Is the IBDP really Open-Minded?

[Fredrik Lingås]

Lately I have been asking myself whether the IBDP is as open-minded as I first thought. What I find difficult to understand is that neither religion nor faith has a part in the syllabus. With cultural understanding as a core of my English Literature and Language I have had the possibility to get knowledge about how people think in other cultures, and how my way of perceiving might be different from yours. I do believe religion as a subject would allow me to do the same.

The issue and reason that I made this thread in the first place is following: By the current fundamental theorems within science we are not able to explain how the universe was created. We do not yet understand how something can be outside time and place (as in never created, always existed), nor do we understand how something comes from nothing (Dawkins tried to explain this in one of his books, but failed terribly by ignoring facts about a quantum mechanic vacuum and logic itself). Since we do not understand how the universe was created, how can the IB, who claims to be open-minded, say that science has a better explanation than religion? Obviosly, the IB doesn't put it that way. However, they do include a lot of science in the syllabus while religion is not even a part of it.

Don't get me wrong. I am not a closed-minded student who claims science is ridiculous while religion is the only answer. I just wonder why we the syllabus does not contain a combination of those, at least for the sake of understanding Buddhists, Muslims, Christians and Jews and their world view.

Long story made short: Is it possible to have an open-minded educational system while saying religion is not an area of knowledge?


- Try to be as open-minded and objective as possible When it comes to religion I would love to discuss that, howevern not in this particular thread. Feel free to PM me about that!

Cheers from Norway,
Fredrik Lingås

Edited June 3, 2013 by Fredrik Lingås

[Sandwich]

In my opinion, religion is a personal thing and it's not a piece of knowledge, it's just a personal belief. The explanations for science are universal, they're not just in my head or your head. Even the theories which are on a more rocky footing (the Big Bang, for instance) are proposed on the basis of universal evidence which may or may not stack up but at least it's actual physical evidence that nobody can disagree with. Who knows if the Big Bang actually occurred as said, but nobody can argue that there's not Red Shift, for instance. So I think that science has a place in the sense that it teaches you universal things and also how to be critical of those things and see how they match together to make up your own mind and perhaps (who knows!) even go on to prove it one way or the other some day

Religion is an area of 'faith', it's not an area of knowledge. It's not something universal we can all agree on and talk about, it's something which you believe in your head but that's the sum total of it.

Although apparently they're putting faith in as one of the ways of knowing for future people taking TOK which in my opinion is a travesty because it somewhat undermines the definition of 'knowledge', but whatever. I don't personally think that religion has any place in any education system except for to learn about the way other people do things (which can be useful in life to know which people wear what they wear, do what they do, eat what they eat etc.) - and to be honest that's more or less the same thing as appreciating other cultures which are often highly informed by religious beliefs. If you want to learn more about your religion, go to the mosque/church/synagogue/place of worship and I'm sure they'll teach you, but it's a personal quest. That's my opinion, anyway.

[Luka Petrovic]

Its a very narrow and specific topic, best left for university. You can take courses in religious studies or even go to schools that only do religious studies!
Its not a pre-requisent for any courses. but courses like english are when you apply to university. Therefore high school is just preparing you with the basic skills for the real knowledge collecting, study it to your hearts content.

As well its not completely omitted from the syllabus. Its not like you can only whisper "Christ" or "Allah." Topics of theology were constantly coming up in my TOK and English classes. When you look at different philosopher's and themes in books, religions often becomes an important discussion. In TOK you truly can challenge your knowledge and faith, study others, and the inner workings of religion.

It really is there. IB is not meant to give you a theological education but a well-rounded one. So a course in the Old testament or in Aramaic doesn't really fit into that equation, though it would be cool...

[Fredrik Lingås]

I understand your point of view, and I see the logic in how you differ between evidence-based knowledge and religion in form of faith and beliefs. You are saying that religion is a personal thing and not a piece of knowledge, to which my answer is: "fair enough, I see your point". However, that leads me to questioning ethics as an area of knowledge..?"

Say there is no God, and that religion is merely a personal belief with no value in terms of knowledge. Say there is no absolute, no higher power than mankind. How can we say there are moral laws and rules, that there are absolute truths. How can we honestly say murder, rape, slavery and racism is wrong? (Don't get me wrong here, I support none of this, these are merely examples.) Richard Dawkins stated all of our actions are a result of mankind dancing to the music of our DNA. Our actions are pre-destined, we have no free will. What we do are purely based on our past experiences. If it is so, then how can you blame someone for their actions?

