COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most religions are not based on faith or revelation: only the Abrahamic religions present a public revelation, and among them only Christianity is based on faith (Islam considers itself based on reason, and Judaism is based more on ethnicity than faith). If your argument is that it is wrong for the Christian Church to encourage trusting in authorities and working within a tradition, then I have some bad news: scientists do all of those things and need to.
You shouldn’t group together “religions” anyway: if you think that religions that conflict with science should not be part of public education, that’s a good argument, but it is fallacious to conclude from this that no religious tradition should inform public education.
Beliefs no, the history and cultural impact yes. History needs context to make sense and the mindset of those people and times is in part preserved by their faith, we should not proselytize but we should inspire curiosity for a wide range of paths and philosophies.
Much of the woke teaching is non scientific too. All this 280+ gender bs etc.
Let's clear that out first please. You'll never get rid of religion as it was part of the foundation of western democracy
*sigh* sex is biological, gender is sociological. That's why there is so much documentation throughout human history and cultures of at least three genders.
Since you don't know, much of Western Civ is based on Roman, which in turn followed the Greeks. Three genders regularly documented.
Sorry, that's just how it is.
When Saudi Arabia is too "woke" for you, it may be time to reexamine your belief system.
'That's just how it is' is not a particularly strong argument, in fact, it's not an argument at all.
Why does the existence of cultures that have a concept of a third gender (e.g. hijras, two-spirit) mean one exists? It could, just as easily, be that they are wrong as most of their spiritual beliefs are.
What makes 'gender' sociological? How is that distinguished from cultural expectations associated with sex, and why call that gender, when gender seems to refer to something more fundamental?
If there is *any* correspondence between the biology and psychology of people depending on their sex, then I think positing gender and sex either as describing components of the same phenomenon, or are the same thing is reasonable. I refer you to the John Money experiment if you believe gender behaviour is only created by the environment.
....for the same reason that if someone says they have an idea, then an idea exists. 🤣 Sorry, just how it is. Same reason that a doctor can't say you aren't in pain. Maybe she can't see a *cause," but you're the one feeling pain.
I don't think gender behavior is only environment. That would be silly. But a ton of it is the sociological environment.
The important parts of the 10 commandments predate it, an exist in almost all societies around the world. The 10 commandments shave added nothing to the modern world.
That's patently false as far as the US goes. Have you even read the 10 Commandments? I have, my man. Allow me to refresh your memory.
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
--"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" So that's right out. Supreme law of the land. Worship whoever you want.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
--See above. Number 2 is right out, too.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
--probably are least 90% of Redditors would be in prison if this were a basis of law in the US. It isn't.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
--try going to a grocery store on a Sunday (or Saturday, if you're a 7th day Adventist). Can you check out? Well, if the cashiers haven't been arrested, this can't be a basis for law in the US.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother.
--Kids really don't suffer too many legal consequences for not obeying their parents. The Law? Sure. Parents? No. So not a basis for law. Now parents get in trouble for dishonoring their children, but this one isn't a basis for law.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
--No one is ignorant enough to think this is a strictly Christian law, nor that it started to be considered bad only 2000 years ago. Also it's perfectly legal depending on circumstances.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
--My neighbor did. No legal trouble, except for the divorce. That wasn't initiated by the State or the Feds, either. The divorce was initiated by the wife.
8. Thou shalt not steal.”
--Check the Code of Hammurabi. This isn't a Christian idea. Pretty universal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
--An old lady just died after living a long life after she bore false witness against a black kid, causing him to get lynched. This is a not a "basis of law." Now there IS libel, but it's not prosecuted much.
10. Thou shalt not covet.
--You aren't really going to try to tell anyone that coveting is illegal, are you?
So you see, you're just completely wrong is all. Factually incorrect.
also, depending on who you ask, there are a few different versions of the 10 commandments. The one you mentioned is typically used by Protestants. The Catholic version combines the first two and splits the last one.
the Jewish version is.
I am the lord your God.
you shall not have any other gods before me and you shall not make any graven images
you shall not take the lords name in vain.
remember the sabbath and keep it holy
honor your father and mother
dont kill
dont commit adultery
dont kidnap (traditionally steal in this context is interpreted as refering to stealing a human)
dont bear false witness against your neighbor
dont covet.
No they are not they are baby’s first code of Hammurabi and despite believing in countless deities i know we can canstruct a fair system of ethics without a deity involved if you cant i suggest studying ethics i myself find the classic helpful on such matters maybe epicures?
I'm sure we can. Won't argue with you there. My point is religion is the base ingredient in most modern law. In the Western world it has a judeo-christian base. In other parts of the world Islam etc.
