Is It Honorable to Teach Religion to Children?

They had chosen a quiet restaurant, and they had finished their meal some time ago. The Believer said, “So tell me... do you still believe what you said about teaching religion not being an honorable job?”

The Skeptic replied, “Let’s look at teaching this way. Trying to teach others—and especially children—the truths about the world is an honorable thing to do. Children are very likely to accept whatever their teachers tell them as absolute truth. So if someone takes advantage of this and teaches them things that are false or untrue, is that honorable or not?”

“If he knowingly teaches them things that are false, then of course what he is doing is wrong. But what if he believes that what he is teaching is true?

“Imagine a mother who deeply cares about her child but is treating him in a way recommended by an incompetent doctor. She is harming her child more and more, but can we say that what she is doing is dishonorable? Don’t her good intentions and concern for her child matter when we judge whether her actions are moral and honorable?

“I believe that what I teach is true, and I care about the children. You can’t accuse me of doing something dishonorable, even if what I teach them turns out not to be true.”

The Skeptic, now looking more humble, said, “You’re right... intention does matter when we judge whether an action is moral. So I apologize for what I said earlier, and I take it back. But I have become convinced that the gods of religions, prophets, and religion itself are nothing but lies and illusions. When religion is taught to children as a collection of absolute truths, the result is that children are led to believe these false ideas. Before long, they themselves begin to defend these beliefs blindly. They may never free themselves from them for the rest of their lives. Religious ideas and rules will continue to shape their lives and lead them in directions they might never have taken if their minds had been free from religion.”

“Defend them blindly? ... How do you know that religious people blindly defend their beliefs?”

“Because believers not only have no rational basis for their faith, but even when you give them many rational arguments against the existence of their God, they continue to hold on to their faith even when they cannot answer those arguments. If they are Muslim, they remain Muslim. If they are Hindu, they remain Hindu. If they are Buddhist, they remain Buddhist. Followers of every religion claim that their religion has a strong rational and philosophical basis. But can all these different religions, with such deep differences in their views of the world and their teachings, all be rationally correct?”

“I’m not concerned with other religions. It doesn’t follow that Islam must also be irrational simply because other religions probably are. Islam and the God of Islam have a strong rational basis.”

“Then let’s put the claims aside and test this ‘rational basis’ you’re talking about. But first I want to know something. If I can show you that Islam—or, for that matter, all religions—go against reason and logic, would you be willing to stop teaching religion?”

“If you prove to me that Islam and God are irrational ideas, then I would not be an honorable man if I stayed in this job even one more day. But I’m sure you can’t.”

“Are you sure I can’t because you think these beliefs are rational? Or are you sure because you know that you’re so attached to your beliefs that you won’t accept logic even if it goes against them?”

“Don’t judge me in advance. Maybe you’re the one who is too attached to his beliefs. We’ll find out soon enough.”

“All right... I claim that, using principles of reason that we both accept, I can prove that the God of Islam—or more generally, the God of monotheistic religions, or more precisely, a God who is perfectly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing—does not exist.

“And I want you first to prove that the God of Islam, the God you describe, exists.

“Then prove that this God must have sent a prophet.

“Then prove that Muhammad ibn Abdullah was his prophet, and that everything he said came from that God and expressed his commands.

“If you can do all that, I’ll accept that continuing to teach religion after our debate is an honorable thing for you to do.”

The Believer said, “Wait a minute! Has your son’s science teacher proved everything that is taught in science class? Why should I have to prove everything that is taught in religious studies?”

“Listen. In the empirical sciences, we learn about the world through observation and experiment—and anyone can observe. Look at school science books. From the very beginning, basic concepts such as light, shadow, wind, air pressure, heat, force, electric charge, motion, and speed are introduced through things students can observe for themselves. The point is that when it comes to scientific observations, the observers themselves are the judges. In this respect, no one has a higher status than anyone else. When we observe something scientifically, we become observers in our own right, just like everyone else.

“There is no sacred authority in empirical science whose word is final. When scientists disagree, observation and experiment have the final say. No theory deserves faith. If someone says that he has faith in a theory and that no observation or calculation could ever convince him that it is wrong, we would say that he does not understand how empirical science works.

