In this post, I will continue my response to Amanda O and incorporate some photos from a recent trip we took to Aunt Mary’s farm (the Findlay Family Farm, as I call it, where my mother was born and reared). I’ll address the following portion of Amanda’s thought-provoking, recent comments:
Regarding Mr. Hodge’s claim “the United States’ system of national popular education will be the most efficient and wide instrument for the propagation of atheism which the world has ever seen”, I doubt this. Atheism is very rare in our country and, as best as I can tell, it is very unnatural. Most people want a transcendent explanation of our world. I haven’t looked it up, but I would bet Atheism is very rare globally for exactly this reason. Instead, I think Mr. Hodge’s statement would be far more potentially accurate if he simply substituted the word “secularism” for “atheism”.
When I first read Dr. Hodge’s statement, and then in its context, I wondered the same thing. Would “secularism” be a better term for him to employ? With further reading and thought, I realized, not so. Changing the word “atheism” to “secularism” would not accurately clarify his thought.
Paul, picking apples at the Findlay Family Farm last week.
Why? First, in this context, it would be redundant or circular. Earlier in your comment (note previous post) you had quoted more of Dr. Hodge’s statement: “I am … sure … that a comprehensive and centralized system of national education, separated from religion… will prove the most appalling enginery for the propagation of … atheistic unbelief.”
Dr. Hodge’s description of public education as “separated from religion” concisely defines secularism: to separate from religion is to secularize. His point was not to say that secularism will produce more secularism.
He meant that secularism leads to atheism — especially when it is made into a comprehensive, nationally centralized system of education.
The question then arises, is this so?
Journey North Character 