Homeschooling

[mrs.b]

I will contend that there is no absolute morality outside of religion.

I agree to a point, but contend there is no absolute morality at all, only relative morality. But therein lies the reason several meta-ethical theories exist today. After thousands of years of debate, philosophers, theologians, and politicians still have not come to a consensus. I doubt we will manage that achievement here no matter how many times we circle the issue.

Any atheist philosophy professor will tell you that there are no moral absolutes. If there are, then why? Who gets to decide?

If we are highly evolved animals and nothing more, then behaviors such as theft, rape, and murder cannot be absolutelywrong. These behaviors are acceptable, necessary, and advantageous in the animal world.

If one says absolute morality comes from societies or governments, this is not true. Societies and governments can and will change their minds (making morality no longer absolute), and governments often find theft, murder, and rape to be acceptable, necessary, and advantageous.

Not all atheist philosophy professors claim no moral absolutes. There are a wide variety of ethical theories that have no attachment to religion, many of which recognize the existence of moral absolutes. While they may not fit what you define as moral absolutes, the individuals who hold them as valid will disagree all day long.

Also, the statement that societies and government changes, and therefore cannot be the guiding hand behind morality is flawed if your argument is that religion is that guidance, because religion has also changed. Glancing back in time just a hundred years highlights a number of divergences from current state, but if you take religion even further back, the differences are readily apparent. Religion changes just as much as society and government.

If one says absolute morality comes from "science," this is also untrue. Was it wrong for Ota Benga (a human) to be placed in the monkey house exhibit in the Bronx Zoo because he was supposedly only a highly evolved ape? Was it wrong for Australian Aboriginal people to be killed so that there bones could be displayed in museums since they were supposedly examples of highly evolved apes? If this was wrong, why? Who says so? Science didn't think so. If science says it is wrong now, then science changed its mind which means that morality is not absolute.

How can the concepts of right and wrong even have a meaning outside of a Higher Authority?

If a child is taught that he shouldn't hit because he wouldn't want to be hit, this is the golden rule. This is religion.

Absolute morality only makes sense to me because of God.

The concept of right and wrong may not have a meaning outside of your Higher Authority for you. But is does have meaning for others.

I argue that the Golden Rule is a rather common-sense approach that exists in multiple cultures. Some cultures that do not embrace the Christian God - or any God at all for that matter - follow that same approach to teaching a child why you wouldn’t want to smack someone; they might slap you back. If you were to insist to any of them that they’re welcome because your God helped them come to that conclusion, I hope you run fast and have cover nearby. They may insist their own Higher Authority gave them that concept. In those same communities, other concepts that are expressly decreed by the Bible are disregarded. Scientists call the Golden Rule Action-Reaction and recognize it as a Law. You or someone who identifies all morality from faith may say that’s because God made the universe and the laws that rule it, but those same scientific thinkers will argue that point all day long. Your interpretations and moral code does not have to hold true for the next person, and in fact, it often won’t. Likewise, theirs does not have to hold true for you. That’s why debates that spin around and around such as this one take place. We disagree because our experiences and perceptions in life were different, and since neither of us have the ability to change the others’ past experiences, neither of us will make much headway in swaying the other’s opinions on this or any similar topic.

So…that’s my indulgence into philosophical and almost-religious debate. I’ll keep on leaving it to the philosophers, theologians, and politicians to take it any further than that because I don’t have centuries to ride that train of thought. I’ll just circle back to my original response to the original question:

Homeschool families educate their children outside the public system for a variety of reasons. There are, certainly, quite a few that do so because they feel quality educations cannot be complete without an overlay of religion. Other families do so for logistical purposes; a girl I went to B&M college with grew up in Alaska where the nearest actual school was inaccessible months of the year. Others do it for secular academic reasons; the schools were underperforming or not living up to some other purely academic expectation. The reasons will often vary from every family you meet. If you are considering homeschool as an option, do so for your reasons, not for the reasons others give, and not in spite of them. It is far more common now than it was years ago, as Cook pointed out. If you lean towards a secular education format, search for secular homeschool groups in your area. If you live anywhere near a metropolitan area, I’m sure you’ll find one. If you lean towards a religious educational experience, there are groups for that, too.