“What gives us confidence in scientific knowledge is that it has been tested. A theory that has not yet survived attempts to show that it is wrong remains open to doubt. In other words, ‘faith’ has little place in empirical science. Scientists do not have unshakable faith in scientific theories. They are always prepared to replace an existing theory with a better and more useful one.

“Of course, scientists rely on findings and scientific laws that have been supported by repeated experiments. But they do not have the kind of faith in scientific claims that a religious believer has in the untested claims of his religion.

“A science teacher tells children what has been discovered and observed so far. If new evidence appears tomorrow and new theories are developed, the teacher is ready to teach those instead. The teacher also explains how scientific knowledge is reached. Children learn that unquestioning belief and absolute acceptance of scientific findings and theories have no place in empirical science. Anyone is free to test a scientific claim and to question both their own conclusions and those of others.

“Empirical sciences are always developing and changing. ‘Unshakable faith’ simply makes no sense in science. A science teacher does not tell students what they must believe. The teacher tells them what scientists have discovered so far and how the laws they have discovered have been used to build devices and develop new technologies. Students are also reminded that this process is still going on. It has not reached its end.

“Anyway, you said that you believe what Islam teaches and what you teach these children. At the very least, show me why you believe it, why you have no doubts about it, and why you expect the children to believe it too.

“Please start by proving that God exists.”

The Believer said, “Just as a science teacher doesn’t want students to blindly believe everything he says, I don’t want children to blindly believe me either. In religion, the tool we use to test things is reason. They can think for themselves, use reason and logic, and see that what I tell them is true. Then they can come to believe these truths just as I do.”

The Skeptic said, “Look, my friend. You know as well as I do that children aren’t old enough to think as well as you and I can. They accept what you present to them as truth because you are their teacher, officially approved by the country’s education system.

“You don’t tell them that fourteen centuries ago, a man named Muhammad claimed to be in contact with God and claimed that everything he said came from God; that some people believed him and others did not; and that they too are free to accept what he said or reject it. You don’t tell them that other people have made similar claims, that some believed them and others didn’t, and that they can study any religion they want and decide for themselves whether to accept it.

“You don’t tell them that some people believe the stories of miracles are true and others don’t. You don’t tell them that followers of a religion readily believe the miracle stories of their own religion, while looking with doubt at the miracles claimed by other religions—or rejecting them altogether. You don’t tell them that some people consider the Quran a miracle, while many others have raised serious objections to it and do not consider it a miracle. You don’t tell them that many thinkers and philosophers don’t believe in God or religion at all because they consider the basic claims of religion irrational, or because they believe some religious claims directly conflict with empirical science, or because they consider many religious rules immoral and inhumane.

“In short, you don’t present the story of your religion in a neutral way. You don’t tell them the history of how it began and developed. You don’t present the arguments of its critics, so that students can understand that religion can be examined as something that is not sacred—something open to criticism and evaluation. You don’t give them the chance to freely consider its strengths and weaknesses and make up their own minds.

“Instead, you present your statements as unquestionable facts. You tell them that Almighty God exists, that He chose the Prophet Muhammad—peace be upon him and his family—as His messenger, and that He revealed His commands through Muhammad so that people could be saved, enter heaven, and avoid hell. You tell them that the Quran is an obvious miracle and that no valid objection can be raised against it. You present all this in such a way that children come to believe these claims have already been examined by every reasonable person and settled beyond doubt. They are left with the impression that anyone who questions them or raises an objection must either be foolish, an enemy of the truth, or simply stubborn.

“Before children and teenagers even have a chance to examine what you say, you use titles and expressions such as Almighty, His Holiness, peace be upon him, and peace be upon him and his family to surround religious figures and the God of religion with so much respect and sacredness that the students’ minds no longer dare to enter the territory of criticism and free thought.

“Before children have had a chance to rationally examine the foundations of your religion, you fill their minds with a mixture of love and fear. By then, they are no longer psychologically prepared to question it freely and logically.”

The Believer smiled. “You were educated in this same system. God, the Prophet, and the Quran were presented as sacred to you too. So why did you begin questioning them? Why didn’t you lose the psychological ability to do that? Maybe other people have questioned them too but reached a different conclusion from yours. Maybe they examined Islam and concluded that it really is true.”

