I'm surprised and more than a little disappointed. Of course, in your first paragraph you state that religion is not the primary reason you homeschool (I'm looking forward to the rest of the series) but your arguments here I found more than a little bit troubling.

The idea that it is impossible to teach even matter-of-fact subjects like mathematics, the physical sciences, or history without implicitly teaching religion strikes me as, well, something a "nutter" would say. If the bible doesn't comment on a subject, what is there really for a Christian to add? Any editorializing without biblical justification implies the commenter has received some sort of special revelation, which should strike you as heresy. You seem to want to take the mystery out of reconciling the spiritual with the physical for your children, which seems to me like just the kind of mind-control that secular people would flippantly presume is the primary motive for homeschooling.

Your arguments seem to be based in part on the simplistic and tired idea that right and wrong do not exist without a man-in-the-sky to define the dichotomy. The agnostics and atheists I work with are at least as moral as most evangelicals I know, at least so far as concerns behavior that impacts others (i.e., not considering recreational drug use or other activities defined as "wrong" only in the incredibly narrow context of the last century of American culture).

Of course there are still plenty of good reasons for homeschooling, probably the first of which is American public schools being little more than soul-crushing warehouses concerned more with their own existence than actual education. But I think you're off the mark here.

Fun Hobby:

"the simplistic and tired idea that right and wrong do not exist without a man-in-the-sky to define the dichotomy." heh. now try and pin down mr anonymous' definition of "right and wrong." it's one thing to say one can easily define the concepts in a relativistic fashion, quite another to formulate the definitions.

I, being a math guy, can maintain that maths and science can be pretty straightforwardly taught without appeal to deeper philosophical underpinnings, at least for younger, pre-high school kids. Sooner or later, though, the motivation to study science at all -- and the hope that laws can be formulated -- will have to be revealed: and it is a largely monotheistic motivation. Sorry, atheists, but you came late to the scientific party.

I would ask you to consider this (as I teach at a nondenominational, secular private school, the atmosphere is much like public school, although not so religiously repressive): the allegedly benign *lack* or study of theological and religious concerns, and the *lack* of allowance in mentioning such things, in any context, in any course, is itself a statement on the nature of existence. The secular humanists would like to pretend that ignoring God and things sacred is a neutral stance. But it is not.

This is part of what makes schools "soul-crushing warehouses," actually.

I was somewhat concerned that I wouldn't be able to convey exactly why I say "education is inherently religious" in such a short piece, and perhaps my concerns were warranted.

Let me start by saying that I initially listed "mathematics" instead of "typing" as my example of a subject that it not noticeably impacted by religious presuppositions. I changed it mostly to be "cute" but also because I could imagine some esoteric mathematical concepts (e.g. Godel's theorem) freaking out certain religious people. In hindsight, I probably should have left it.

Physical sciences are a mixed bag, but I mostly agree. Physics (at least through early college) is pretty much applied mathematics, so it's pretty tough to find a religious taint. Ditto chemistry, I suppose. You're definitely going to start running crossways with certain religious assumptions when you get into certain aspects of geology, particularly dating the earth. I personally have no quarrel with this, but you have to concede that anybody who has a worldview that includes "young earth" creationism is going to get sideways with any science that runs contrary to their beliefs. You can't be a geology teach and be "neutral" about this - if you hold to the overwhelming scientific consensus, you're going to be telling the YECs that they're wrong.

Let me pause and say, also, that since I am quite unfamiliar with the intimate details of non-Western belief systems, I'm going to assume that there are at least a few metaphysical presuppositions that are not entirely compatible with Western physical sciences.

Where I will vigorously defend my position, however, is the subject of history or anything else in the "Social Sciences" - not only are these "soft sciences" that elude empirical verification, but anything having to do with human beings and behavior pretty much requires you to take a worldview position when educating. Your interpretation of historical events will be profoundly influenced by your presuppositions - those with a strong belief in Providence, for example, will look at history from a remarkably different perspective from those with deeply held materialistic beliefs. And even if one TRIES to teach history from a "neutral to all parties" perspective, that act itself is communicating and/or reinforcing a presupposition: That all interpretations are equally valid. But that's just unrealistic. The major events of history cry out for moral judgments. Can you teach about the Rwandan genocide and side-step judgments about the historical consequences of imperialism? Can the person who views the bombing of Hiroshima as justified and the person who believes it was a crime against humanity really be told that they're both right? And how do you dodge making a value judgment on so many historical events that were driven by religious ideology, whether you're talking about Mao's Cultural Revolution or the Crusades.

If the bible doesn't comment on a subject, what is there really for a Christian to add?

Two points: First, the Bible isn't the only "authority" out there. A Christian will approach truth differently from a Muslim, who will likewise approach truth differently from a Hindu or Atheist. Even within Christianity, you're going to get significantly different perspectives from Catholics, Baptists, Mainliners, Reconstructionists, etc.

Second, when the Bible DOES comment on a subject (e.g. metaphysics) that runs contrary to other worldviews, it will affect a Christian's interpretation of information.

More later...

I disagree with so many points here it's hard for me even to consider them all.

First: "Education is inherently religious" is just plain wrong. This is the same position taken by proponents of Intelligent Design, that belief in the theory of evolution is just another religious belief, as much religion as belief in Jesus or Ahura Mazda. It isn't.

Further, the fact that religions and religious beliefs are intimately involved in history doesn't mean these things cannot be taught without religion. Of course all human beings, teachers included, are biased. That's one of the things you learn in school.

Second: "Younger children are not generally considered to be capable of complex reasoning. They are fact-absorbing sponges." You may be able to find scientific studies showing this. I'd personally like to read about them. Because in my experience -- and from what I've read -- children's minds aren't spongelike at all. That's an old idea, the whole tabula rasa, "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man" junk. As far as I've read, that's been pretty thoroughly disproved. Chomsky -- him again! -- has intuited that the human brain might have certain dedicated structures, certain invariant modules, which determine the way infants learn language. Because they learn it very quickly and effectively. Beyond learning to speak, however, I don't think children are sponges at all. Assuming young children learn any facts at all -- and knowing the kids I've known I'm not sure they learn anything -- they can be easily unlearned at a later time.

Consider Paul on the road to Damascus. I guess he managed to wring out his spongelike brain somewhere along the line.

Third: "Many classical education curricula go through the entire history of western civilization two or three times..." Holy crap, what schools are you looking at? Personally I went to the top high school in the country and never made it as far as Vietnam, let alone the entire history of Western civilization. The only reason we covered World War II was our teacher had, as a child, fled France ahead of the Nazis. My public-school-based knowledge of history is as spotty as...something really spotty. Have you watched "Jaywalking" recently? Kids aren't learning anything about history in school!

Which, okay, is a problem. But it's hard to argue that our public schools do a poor job educating our children while at the same time arguing that they're warping our children by teaching them the wrong stuff. Either they get the stuff in there or they don't. As near as I can tell, public schools don't get anything in. Kids are arriving at college unable to even explain (let alone actually calculate) how the tax is computed on a paycheck and you're worried their spongelike brains are latching on to inappropriate value judgments from third grade history classes? Do you realize how crazy you sound?

Chomsky -- him again! -- has intuited...

"intuited." Now there's good science.

As for "You may be able to find scientific studies showing this." the missus -- yes, that forensic psychologist I married -- would tell you kids are not adults, largely due to the fact that their frontal lobes aren't "online" (my word, not hers). So. You can't treat 'em like adults, very successfully, much as we would like to some times.

In that regard, the whole get-your-kid-a-smartphone-at-12-years-old thing is, I predict, not going to work out very well.