Rule" (or a similar form of)mentioned in the older and more ancient Mahabarata? And didn't Lao Tzu propose the same kind of "brotherly love" that Jesus supposedly espoused? The Sermon on the Mount/plain was supposedly uttered by Jesus, but the story of a god addressing a people from upon-high (usually a hill or mountian top) is very ancient (plus the sayings of Jesus bare many similarities with the utterances of Har-Temu, in the Egyptian mythology).

    So I correct these people; I educate them.

    But is this right? Should we take it upon ourselves to educate people whilst also realising that they might be happy or content in believing what they want to believe?
    There is no 'happiness' or feeling of 'content' that religion has a monopoly on, or that any type of ignorance has a monopoly on. All the content and happy people who are ignorant CAN continue to be happy and content without being ignorant. They aren't mutually exclusive.

    Given the harm that ignorance does to society, and the fact that there's no positive properties of ignorance that are exclusive to ignorance, there is no reason why we should respect people's wish to remain ignorant but blissful.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    There is no 'happiness' or feeling of 'content' that religion has a monopoly on, or that any type of ignorance has a monopoly on. All the content and happy people who are ignorant CAN continue to be happy and content without being ignorant. They aren't mutually exclusive.

    Given the harm that ignorance does to society, and the fact that there's no positive properties of ignorance that are exclusive to ignorance, there is no reason why we should respect people's wish to remain ignorant but blissful.
    In some cases you would be right. But I have met Christians, Muslims and Hare Krishna devotees who believe that their life has been transformed by becoming devotees/believers.

    Although it is probably not a good starting point for a discussion on the validity on which the religion or cult or philosophy is based, it is still worthy of some discussion.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    In some cases you would be right. But I have met Christians, Muslims and Hare Krishna devotees who believe that their life has been transformed by becoming devotees/believers.

    Although it is probably not a good starting point for a discussion on the validity on which the religion or cult or philosophy is based, it is still worthy of some discussion.
    And their life probably has changed after becoming devotees... there's nothing incorrect in saying that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Magnum Opus)
    Technically, you are correct, but they are also correct. For you, Osiris is a god who was resurrected according to Egyptian mythology; for them, they believe there is actually only ONE God anyway, so Jesus can be the only one who was resurrected. So, in effect, you haven't corrected them, but have given your view. To correct them would be to clarify between the two I have described.
    Not true. I have corrected them. They did not know that, for example, Osiris was resurrected, or that the god Heh was the god of the eternal. Before I corrected them they believed that there was nothing ever like their own god. It is not a view, or a point of view, that Osiris was resurrected, btw.

    Osiris was resurrected (mythologically speaking) because the Book of the Dead informs us. That is not a view; it is a fact (albeit in mythology) supported by a physical document written 4-5000 years ago.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    Not true. I have corrected them. They did not know that, for example, Osiris was resurrected, or that the god Heh was the god of the eternal. Before I corrected them they believed that there was nothing ever like their own god. It is not a view, or a point of view, that Osiris was resurrected, btw.

    Osiris was resurrected (mythologically speaking) because the Book of the Dead informs us. That is not a view; it is a fact (albeit in mythology) supported by a physical document written 4-5000 years ago.
    Fact -
    a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Magnum Opus)
    Fact -
    a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
    It is a fact that Osiris (and many others) was considered a resurrected god. This is supported by evidence from inscriptions found in temples and tombs and on papyrus.

    My point was to explain that I had corrected that person when they said that no-other was like the deity that they believed in. I had corrected them because they were in error; there are other deities sharing the same attributes as the deity that they believe in; that they believed was like no-other.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Magnum Opus)
    And their life probably has changed after becoming devotees... there's nothing incorrect in saying that.
    Equally, their life would have changed even if they hadn't become devotees.

    Anyway, no, we shouldn't systematically "educate" people in anything as this implies arrogance and stubborness on our parts; of course, we should certainly be free to give our opinions.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)

    Anyway, no, we shouldn't systematically "educate" people in anything as this implies arrogance and stubborness on our parts; of course, we should certainly be free to give our opinions.
    Agreed.