The Skeptic said, “If children all over the world eventually questioned their religions in the way you describe and then chose Islam—and especially Shia Islam—I would say you were right. I would say that at some point in life, everyone manages to escape the sense of sacredness that their family and teachers have built around their religion, examines it freely, realizes that it is wrong, and converts to Shia Islam.

“But that isn’t what we see. A Shia generally remains a Shia, while a Sunni, Hindu, Buddhist, or Shinto follower generally remains with the religion or sect they grew up with. All these religions and sects cannot possibly pass a rational and logical examination with the same result. At most, one of them can be completely true. So at most one can be completely rational and logical. How is it that every reasonable and logical examination somehow leads people back to the very religion they happened to be born into?

“The way religion is taught, and the sacred aura created around it, takes away much of a person’s ability to examine it rationally from childhood—even though some people, like me, may manage to escape that circle of sacredness.”

The Believer said, “I’m not concerned with how other religions are taught or what effect that has on their followers. Instead of getting sidetracked, let’s move on to proving the existence of God. I won’t be able to change your mind until I show you, step by step, that the foundations of Islam are rational.”

“I agree. It’s better to settle all of this through philosophical discussion—through logic and free thought.”

The Argument from Design Begins

The Believer said, “One of the most important arguments for the existence of God is the Argument from Design.”

The Skeptic asked, “By ‘argument,’ do you mean clear and convincing proof?”

“Yes. I mean an argument whose conclusion is completely reasonable, logical, and undeniable—provided, of course, that you think reasonably and logically.”

“Go on.”

“Whenever we see order, we conclude that there must be something behind it that created that order—especially when the order serves a purpose. Take a watch, for example. It has two important features:

“First, it has an orderly structure.

“Second, that order serves a purpose: telling time.

“Can we really say that a watch could exist without an intelligent maker who made it for a specific purpose? When we see a watch, we understand two things:

“First, that there was a watchmaker.

“Second, that the watchmaker intelligently designed and made the watch for a particular purpose, and the result successfully serves that purpose. We now have a device that tells time.

“So when we look at a universe full of order, how can we deny that there is something behind that order? How can we look at the human body, with all the order and complexity of its organs, and not see the work of an intelligent creator?

“The kidneys, despite their great complexity, work in remarkable order to filter the blood. The ear and its different parts make hearing possible. In the same way, the amazing human eye, with its incredible organization, makes sight possible. Who but an all-knowing and all-powerful God could create such order?”

The Skeptic said, “What you’ve done in this argument is this:

“First, you gave an example of something made by humans: a watch. You could just as easily have used a car, a computer, or something similar.

“Then you compared examples from nature with these human-made objects.

“You said they are similar in two ways: first, they are ‘orderly,’ and second, they are ‘made for a purpose.’

“Then, assuming that you had chosen the right similarities, and without considering the differences between your examples, you argued that because they are alike in those two ways, they must also be alike in a third. So you concluded that the orderly structures we see in nature must also have had an intelligent creator who deliberately created them with a particular purpose in mind.

“But what you call ‘order’ in nature could instead be called ‘equilibrium.’ When a celestial body is caught by Earth’s gravity and circles it for billions of years in such a regular way that we can use its movement to measure time, what we are seeing is not a deliberately created order. It is an equilibrium. Such an equilibrium may last millions of years, or it may last for a much shorter time.

“Equilibria are not deliberately and consciously created. They arise naturally, without planning, through the basic laws of physics. And the same physical laws that produce them can also destroy them.

“Suppose continuous rainfall over a large area gradually turns it into a rainforest. Over time, the plants and animals form a balanced ecosystem. A rodent eats the fruit of a particular tree and later passes its seeds, allowing a new generation of those trees to grow. Someone who believes that the forest was created all at once might look at this relationship and conclude that there must have been a creator who deliberately created the rodent and the tree together, since each depends on the other for survival and reproduction.

“But that person would not realize that it took thousands or millions of years for the present balance to develop. He would not know that before this balance existed, many other organisms lived and reproduced in the same area, then gradually became extinct as conditions changed, and were replaced by new organisms better able to survive under the new conditions.