When it comes to why I think religion should be part of the syllabus it is not to replace the scientific explanations of how the world was created. The "Big Bang" is fine with me. The reason I think religion is important in school is that without an absolute we have nothing of which we can measure value. Without perfect there can not be imperfect. Without good there can not be evil. Without right there can not be wrong. Now if it is this way, then surely ethics has nothing to do in the areas of knowledge.

Some people say we are merely dust, that we are all a bunch of DNA, just atom. Now if this is the truth (actually, without an absolute there is no truth - but say it is), then that makes it even harder for me to see why murder, rape, abuse, slavery, racism (this list is endless) is wrong. We kill and eat animals. Animals kill and eat each other. Why can't Bob kill and eat Carl (I am sorry Carl, no offense!)? And if there is no meaning to life, where do all these questions of meaning come from? Animals don't seem to worry about meaning?

Edited June 3, 2013 by Fredrik Lingås

[Sandwich]

I agree with you that ethics isn't exactly a shining example of an area of knowledge either. Alas, I did not design the TOK diagram! However, ethics as an area of knowledge is as much about ethical theory (or SUPPOSED to be about ethical theory, anyway...) as anything else. Religious ethics do have their own sort-of uninteresting ethical approach to the whole thing (in summary: if this book I like says yes then do it, if the book says no then don't do it) but there are lots of other ethical theories such as utilitarianism, Kant's own little moral imperative system, pursuit of ideal virtues in the Platonic manner and so on. Knowledge of ethical theories and different ethical approaches is a universal thing, even if agreeing with them isn't.

The discussion of perfection versus imperfection is an argument which has been put forward many times over the centuries. The main challenge to that statement, classically, is the Euthyphro question: is something good because god says so, or does god say it because it is good? Essentially, if you need an absolute enforcer of power in order to say that rape, for instance, is wrong then you either have to say that rape is wrong ONLY because god says so - or say that actually, you know what, I would feel rape is wrong regardless of whether I knew god had said it or not. The question is why? A god isn't the only answer to absolute morals. Some might argue that absolute morals don't exist, of course, so that's another view of things. There are lots of lines of argument you can take on the subject, but a decent one which I personally think is pretty legitimate is just to do with ourselves. We highly prize and desire our own autonomy so somebody compromising that by force is wrong to us - and as we live in a big social group, it has become wrong to all of us in order that we can all rub along with each other. Without boundaries of social respect, we wouldn't function as a group, and it's ingrained in us (some might argue to the extent that we even created religion such that we'd have some compelling reason to unite all of these rules!). But I suppose this is where the thinking brain kicks in

Personally I think you're a bit hung up on the idea of needing an absolute (which I don't think we necessarily do - all we need is general agreement!) and of course of the idea that any absolute or agreement must come from religion. If you challenge yourself about how you'd feel regarding particular absolutes (such as rape or slavery - which if you look at history have been more products of social and cultural influences, I would argue, because they existed as acceptable things for long periods of time, even within very religious societies), I think even if you removed god from the equation you'd find that people still feel those things. People who aren't religious certainly don't suffer from moral breakdowns or find themselves incapable of telling right from wrong. They also don't suffer from lack of exposure to 'perfection'.

As for the meaning in life, I don't think that's any less of a personal quest than religion is! The IB isn't there to teach us the meaning in life, even if we knew what the hell it was. As for where it comes from, that's a whole discussion in itself.

[Guest Positron]

Previous posters have already answered many of your questions so I won't go into those any more. But I would like to point out that the assumption on which this discussion is based is false; there is a subject called World Religions in IB. That, of course, isn't a course where they say "God created the world etc.", but introduce students to different religions.

"In the context of the mission statement of the IB it is most appropriate to study a number of living world

religions in a scholarly, open-minded and objective way"

http://www.ibo.org/diploma/assessment/subjectoutlines/documents/d_3_wldre_gui-out_1105_1_e.pdf

Edited June 3, 2013 by Positron

[Fredrik Lingås]

An agreement is everything we need to make the world go around, that I agree upon. Of course, I myself would not like to get raped, killed, abused or discriminated against any more than anyone else. Still, there are exceptions and groups of people who think differently. In India ten million female babies have been killed for the sake of being female. During the 2nd World War millions of Jews (++) were killed, and throughout history the white man has slaughtered the black man for the sake of land. Myself I believe this is terrible, though Hitler did not. Obviously someone in Japan thought this was the right thing to do, and I assume the white man did not think twice when invading Africa, et cetera.