    I know two wrongs don't make a right, but we too have been educated by the ignorant/innocent. They too have been stubborn and arrogant in the way in which they have educated us.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    Agreed.

    I know two wrongs don't make a right, but we too have been educated by the ignorant/innocent. They too have been stubborn and arrogant in the way in which they have educated us.
    You can't agree and then go on to contradict what you're agreeing :s:
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I find it crazy how two "rational" people can come to wildly different conclusions when given the same evidence.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Magnum Opus)
    You can't agree and then go on to contradict what you're agreeing :s:
    What did I contradict? I agree with one point but not the other. Where is the contradiction?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    But then again the question arises about why one should remove their ignorance or their innocence. If they believe what they believe and are happy for it, then who are we to rob them of their happiness?
    Truth and reason are more important than happiness. (Socrates dissatisfied; yadda yadda yadda.) There is nothing valuable in ignorance and nothing innocent about ignorance either. I don't look at a religious person and think "awww, but they're so happy!"

    The question, really, is why shouldn't we? I won't go into your examples because from what I can see they're irrelevant and a bit silly. But I don't see any reason not to argue with someone's beliefs because they really enjoy believing them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleshambles)
    Truth and reason are more important than happiness. (Socrates dissatisfied; yadda yadda yadda.) There is nothing valuable in ignorance and nothing innocent about ignorance either. I don't look at a religious person and think "awww, but they're so happy!"

    The question, really, is why shouldn't we? I won't go into your examples because from what I can see they're irrelevant and a bit silly. But I don't see any reason not to argue with someone's beliefs because they really enjoy believing them.
    It is easier to destroy than create. Skeptics need to propose replacements rather than destroy everything in sight because of "reason". Is it really rational to want for a vacant world where only skepticism exists?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    It is easier to destroy than create. Skeptics need to propose replacements rather than destroy everything in sight because of "reason". Is it really rational to want for a vacant world where only skepticism exists?
    Replacements for what? Religion? Considering recent replacements for religion include ultranationalism, Stalinism and Colin Fry, I'd rather do without altogether thanks.

    And that's not a reason to refrain from arguing with people who cherish their beliefs, unless you'd like to show that doing so leads us inevitably into a "vacant world where only skepticism exists". (And what exactly would be reasonably wrong with such a world anyway. If that was the necessary stance to take I would take it over religion.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleshambles)
    Replacements for what? Religion? Considering recent replacements for religion include ultranationalism, Stalinism and Colin Fry, I'd rather do without altogether thanks.

    And that's not a reason to refrain from arguing with people who cherish their beliefs, unless you'd like to show that doing so leads us inevitably into a "vacant world where only skepticism exists". (And what exactly would be reasonably wrong with such a world anyway. If that was the necessary stance to take I would take it over religion.)
    I wasn't solely talking about religion but all tradition and custom. Getting rid of religion alone wouldn't make a society vacant but it would leave a God-sized hole.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    I wasn't solely talking about religion but all tradition and custom. Getting rid of religion alone wouldn't make a society vacant but it would leave a God-sized hole.
    Rather a God-sized hole than a God-sized obstacle.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleshambles)
    Rather a God-sized hole than a God-sized obstacle.
    You've ignored my argument. You can't just destroy such an important customary part of society and expect society to stand. You need to replace it with something as least as good and you need to do it bit by bit.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    You've ignored my argument. You can't just destroy such an important customary part of society and expect society to stand. You need to replace it with something as least as good and you need to do it bit by bit.
    You didn't make an argument. You didn't even respond to my requests to show how exactly we'd end up at this "vacant world" and what exactly would be wrong with it.

    You can't just destroy such an important customary part of society and expect society to stand.
    Who said I expected society to stand? If society can't sustain itself without resorting to absurdities and lies then society doesn't deserve to stand. It's not my job or interest to sustain society as unchanged as possible. It's my interest to assert and argue for what is right and argue against what is not.

    You need to replace it with something as least as good and you need to do it bit by bit.
    It doesn't need replacing. Society simply needs to remodel itself without it. Society is not a jigsaw that needs pieces of exact shapes to fit into it.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 23, 2009
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.