The Dawn Treader

What she's actually saying is that truth is not relevant. That truth doesn't matter. That being wrong and doing things that are "wrong" is not something we should discourage or try to prevent. Absurd of course. If the child were to respond with "My truth is that you're not my teacher but my servant, give me an "A" and get me a soda". She would obviously object and say "Well EVERYBODY knows the truth that I'm the teacher. That's just silly". So there are some things that are true, it's just the things that are not "silly" or the things that "everybody knows". Of course there is no standard for any of this. Essentially she's just saying that truth is irrelevant as long as the situation is comfortably far from US at this moment. So truth is fine in questions of who owns a car or a sandwich, but not in questions of religion or politics (unless you happen to live in a police state of course). I'm sure most Germans didn't care about the truth of Jew persecution in the 30's because it was comfortably far away for most of them.

"Essentially she's just saying that truth is irrelevant as long as the situation is comfortably far from US at this moment."

Perhaps. I did not get the context of the discussion, and this student did not have the ipod recorder turned on ;)

Declaring certain truths as irrelevant begs the question ... is the statement "certain truths are irrelevant" a truth which is irrelevant? :)

"However, it may be that this English teacher really believes this. If so, then it amounts a religious view and has no place in a public classroom, true?"

True. The English teacher has no business presenting his belief as a fact.

"Therefore, it would be better to be open and honest and forthright about what those personal beliefs are, and tell the class that those beliefs color your interpretation of all of life."

You might be surprised to learn that the teachers in my neck of the woods are quite open about their religious beliefs. Of course, many of them attend church with their students and their families. Everyone knows that Mr. Hensley is an Episcopalian-turned-Catholic, Mr. Pryor is a Presbyterian, and nearly everyone else belongs to one of many warring factions of Baptists. Some students even know Mr. Ryan is an atheist. I know some of the students' parents personally from a previous job, and they have been less than discreet in sharing some of my background.
Religion comes up frequently in discussions of literature. Greek, Roman, Norse, and Native American mythology, and of course all flavors of Christianity, are thoroughly in the literary mix. When students ask about my beliefs, I generally decline to answer, as my beliefs are irrelevant. Other teachers are more forthcoming, and some even actively proselytize. Mr. Bridges has a Bible verse on his board each day. Mr. Spinoza tells non-Christians they are going to hell and has Christian posters, t-shirts, and other artifacts decorating his classroom. The principal at my daughter's elementary school was disciplined for assigning Bible verses for little miscreants to copy a number of times. The superintendent made him research and write an essay about the separation of church and state. I'd give anything for a copy!

The problem I have with the openness you suggest is that it could be so easily abused. I think we would see a dramatic increase in teachers pushing their beliefs. In a neighboring county, a girl was persecuted for declining to attend a Christian "crusade" held during school hours.

http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/4/763.html?1113469304

I think teachers should be able to respond truthfully to direct questions about their beliefs if they wish, but that they should keep discussions on topic and students on task.

"You can't teach how to interpret written works without pushing your beliefs -- because it is your beliefs that shape your interpretation."

I bounced this off my English and Foreign Language colleagues at lunch today. We are all in agreement that my interpretation of British and American literature, the subjects I teach, probably do not differ materially from theirs. Atheism may inform my appreciation of some literature, like Donne's sonnets, but I doubt it affects my interpretation of it. I teach "Batter my Heart" the same way Mrs. Cooper teaches it. Even Ms. Francis, who occasionally presents me with a nice Stroebel or C.S. Lewis book in hopes of winning me back to the fold, doubts that anyone could tell much about my beliefs by my teaching.

"What I am promoting is disclosure of your own worldview -- iow, your beliefs about reality Then the kids know that Mr. Ryan is interpreting the works of an author through a specific grid which makes assumptions about the world."

Oh dear! I would be very nervous about doing this in the community in which I teach. I'm sure many teachers with minority worldviews would be aghast at your suggestion as well. The schools obviously can't require this of teachers, so to allow it would lead to disclosures skewed dramatically toward the dominant worldview of the community the schools serve, further marginalizing those with minority belief systems. Other teachers, I'm afraid, would embrace your idea and go to thoroughly unnecessary lengths to fully disclose every aspect of their personal faith.

In a way, I'd like to be able to be more forthright so that young freethinkers would have a role model and not feel so marginalized, but I'm afraid other students wouldn't listen to a word I said, or even respect my authority, if I told them I was an atheist.

I think we might be looking at the elephant from different sides, Mr. D. ;-)

Jeff:
I am not sure you are really in a position to step outside of yourself and evaluate how your own beliefs affect your instruction.

Perhaps that's why he asked his colleagues to make the judgment, then. :)

That is just your perception of reality.

I suspect his perception of how this would go down is very likely correct, and your speculation is quite naive.

But what we have here, I think, is a problem with your worldview, which seems to claim that its absolutely impossible to teach in a largely worldview-independent fashion. Real life seems to contradict this idea of yours every day, however. Sure, bits and pieces of worldview will occasionally slip in -- how can they not -- but this is minor compared to the amount that gets taught in worldview-independent fashion.

Or, at the very least, for all our differences in worldview, we have far more in common than we have where we disagree; it's just human nature to obsess over the disagreements. For example, virtually everyone, irrespective of religious faith (or lack thereof) can agree that murder is bad. Under the covers, they may differ wildly about why it's bad, but the overarching agreement still exists.

Bringing it back around to your disclosure idea (which I agree with Rob is a bad one), I think that such disclosure should be made only to the extent that it's relevant, and only in terms of the fact that differing views exist -- acknowledging that the disagreement exists should be enough, without the teacher taking sides. We're better served if the teacher does not take sides.

