Does Education dull your senses of right and wrong?

[Stan]

This was an interesting question I over heard 'Does Education dull your senses of right and wrong?"

Adventism does have or did have, the highest averaged educated pew sitters.

[Bravus]

It might lead to more understanding of shades of grey, which is brighter than black and duller than white.

[Tom Wetmore]

Indeed, Gandalf the Grey - "The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all turns to silver glass, and then you see it."

That time is yet in the future... So until then life is shades of grey.

[Flyboy]

This is the kind of question that would be asked by less educated people because they already agree with it, and by educated people because they simply want something to debate. But in either case it is a question that shows how simply people think about both right and wrong as well as education. This question is not one dimensional, rather it is at least two dimensional.

I think it is age and experience that has to do with a "dulling" of one's sense of right and wrong, not education. But I would also argue that this cuts both ways. Some people do, in fact, become dulled to right and wrong while others become more highly sensitive to it and how to define it. Some things are black and white, others are not. This is true for the educated and uneducated. I've met very educated people who are surprisingly unwilling to consider all aspects of a problem before making up their minds.

What education does do is to train, or try to train, the student to consider all possibilities. This means attempting to discern the finer points. The devil is in the details and this can mean hell to pay for the person who does not look closely enough OR for the person who looks too closely and tries to lawyer a problem until it fits into what they want. So, perhaps the question really *should* be, "does the lack of education not properly suit a person to make decisions about right and wrong?" Of course I don't agree that this is true, but some would argue otherwise.

Bottom line is that culture, age, experience, and one's peers have more of an impact on one's moral values than does one's length of education. For Americans this is, I think, a question that is particularly relevant because the American culture is very centric in nearly every way. Religiously, culturally, financially, politically, etc., Americans find themselves, and believe themselves to be the benchmark for nearly everything. For much of the world this is true, America is the benchmark. Yet because of this clear-cut status, which American culture has bred into it's citizens, there is, I would argue, also a tendency to be very clear-cut on other issues, such as moral values. The rest of the world does not, unfortunately, have the luxury of having been raised in a culture where things are so clear. Hard decisions must be made on a daily basis in most countries in the world.

The point being.... that what some people (including many from western cultures) would see as clear-cut, others would consider more carefully. It's not for nothing that Americans have a reputation as cowboys in the rest of the world. This can be good and bad. But which is it, good or bad? Depends on how much education you have I guess! :)

[Gerr]

True education ought to make its students' senses more acute to the differences between right and wrong, including the grey areas. Since the farther along in education those that go to the secular schools have, the less they believe in God or in absolute right and wrong, then, yes, there is an education that dulls the senses to right and wrong.

[phkrause]

True education ought to make its students' senses more acute to the differences between right and wrong, including the grey areas. Since the farther along in education those that go to the secular schools have, the less they believe in God or in absolute right and wrong, then, yes, there is an education that dulls the senses to right and wrong.

[Igakusei]

True education ought to make its students' senses more acute to the differences between right and wrong, including the grey areas. Since the farther along in education those that go to the secular schools have, the less they believe in God or in absolute right and wrong, then, yes, there is an education that dulls the senses to right and wrong.

This is logically sound, provided your assumptions are true.

[Flyboy]

Since the farther along in education those that go to the secular schools have, the less they believe in God or in absolute right and wrong, then, yes, there is an education that dulls the senses to right and wrong.

Not logically sound at all! This suggests, basically, that all Adventists who go to graduate school (except for educators, pastors, or health professionals, since that is about the only grad programs SDA schools widely offer) don't know the difference between right or wrong.

The statement also suggests that the SDA schools are protectors of "truth" as it is currently understood, an issue that is itself debatable. Is there a difference between, say, LSU and SAU? I would guess that you would answer "yes" to this question.

What is logical, imho, is this. SDA students, whether at SDA schools or not, have something to prove because the SDA culture is one that teaches that its beliefs are under assault by other Christian churches and thus the focus is on protecting Adventist doctrine rather than protecting Christ, so to speak. Thus these students can more easily be viewed as less logical, dogmatic even. non-SDA students have nothing to prove and thus are more open to the "truth". How can a student who is busy defending the truth truly take time to discern whether what he is defending is truly the truth in the first place?

Let me make a counter-statement, one that is based, perhaps, on an equally faulty assumption but none-the-less may stimulate thinking.... SDA schools do not teach students to think, instead they simply perpetuate the acceptance of views which they do not completely understand and where, if the beliefs are questioned too deeply, they are scolded or made the subject of prayer meetings on Wednesday evening. Because of this the student at an SDA school is less able to discern between right and wrong because he/she was never taught to question deeply.