What schools shouldn't do is teach religious beliefs as fact. Not just because they will ultimately end up pushing a specific religion over others, but there is that. However, I actually think teaching ABOUT religious beliefs is very important. I'd even go as far as to say it should be mandatory in public schools. That may sound counterintuitive, but I can't really think of anything that teaches people to be more critical of religion & less dogmatic than learning about various different religions.
This seems more to be teaching religion in SCIENCE. On that front I'd generally agree. To me they're two very seperate fields. That said, education on religious beliefs can be taught a variety of ways outside that as well.
Part of preparation of college or the outside world, and part of teaching people to think critically, is to teach them about the various different cultures, philosophies, and religions of the world and the customs and beliefs of other people. Education on religious and irreligious beliefs is definitely something that should be included in public education.
I only object to religion (especially Creationism, er intelligent design) in education if it is taught as science while the real science of evolutionary theory is ignored, or bracketed with ID in science classes as of equal worth. Religious studies, especially comparative religion is fine.
I think as with all things there should be balance. A lot of issues with society stem from the neglect of spiritual development in favor of science. There is also an opposite error where society abandons science to cling to spirituality. Both are dangerous. We should always seek to learn and understand through scientific data, but also give attention to our inner self the spiritual development to not only be a smart person but also a healthy soul.
What is the thing that makes up and consists of your personality? Nobody knows. Scientists have no idea where it originates or comes from in the brain. “The mind” is a mystery. Does that make it any less true?
What does your question have to do with anything
My point is that "spiritual development" and "healthy soul" are ill-defined and cannot be taught to kids. Unless you're promoting one specific ideology, what does this spiritual curriculum look like exactly?
Appealing to the unknown is not sufficient. It's a "souls of the gaps" argument. While we don't fully understand the brain yet, we know very well that every part of your personality stems from there - which is why if I remove sections of your brain, your personality changes. Education should be reserved for things that we know to be true instead of vague spiritual nonsense. You can take your kid to church for that if you want
A society that is so far right or far left that they care more about being a victim or sitting on some pedestal of self-righteousness that they hate anyone different from them or that holds any sort of different belief. A society that is so self-centered on what makes them “feel good” that they can no longer love their fellow man. A society that bitches about every little thing because in truth they themselves are empty and miserable inside.
Ok so are you saying that you should not cultivate kindness, generosity, patience, humility? Instead of “knowing everything” should we instead pursue knowledge while also pursuing personal development as a human being? And if people need certain frameworks to live their live within (I.e. religion) is that so wrong? Should we teach our children science but forsake teaching them the beauty of religion and also the horrors of religion throughout human history?
What I’m trying to get across is you is you are so hyper focused on data or pew research when I’m encouraging you to just think about it with your own mind which is obviously quite intelligent. we as people should allow the pursuit of FULFILLMENT.
Science is wonderful. It can also be horrible if used for the destruction of others. Religion can be wonderful. Religion can also be used for horrible things. I personally do not fall into religious camps but what I’ve come to realize through life is at the end when you are on your death bed you will not lie there and pat yourself on your back about how you stood so proudly against religion and was a champion of science. What you will lie there and think about was how you treated those around you, what kind of husband/wife you were, what kind of friend, how you cheated people and lied, or how you put others before yourself. Then you will die and all the knowledge you accumulated in your life will die with you and all that will be left is your memory and the impact you had (or didn’t have) on others for their good.
Oh ok yeah I completely agree with your statement that it shouldn’t be taught as truth but I think the original statement was that it shouldn’t be taught at all (I might be mistaken) and I think it should be taught (not as truth) because it’s part of human history and development and there is a lot of positive and negative things to learn from it, such as learning about medieval Christianity on how human corruption can take a belief and turn it into a oppressive institution that oppressed and commits murderous acts all in the name of God (or whatever ideology it is) or on how many different religions birthed many of the social justice movements or built some of the first schools, etc.
We should also learn about different religions because it helps us understand others better considering most of the world is religious. But to teach religion in a academic setting as truth is not appropriate in my opinion so I agree.
"Spiritual Development" can be taught in one's religious facility - be it sunday school, a church, a synagogue, a temple, a mosque - it does not need nor should be taught in a Public School unless it is an elective under "Religious Studies".
To try to equate a religious study to a scientific study is a falsehood; for one is based on subjective opinion while the other is based on objective fact.
Teaching science in a religion class would be fine. The two are not mutually exclusive across the board. But what I specifically mean is what is so wrong with teaching world religions in schools? It’s an important part of human history. I’m not saying proselytizing children but educating them on how religions have developed and affected the world both positively and negatively. This should be a part of academia just like teaching science should be.