Getting back to the original topic of the post, without context, I suspect that the teacher isn't really arguing for total realtivism with respect to truth -- that is, if you pushed the teacher, s/he wouldn't say that truth is totally subjective; I suspect it's just a case of sloppy wording, and that s/he meant to say that everyone has a different understanding of truth. I'd be inclined to agree with this statement.

What I'd recommend the student do is to ask the teacher about this in a non-religious context; use examples like gravity (as suggested above), a roughly-spherical earth, etc., and ask how these fit into the teacher's original statement.

I think that such disclosure should be made only to the extent that it's relevant, and only in terms of the fact that differing views exist -- acknowledging that the disagreement exists should be enough, without the teacher taking sides. We're better served if the teacher does not take sides.

But Rob has taken sides. He can't not take sides. Why not disclose the side he has taken in a mature and honest fashion?

"s/he meant to say that everyone has a different understanding of truth. I'd be inclined to agree with this statement."

Which continues to beg the question ... is the statement "that everyone has a different understanding of truth" true, or is that just his or her understanding? ;)

The most honest thing that the teacher can do is say that different people believe different things about God and reality and leave it at that.

When you begin to mess around with truth you quickly get into a tangle -- because anything you are teaching has to be true, or you wouldn't be teaching it (unless you were some kind of pathological liar).

"True, but you can boil absolutely anything down to that sort of question begging, so I don't see what the point is."

Scratch the words "question begging" then ... insert the words "outright contradiction".

When a teacher makes a claim, there is an implicit "and I believe this is true" embedded in the claim.

It is a truth claim unless they post on a "just kidding" at the end.

When you make truth claims about how truth is relative or personal or subjective, then you always end up undercutting your own argument.

That is what makes it nonsensical -- not because someone keeps asking "says who"

That is what makes it nonsensical

But again, you can do that (or something similar) to any argument, so what you're doing here is basically making argumentation totally useless and irrelevant.

(And by the way, the teacher's argument is not nonsensical, so long as the teacher believes the claim to be true, and believes that others will disagree.)

What you personally believe to be right and wrong has no bearing on your opinion about adultery or shame or morality?

Err, where did I say anything about my opinion of adultery and shame and morality? You've just made my argument for me: adultery and shame and morality are the important themes of The Scarlet Letter, and that's true no matter what your personal beliefs on those things actually are. :)

Jeff:
Saying true equals false is not begging the question.

Well, that's not at all what the teacher was saying. That's extra baggage you read into what the teacher was saying. Important difference.

Not every argument can be made to be contradictory.

Yes, actually, it can be. Because every argument can be peeled back into its underlying assumptions about truth and knowledge, which are always contradictory and/or circular in some fashion, as our go-rounds here have come as close to conclusively proving as anything can be so proven. :)

Please don't go into teaching if that is all you can say about The Scarlett [sic] Letter

Oh, I can say a LOT more about that book.

*yawn*

That's actually an excellent summation of what I have to say about it. :)

But getting back on point, you seem to be seriously arguing that it's simply not possible for someone to give a largely worldview-independent lesson that includes:

- the fact that adultery, shame, and morality are the key themes of the book
- the points that Hawthorne was likely trying to get across
- the ways in which those themes were generally perceived at the time the book was written
- the ways in which those themes are generally perceived today, and some of the controversies surrounding them
- encouragement for students to discuss how they feel about these themes

I fail to see how the teacher "taking sides" could benefit any of these goals, and in fact, I can see how it would actively harm those teaching goals. It would be like revealing the brand names and costs of products before a taste test.

The idea is to get the students to think for themselves about such topics, and for them to form, defend, and revise their own opinions. A teacher revealing his views on the matter serves only to poison the well.

"My perception of reality has served me quite well for the last 46 years."

This is no doubt true. But I am sure you are not claiming that you have never been wrong, are you?

This reminds me of one of my colleague's favorite expressions, "I thought I was wrong once, but it turned out I was mistaken." :)

"You clearly think many Christians are intolerant hypocrites -- it comes through loud and clear in your words."

That is true, but let's give this fact some context: I also think many Muslims, Jews, and atheists are intolerant. I don't think I said anything about hypocrisy with regard to any group, but like intolerance, it is a human quality quite independent of one's beliefs or lack thereof. Intolerance, I think, is born of ignorance, not religion.

If my view of human nature colors my teaching, it does so with regard to every author whose works I teach. I personally admire Jonathan Edwards, believe it or not, and I'm sure that does not escape the notice of my students. The fact that I don't agree with his conclusions does not prevent me from recognizing his strength of mind and character and his willingness to take responsibility for the man he was. Along with Mark Twain and Frederick Douglass, Edwards is right up there with the American authors with whom I'd like to go for a walk.

Jeff:
In short, people sin because they are sinners

Odd that God would intentionally create a race of sinners in His own image!

*Ducks* :)

Jeff:
He didn't create a race of sinners -- he created a sinless man and woman. The rest, as they say, is history

Well, yes, but being omniscient, God knew this would happen with absolute certainty even before he created them. Logically speaking, then God did this deliberately and intentionally. He knew exactly what would result, and did it anyway. I don't see how He escapes culpability for this.

But the story doesn't end there ... then what did he do?

Why doesn't the story end there? The end was known to Him, and in fact created by Him, since before the beginning. I don't see how what happens in between is in any way relevant. Especially since every detail of what happens in between has to be intentional.