by Jason Streitfeld

Created on: June 26, 2008

All ideas-even religious ones-should be discussed openly in public schools. However, all topics should be approached logically and objectively, with as strict an adherence to scientific methodology as possible. Public school is not the place to preach or embrace dogma. On the contrary, religion must be treated scientifically, like any other object of study.

The question is, what place can religion have in the public classroom?

Consider the subject of biological evolution. Any thorough discussion of evolutionary theory will touch on what makes it of such scientific and historical importance: namely, that it explains how the appearance of design was created in the absence of a designer. This naturally involves our ideas about design, designers, and how the complexity of life can be misleading. Indeed, the tendency for people to think of life as the result of a designer is so widespread, I cannot imagine how discussing it in a biology classroom would be out of place or a waste of time.

High school science textbooks should have a standard chapter on evolutionary theory in which the notions of Intelligent Design and Creationism are adequately dealt with-not as a viable alternatives to evolutionary theory, but as concepts which are not supported by evidence or theory.

Chapters relating to the origins of life and the emergence of order out of chaos should also be present, in which the progress scientists have made in addressing these topics is emphasized. Students must also learn about the logical and methodological inadequacies of supposed "alternatives," such as Creationism. Students should learn that religious approaches (and their pseudo-scientific kin) only create confusion, and not meaningful explanations of anything.

We can also have a chapter on the soul so students can understand the lack of scientific evidence, and the lack even of a scientific definition, to support the notion of an immortal soul. Questions about human behavior, identity, personality, and feelings can all be discussed in scientific terms, with reference to advances in cognitive science and neuroscience, and not as inherently mysterious aspects of humanity. Prevalent or historically consequential religious attitudes toward the topic can be discussed accordingly.

Some will maintain that there are inherent limitations on science in this respect, and that human subjectivity is inevitably beyond the hope of a complete scientific analysis. This remains a debated philosophical issue, and should certainly be open for discussion in the classroom. However, it should also be emphasized that there are no demonstrated limitations on science in this matter.

Finally, religion itself can be discussed as an historical and biological phenomenon. The history of religious institutions and attitudes cannot be left out of a comprehensive study of human kind. Furthermore, religious belief itself may be approached scientifically, with reference to biology, psychology, neuroscience, and so on. Much has already been written on this subject, such as Daniel C. Dennett's "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon."

This is not just about religion, though the need for better education with respect to that topic is of paramount importance. More generally, however, students must learn to recognize the difference between a meaningful explanation and a confused attempt at avoidance. This requires the sort of critical thinking that is sorely lacking in many public schools.

We must promote education about eligion in public schools, so students can better understand both religion and science in the process.

Learn more about this author, Jason Streitfeld.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.