I am not saying that atheists are unable to have morality. Reading the BIble, which is what I believe in as the word of God, it says all men are created equal. Hence all men know the difference between right and wrong, according to God as the ultimate, the perfect.


That being said, you have already answered my question, and we both agree it is strange that ethics is looked upon as a way of knowing when religion is not (though you think none of them should be, while I think both should). Making this a discussion about religion was not the intention, and we might leave it here if you wish so. If not I'd be glad to discuss further

Previous posters have already answered many of your questions so I won't go into those any more. But I would like to point out that the assumption on which this discussion is based is false; there is a subject called World Religions in IB. That, of course, isn't a course where they say "God created the world etc.", but introduce students to different religions.

"In the context of the mission statement of the IB it is most appropriate to study a number of living world
religions in a scholarly, open-minded and objective way"

http://www.ibo.org/diploma/assessment/subjectoutlines/documents/d_3_wldre_gui-out_1105_1_e.pdf

That is clearing things up! Thanks.

Sadly they do not offer this at my school, but at least it is out there. Edited June 4, 2013 by Gaby
Please, don't post twice in a row

[Ezak]

Talking about absolute morality doesn't really solve anything, how would you know the morality you subscribe to is the right one, and what does it make you if you subscribe to any other than the absolute? What makes this absolute?

Faith is not knowledge as it by definition is beliving in something without evidence, you are free to do so, but don't force it upon others to accept faith as an equally valid base for knowledge for open- mindness sake. Your first post reeks of God-Of-The-Gaps.

[Fredrik Lingås]

Talking about absolute morality doesn't really solve anything, how would you know the morality you subscribe to is the right one, and what does it make you if you subscribe to any other than the absolute?

Exacly. The ultimate questions of morality can not be answered without an absolute point of reference. Hence there is no absolute morality, or there is an absolute point of reference.

My point is not to force religion upon others. That being said, I find it strange that most of us so easily believe most of what we hear as long as it is "science", whereas anything stamped as religion is ignored or ridiculed. We are thinking science is the answer to everything, and I am not going to say this is wrong. Still, humanity have been wrong before, and we will be again (our current fundamental theorems within science tell us energy can not appear). As a matter of fact, something has always existed or appeared from nothing, and this is beyond our understanding no matter what.

There are things in which science is not a tool to explain, though I am going to keep my promise and won't make this a thread of theology. My question is already answered, and if anything I'll just encourage people to think twice before laughing in the face of a book of which content only have been studied outside its actual context.

[100%Workaholic]

I do agree with your point about IB not really embracing religion, but it is a highly combative topic along with evolution. The one time I was in a class that seriously discussed evolution, it got nasty and became a debate/shouting match instead of a Socratic seminar. Discussions about religion, are avoided even in casual conversation at my school. People either believe in evolution or in their specific religion. There is no meeting point between the two, so I can understand my teachers avoiding religion as a discussion topic. However having said that, I know we covered the basic world religions in World Studies my sophomore year. We studied Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism, we even briefly talked about Confucius. But it was very brief and not very informative, apart from Islam, as my class had a lot of misconceptions about the religion. I do feel it would be good to have a class that talked about religions. But what about cultures as a whole? I am very bummed out about HOA, it is strictly about America, although we do comparisons to Canada and Latin America. I feel that if there should be a class on religions, there should also be a class about cultures. If IB is international shouldn't we also be taught about other countries? Especially in America! Most of the people my age don't even know there is a war in Somalia!

[Fredrik Lingås]

I do agree with your point about IB not really embracing religion, but it is a highly combative topic along with evolution. The one time I was in a class that seriously discussed evolution, it got nasty and became a debate/shouting match instead of a Socratic seminar. Discussions about religion, are avoided even in casual conversation at my school. People either believe in evolution or in their specific religion. There is no meeting point between the two, so I can understand my teachers avoiding religion as a discussion topic. However having said that, I know we covered the basic world religions in World Studies my sophomore year. We studied Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism, we even briefly talked about Confucius. But it was very brief and not very informative, apart from Islam, as my class had a lot of misconceptions about the religion. I do feel it would be good to have a class that talked about religions. But what about cultures as a whole? I am very bummed out about HOA, it is strictly about America, although we do comparisons to Canada and Latin America. I feel that if there should be a class on religions, there should also be a class about cultures. If IB is international shouldn't we also be taught about other countries? Especially in America! Most of the people my age don't even know there is a war in Somalia!

I totally agree!