“The same laws of physics that produced earlier equilibria also caused those equilibria—and the organisms living within them—to disappear. The equilibria we see today are just as vulnerable. They too may disappear and be replaced by new ones involving organisms better adapted to new conditions.

“So what we see as order is actually equilibrium. The universe does not create these equilibria with a purpose in mind. It simply follows the laws of physics, whether those laws eventually lead to the development of an organ called the eye or eventually lead to the destruction of that same organ and the creatures that possess it.

“One important difference between human-made objects and an organ such as the eye is the amount of time it took them to develop. If we lived in a universe that had been created yesterday—or even ten thousand years ago—and today we found creatures with eyes, ears, and organs of such complexity, then perhaps we could attribute them to an all-knowing and all-powerful creator. In the same way, a watch that did not exist yesterday but exists today could not have appeared without an intelligent maker. We have never observed such complex order arising spontaneously in a short period of time, so we would naturally attribute it to an intelligent and powerful creator.

“But you are comparing two very different things. A watch is made in a short period of time. Are you sure the eye appeared suddenly too?

“The evidence shows that millions of years of evolution have shaped the eye into its present form. A watch is made for the purpose of ‘telling time.’ The eye, however, developed gradually, through many stages, as a result of random genetic mutations. Organisms in which these mutations proved useful—by allowing them to detect light, hunt more effectively, or avoid being hunted—had a better chance of surviving. These random changes helped them survive and gave them the opportunity to pass the new genes on to the next generation.

“So you see, when we observe order in the universe or in living things, an intelligent and powerful creator who deliberately designed and created them is not the only possible explanation. There is another explanation: gradual evolution through random changes, without the need for an intelligent and powerful creator.

“In fact, so much evidence has been found for this second explanation that evolution has gone far beyond being a raw hypothesis. In the minds of many scientists, it has come to be regarded as a firmly established scientific fact with no serious alternative.”

The Believer asked, “But doesn’t that raise another question? Who created the laws of physics?”

The Skeptic replied, “Be careful not to move away from the Argument from Design. You talked about order, a designer, and an argument by analogy. You tried to show that the order in a watch and the order we see in the universe are comparable, and I challenged that comparison. If you accept that the Argument from Design doesn’t work and want to move on to the Argument from Causality, then I’m happy to discuss whether the laws of physics—or anything else—must necessarily have a cause. But first tell me: do you accept that the Argument from Design is weak and has failed, or not?”

“No, I don’t accept that the Argument from Design is weak. Even if evolution produced an orderly and remarkable creature like a human being, that doesn’t mean there was no need for an all-knowing God. How could a creature with such complexity, precision, and ability be the result of blind evolution? An intelligent God must have designed the process of evolution itself. In other words, God must have created the universe in such a way that, after millions of years, it would produce creatures this complex and humans this intelligent. And an intelligent God must also have directly intervened at many points.

“For example, Earth is at a suitable distance from the Sun. If it were farther away, all the water would freeze, and if it were closer, all the water would evaporate.

“Then there is Earth’s magnetic field, which protects the planet from the solar wind and prevents its atmosphere from being stripped away. Mars lacks such a magnetic field, and as a result, the solar wind has stripped away much of its atmosphere, leaving it unable to support and develop life on its surface.

“Earth’s precise distance from the Sun, together with countless other factors that made human life possible, all point to a purpose behind this system. And a system with a purpose requires a purposeful creator and an intelligent designer.”

The Skeptic said, “Your argument depends on one thing. You assume that there is clearly and unquestionably an intelligent ‘purpose,’ and then you conclude that there must be a ‘purposeful creator.’ Since you claim that this purpose is obvious and that you have no doubt about recognizing it, I want you to tell me exactly what you believe the purpose of creation is. I expect you to describe it clearly and without ambiguity. If you can’t, then the central pillar of your argument is unclear even to you.

“I say that everything in this universe exists today and may be gone tomorrow, so I see no reason to call any of these things the purpose of creation. Of all the things that come and go, which one do you consider the purpose, and why? Tell me exactly what you think the purpose of creation is. Which of the things that exist in this universe have you identified as that purpose? Please name something that both you and I can see. Otherwise, your argument won’t be a proof.”