For the record, I DO think that SDA schools probably teach students to think, but the statement is one which demonstrates the equally faulty assumptions about secular schools. It is that kind of statement that makes people SDA and think that they are, on the whole, not terribly discerning, nor concerned about being discerning. Only of defending what they have been taught. Is this a product of SDA education or of the SDA tendency to defend itself (doctrine and institutions) without close examination? Or both?

[aldona]

Quote:

'Does Education dull your senses of right and wrong?"

No more or less than ignorance does...

[doug yowell]

Would that include getting a PHD in Gay Studies from Harvard? Or watching the latest human sexuality demonstration at Northwestern Univ.?

[Igakusei]

Not logically sound at all! This suggests, basically, that all Adventists who go to graduate school (except for educators, pastors, or health professionals, since that is about the only grad programs SDA schools widely offer) don't know the difference between right or wrong.

The statement also suggests that the SDA schools are protectors of "truth" as it is currently understood, an issue that is itself debatable. Is there a difference between, say, LSU and SAU? I would guess that you would answer "yes" to this question.

What is logical, imho, is this. SDA students, whether at SDA schools or not, have something to prove because the SDA culture is one that teaches that its beliefs are under assault by other Christian churches and thus the focus is on protecting Adventist doctrine rather than protecting Christ, so to speak. Thus these students can more easily be viewed as less logical, dogmatic even. non-SDA students have nothing to prove and thus are more open to the "truth". How can a student who is busy defending the truth truly take time to discern whether what he is defending is truly the truth in the first place?

Let me make a counter-statement, one that is based, perhaps, on an equally faulty assumption but none-the-less may stimulate thinking.... SDA schools do not teach students to think, instead they simply perpetuate the acceptance of views which they do not completely understand and where, if the beliefs are questioned too deeply, they are scolded or made the subject of prayer meetings on Wednesday evening. Because of this the student at an SDA school is less able to discern between right and wrong because he/she was never taught to question deeply.

For the record, I DO think that SDA schools probably teach students to think, but the statement is one which demonstrates the equally faulty assumptions about secular schools. It is that kind of statement that makes people SDA and think that they are, on the whole, not terribly discerning, nor concerned about being discerning. Only of defending what they have been taught. Is this a product of SDA education or of the SDA tendency to defend itself (doctrine and institutions) without close examination? Or both?

I agree with you, although I expect that I probably take your line of thought farther than you do. I said that his logic was consistent because I interpreted his statement to apply a statistical relationship between education and less acceptance of an absolute right and wrong. This is true, of course, but I would argue that his obvious assumptions about there actually being absolute rights and wrongs (and even more, his particular views of them) are significantly less defensible.

[Bravus]

Education might help to protect you from over-generalizing from outliers.

[Gerr]

I wonder if the 10 commandments are ever mentioned in Yale or Harvard.

[Igakusei]

Both Harvard and Yale offer Doctor of Divinity degrees, so I expect so.

Or wasn't that what you meant?

[Bravus]

I wonder if the 10 commandments are ever mentioned in Yale or Harvard.

Yep: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/2324/

[Flyboy]

Igakusei, I agree with you. Less educated people do see absolutes more quickly. And really there is nothing wrong with that as long as their beliefs do not carry over into judging others. If someone wants to practice religion in one way, and I in another, then I see no harm. After all, God is God.... his umbrella is big. None of us can put him in a box and pretend to understand how He thinks. When it comes down to it the answer to just about ALL of life's problems is found in I Corinthians 13, and also in Jesus words about loving your neighbor before yourself. If we had more love, then being right wouldn't be so important.

As for Harvard and Yale offering divinity programs, it might interest you to know that many of the earliest missionaries to China were graduates of Yale divinity programs. Yale was so involved in missionary work in China before the communist takeover in 1949 that there was a "Yale-in-China". It was a great school. As for Harvard, they were very involved in supporting, and offering programs in conjunction with, a missionary school called Yenching University. Harvard left after 1949 but Yenching became the University of Beijing and is today the best university in China.

Many denominations did not, at that point, have strong theology programs of their own and so a fair number went to the ivies or other prestigious small schools, like Davidson or William and Mary. In fact, other subject area departments of these schools were founded by people with missionary backgrounds, particularly with the social sciences. Cornell offered several programs specifically for missionaries, and when the missionaries came back home the ivies recruited them to head up departments such as rural education, history, language, etc.

