Moral education

Hello. A very good question. The discussion should be divided into two levels: the educational-tactical and the substantive. On the educational level, it is not clear that we have the option of avoiding it. This option results in many of the youth (and adults as well) arriving at the questions unprepared and abandoning or losing identification (no less than those who were opened to the questions because of the educational exhortation I failed and remained in their faith). On the substantive level, I definitely think that there is greater value for those who create their own perception out of awareness of the difficulties and questions. And after all, I must say that when I say that everyone needs to deal with the questions, it does not mean that the educator needs to be from the UN, nor does it mean that it should start from age 0. On the contrary, I have written more than once that I believe that exposure should be done gradually, and that it is very important to develop educational identification, with religion as with morality. But at the same time, after such identification has occurred at a sufficiently old age, the opening of questions and discussion that each person will conduct for themselves, both in faith and in morality, should be encouraged. I have often been asked what value our worldview has if it is clear that it is simply created from the habitat we happened to find ourselves in. In the vast majority of cases, the secular remains secular and the religious remains religious. Conclusion 1: It is a sign that everything is programming and not a real worldview. My argument is that this is an unnecessary conclusion and, in my opinion, also incorrect. The fact that everyone (meaning the majority) remains similar to their habitat can be interpreted in two other ways (two conclusions): 2. That religious education allows us to grasp the truth, and without it it is very difficult for us to understand and identify with it, and therefore the religious becomes religious because he sees the truth, and the secular remains secular because he is wrong. 3. The opposite, secularism is true and religious education prevents us from seeing this. An example of this is the study of geometry or art. There too, those who have studied know geometry and those who have not – do not. Does this mean that there is no truth in geometry and everyone has their own geometry? Of course not. Those who have not studied will not be able to know and understand geometry because it requires education and study. The same is true of the religious worldview (for proposition 2, or the secular one according to proposition 3). So which of the two is more reasonable? In my opinion, 2. The religious person knows the secular perspective and does not lack any information. On the other hand, the secular person does not know and does not recognize a religious worldview. He rejects it outright as irrational nonsense, and thus becomes blind to it. Therefore, there is an advantage to perception 2. Others will say that there is an advantage to conclusion 3 because religious education brainwashes. In my opinion, even if there is something to this, secular education is no less brainwashes, and perhaps even more so. But I assume that there will be others here who will argue with my conclusion.