The Believer said, “The way you put it—‘name something that both you and I can see’—I suppose you wouldn’t accept it if I said that the purpose of creation is to produce a being capable of reaching the truth. You would ask, ‘How do you know that anyone has reached the truth?’ You’d say that different people, groups, and religions have different ideas of what the truth is, and that we don’t even know whether anyone has actually reached it.”

“Exactly! ... In fact, if that is your claim, or if you name anything metaphysical—salvation, heaven, closeness to God, and so on—as the purpose of creation, then your argument works only for you. First you imagine that you, or someone you know, has been saved, has reached the truth, will go to heaven, or has become close to God. Then you or that person becomes the purpose of creation, and in this way you prove God’s existence through your own personal belief—a belief whose truth you cannot demonstrate to me.

“You can’t claim to have a proof when it rests on a completely personal claim that you cannot prove.”

The Believer asked, “What if I say that ‘the creation of a being capable of reaching the truth’ is the purpose of creation? Would you accept that?”

“Whatever you mean by truth, whether physical or metaphysical, the problem remains the same unless you can first prove that truth to someone and then prove that someone has reached it, or will reach it in the future.

“Besides, suppose we take something that isn’t metaphysical at all. Suppose the statement ‘white light is made up of different colors’ is an absolute truth, and both of us agree that it is true, and many people have come to know this truth. Why should that make it the purpose of creation?

“Today, you and I believe that some of the things we know are absolute truths—and perhaps we are right. A few years from now, we may develop dementia, lose brain cells, and forget everything we know, or think we know. Then eventually we will die and disappear as well. Why should we think that having ‘a belief that we know something,’ even if that belief perfectly matches reality, is the purpose of creation? How can you prove that having such knowledge, even if it perfectly matches reality, is the purpose of creation? Today, a correct understanding of reality forms in my mind. Tomorrow, dementia or death destroys it. Why should the existence of that understanding in one limited mind for a limited time be the purpose of creation?

“Why not look at it another way? Those same mutations may have given us the useful ability to understand our surroundings and the world with reasonable—or even complete—accuracy. Besides helping us survive and reproduce, that ability has also allowed us to understand things that go beyond our immediate needs for survival. But if the same mechanism that allows us to understand our surroundings also allows us to understand more complex scientific questions, why assume that this is ‘something special,’ beyond what mindless nature can produce, and therefore requires some ‘unseen hand’ behind it? Why not simply see it as one of the results of evolution?

“When I see that the very same physical laws that produce life and allow it to evolve also destroy life, drive species to extinction, produce babies with serious physical or mental disabilities, and cause our organs, senses, and brains to deteriorate, why should I accept that some temporary moment in the middle of all these processes is the purpose of creation? Why should I think that the moment when one creature manages to understand one truth about the universe is the purpose of creation? That moment is produced by the exact workings of the laws of physics, and those same laws will eventually destroy it.

“If we insist on giving creation a purpose, it seems that the only candidate would be the exact and consistent operation of the laws of physics. From the beginning until now, that is the only thing that has always continued. Every ‘equilibrium’—or what you call ‘order’—produced by those laws has been temporary. So we cannot confidently call any of them the ‘final purpose of creation.’

“At best, you could call something the purpose of creation if the creation of the universe actually achieved it and the universe never ceased to fulfill it—just as a watch tells time from the moment it is made. Imagine a machine that constantly displays numbers, and every once in a while those numbers happen to show the correct time. You couldn’t say that the purpose of the machine is to tell time. In the same way, over billions of years, some relatively intelligent creatures have sometimes had beliefs that match some truths. We cannot confidently say that this is the purpose of creation.

“The machinery of the universe has never shown us which of its products it is actually meant to produce. All we know is that whatever raw material it is given—whether matter or energy—it processes it in such a way that the result follows the laws of physics. And those laws are themselves part of the structure of the machine. In other words, the machine does nothing but follow its own structure.

“The only thing that has continued without interruption from the beginning until now is the exact and exceptionless operation of the laws of physics. Everything else has simply come and gone. We have no clear standard by which we can say that one of those temporary things is superior or more important than the others and therefore certainly deserves to be called the ‘purpose of creation’—certainly enough, at least, to serve as the basis of a proof.”