So yes, there is a very deep connection between American institutions of higher learning and religion/missions. Today that is overshadowed by the desire for these institutions to offer a wider selection of academic choices, i.e., Gay studies and Human Sexuality (as mentioned by a previous poster), to the dismay of some Christians. While there is a need for humans to understand themselves, even the things just mentioned, I think we'd all agree that there should be limits to how far we should go in seeking that understanding. If you think we don't need to understand homosexuality, and the culture around it, try having someone come to you for advice who is gay and who doesn't understand it himself and wants you to explain it to him! Then you will feel an immediate need to have a better grasp on something other than "I'll pray for you brother!" Given these programs often condone lifestyles that Christians don't want to condone, and so from a Christian standpoint the approach is completely wrong. Where are the limits to engaging this material... that's where we'd have a harder time finding agreement. But ultimately we must seek to understand each other, not judge each other.

That's my opinion anyway.

[Gerr]

Both Harvard and Yale offer Doctor of Divinity degrees, so I expect so.

Or wasn't that what you meant?

It is possible/probable that their divinity students hear/are taught about the 10c, but how about the rest of the student body? Besides, from what I have read, many if not most of these school of divinity graduates from what is really a secular school, are indeed well-versed in the theological works of other men, but are very ignorant of what the Bible really says.

[Bravus]

See the paper I linked, from the Yale law school. If I had time I'm sure I could find dozens more.

[Igakusei]

It is possible/probable that their divinity students hear/are taught about the 10c, but how about the rest of the student body? Besides, from what I have read, many if not most of these school of divinity graduates from what is really a secular school, are indeed well-versed in the theological works of other men, but are very ignorant of what the Bible really says.

This is only your opinion, of course.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted By: Igakusei

Both Harvard and Yale offer Doctor of Divinity degrees, so I expect so.

Or wasn't that what you meant?

It is possible/probable that their divinity students hear/are taught about the 10c, but how about the rest of the student body? Besides, from what I have read, many if not most of these school of divinity graduates from what is really a secular school, are indeed well-versed in the theological works of other men, but are very ignorant of what the Bible really says.

MDiv programs are really pretty standard. Usually you take between 90-120 credits of theology courses, three to four times the normal amount of work that a MA would require, and well over what a PhD requires. Further, Yale and Harvard divinity schools probably have few, if any, courses based on the writings of non-canonized authors. I would suspect that the SDA seminary, on the other hand, does. I'd be surprised if they didn't require a subject on the History of the Adventist Church, which would certainly focus on the writings of the church founders.

But I understand the sentiment that these Divinity programs at secular schools could be lacking the deep spiritual commitment of church operated schools. I don't know for sure about judging the programs, but I am hesitant to judge the students themselves of such programs? Why would they choose to study at a school that is not a quality program, one that will not give them deep theological understanding? I'd guess probably they wouldn't.

[Stan]

am thinking... real education.. sharpen skills...

[Stan]

and real education is not to be confused with schoolin'

[aldona]

Quote:

Yale and Harvard divinity schools probably have few, if any, courses based on the writings of non-canonized authors. I would suspect that the SDA seminary, on the other hand, does.

What about the writings of E.G. White? Last time I checked, her writings were not included in the biblical canon.

Unless some resolution was passed at the last General Conference that I know nothing about.

AJ

[Igakusei]

Quote:

Yale and Harvard divinity schools probably have few, if any, courses based on the writings of non-canonized authors. I would suspect that the SDA seminary, on the other hand, does.

What about the writings of E.G. White? Last time I checked, her writings were not included in the biblical canon.

Unless some resolution was passed at the last General Conference that I know nothing about.

AJ

I'm not sure what you're getting at. He was implying that the SDA seminary probably does include writings by EGW. It was brought up in response to the "theology of men" idea condescendingly put forward by Gerry.

[Flyboy]

My point is that we should be careful how we choose our words because while we may suggest that other religious groups falsely raise up the writings of other men (and women), SDA's certainly are subject to the same.

We should not be so quick to judge, people or institutions (whether schools or churches).

Stan said it best. Real education sharpens skills, which is not to be confused with schoolin'. Anyone who spent anytime in school almost certainly knew someone who had lots of book smarts but no common sense. We also likely knew/know plenty of people who are have natural common sense. This is not inherent to any religious group and has no regard for religious affiliation.

This kind of debate is, in my opinion, started by people who look down on educated people who they may see as trying to spit in the holy water. The fact is that all groups need each other and this kind of debate (if done in the spirit of anger rather than as a truth seeker) is destructive. Imagine educated people as a kite, flying around in the sky looking for new winds, new currents, higher truth. Imagine the person on the ground holding the string to the ground, keeping things under control. Both are attached to the string, to each other. Both need each other. The church without educated people would become stagnant and die. The church with too many highly schooled people may quickly lose touch with reality. We need each other, plain and simple. The key is that we work together with open minds.... only then will the lightning bolt of further truth strike the proverbial key on our string.