The Believer said, “But you still haven’t answered my question. How could all these extraordinary conditions come together to produce those moments that you call ‘temporary,’ but I call ‘magnificent’? I mean things like Earth’s remarkable distance from the Sun.”

The Skeptic asked, “Do you mean that everything you’ve mentioned—and much more, in fact all the conditions necessary for life on a planet—is impossible to arise by chance? Do you believe that these conditions definitely require divine intervention? And when I say ‘impossible,’ I mean impossible in the literal sense of the word.”

“The probability is so low that we can consider it impossible.”

“There is a huge difference between ‘very unlikely’ and ‘impossible.’ You cannot use the first in a proof, but you can use the second.

“There are about 200 billion stars in the Milky Way, many of which may have planets. And there are about 200 billion1 galaxies in the observable universe. With so many galaxies, so many stars in each galaxy, and the countless planets that may exist around them, there is a good chance that rocky planets like Earth, capable of supporting life, will exist.

“Imagine that you are looking at such a universe from the outside. You calculate that among hundreds of billions of billions of stars and planets, over more than thirteen billion years, the mathematics suggests that perhaps only one planet would develop the conditions needed for life to arise and eventually produce intelligent creatures like human beings—creatures capable of asking why they exist.

“Obviously, if you then discovered that such a planet actually existed, you wouldn’t be surprised at all, because your own calculations had already shown that its existence was possible. The intelligent creatures living on that planet, however, might initially be amazed by their own existence because they don’t see other planets around them supporting intelligent life.

“The point is that as long as an event has some chance of happening, its occurrence is neither strange nor impossible in a way that forces us to appeal to an unseen hand to explain it.

“Only the occurrence of something truly impossible would require us to bring the hand of an intelligent being into our explanation. Have you ever calculated and shown that a planet at the right distance from its star, with a magnetic field and dozens of other necessary features—in short, a life-supporting planet like Earth—is impossible?

“Is your amazement at Earth’s existence a proof of God? Is amazement an argument, or simply a psychological response that comes from not fully understanding the scientific facts and probabilities behind what has happened? Being amazed by the eye, the kidneys, the liver, the relatively intelligent human brain, and things like them is not a proof. If you can logically demonstrate that the existence of all these things is impossible without an intelligent creator, then their existence can serve as an argument for such a creator.

“So I’ll ask again: have you done any calculation showing that the probability of a planet like Earth existing is zero? Have you done any scientific calculation showing that the probability of evolution continuing until it produces a not-so-intelligent creature like a human being is zero?”

The Soul

The Believer said, “No. I haven’t done any scientific calculation showing that the probability of a life-supporting planet like Earth is absolutely zero. But when it comes to the existence of a being like a human—one that has a soul and possesses the highest level of understanding—I can say with confidence that such a being cannot arise from lifeless matter.

“Remember, a human being is not merely intelligent. A human also has a non-material part: the soul. Its existence cannot be denied. The soul cannot be made of matter. It is a single, indivisible entity, while the material human body can be divided and consists of separate parts. Such a being is clearly the purpose of creation because it is more than a material creature with purely material qualities. It is a combination of matter and something non-material. To explain the existence of such a combination, we must turn to a purposeful creator.

“Let’s suppose that changes in matter—or evolution, as you call it—could eventually produce a creature as complex as a human being. Why, at that particular point in evolution, would this material creature become joined with a non-material entity and turn into a human being with a soul?

“Can’t we say, on the basis of logic, that this final step—the soul entering the human body—is absolutely impossible unless an intelligent and powerful hand is involved, a hand with a specific purpose in creating this combination?”

The Skeptic replied, “The fact that you’re no longer talking about order and the need for a purposeful designer is a positive sign as far as I’m concerned. It means you’re no longer pursuing the Argument from Design. Now you’re simply arguing that a combination of matter and non-matter would be impossible.

“Very well. I think we should continue this discussion here next week. I have some questions for you about the soul, and I think answering them will take quite a while.”

“I agree... We can’t stay here much longer anyway... It looks like they’re about to close2... And I think I can already guess what your questions will be.”