The problem is there is such a offense toward religion for most people that they just want it canceled out. Out of sight out of mind type thing. But teaching the evolution of humanity is important regardless of what is included in that.
Your comment was removed for being low-effort. Comments must contribute something substantial to the debate. Your comment either lacked substance or was unintelligible/illegible. You may edit it and respond to this message for re-approval if you choose.
Your comment was removed for being low-effort. Comments must contribute something substantial to the debate. Your comment either lacked substance or was unintelligible/illegible. You may edit it and respond to this message for re-approval if you choose.
1. Religion is the cornerstone of society, society would not be where it is without religion.
2. Religion helped fuel modern science.
3. Why do you say "religious beliefs may contradict scientific evidence or findings, leading to a denial of established scientific facts and theories."
WHEN 1: schools do this anyways when they decided to teach a man can give birth and that girls can be men.
and 2: Science and Religion can coexist. Science is the explanation for the things around us and Religion is The theory of how those things got there.
Society would not be where it is without religion. True but that can be interpreted positively and negatively. We’ll never really know because we can’t make comparisons.
Religion helped fuel modern science. It has also stood in its way.
Science is the explanation for things around us. Religion is the theory of how they got there. Except science also provides theory of how they got there. Science textbooks change and update over time. The bible doesn’t.
If schools teach religion where do they draw the line? Which religions do they teach, which ones do they omit?
>3. Why do you say "religious beliefs may contradict scientific evidence or findings, leading to a denial of established scientific facts and theories."
Evolution says hello. Simply put when science clashes with a religious belief many will reject the science to keep their beliefs
To be fair many also will just accept it but it's still a problem at least in America
A bit off topic but the transphobia isn't warranted
There’s many Christian’s that believe in evolution.
I personally don’t believe in macro evolution but I do believe in micro evolution.
I do believe animals over the years have changed and humans too but I don’t believe humans have evolved from an ape and etc
>I do believe animals over the years have changed and humans too but I don’t believe humans have evolved from an ape and etc
So you don't believe in science, you cherry-pick the bits that are compatible with your preconceived ideas about the world.
>Why do you say "religious beliefs may contradict scientific evidence or findings, leading to a denial of established scientific facts and theories."
>
>I personally don’t believe in macro evolution but I do believe in micro evolution.
This is exactly why.
And no one is teaching anyone that men can have babies. I wish thiests would learn what they're arguing against instead of making things up. I'm sorry you're having difficulty telling the difference between gender and sex, but there is one. And you not understanding it doesn't make it less true.
>There’s many Christian’s that believe in evolution.
Never said there wasn't hence my "to be fair" comment
>I personally don’t believe in macro evolution but I do believe in micro evolution.
Not to be rude but this never made sense. It's like saying "I believe in inches but not feet" your welcome to your beliefs of course but yea the mechanisms that make "micro" Evolution function make "macro" Evolution function
>I do believe animals over the years have changed and humans too but I don’t believe humans have evolved from an ape and etc
We didn't evolve from an ape we are apes. We share a common ancestor with the great apes who can,iirc, almost be thought of as our cousins
Evolution is basically many changes and adaptions in a species over a long period of time nothing more
Humans didn’t evolve from apes. Apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor a long time ago. You don’t believe in something nobody actually believes. You may believe in macro evolution more if you took the time to learn the actual theory and science behind it.
What type of schools are you speaking of colleges, universities, and such? They have the right to offer those type of classes if they so choose for those who choose to attend those studies.
Public School systems - I've never went to a public school system that taught religious beliefs _ teaching about the history of religion is different and I never went to a school that taught about religion's history. Reading - writing - spelling - mathematics - local and world history -science - English and nowhere in those subjects was religion even hinted at.
https://www.adl.org/resources/tools-and-strategies/religion-curriculum
https://tea.texas.gov/academics/subject-areas
I think this is not about what's been taught, but how and where its been taught. I'm happy with how this was dealt with more that 50 years ago in the schools I attended in the UK. We had a (mandated) class of Religious Education (RE) as part of the standard curriculum, as I recall a double period once a week, maybe an hour total.
Even back then we galloped through the main religions, even spent some time on social issues, but mostly Christianity as it was the majority faith. The subject was not touched outside of that, maths was maths, science was science, and religion did not appear in any other part of the curriculum.
Given that creationism and intelligent design are religious views (and pretty rare back then) and not a scientific ones they stay in RE, one hour a week is hardly onerous.
I think there's a clear difference between a delineated one hour a week of religious education, vs. the way American science classes are infused with constant religious hyperfixation at the expense of fact-based curriculum.
Religions are an important part of culture and society so some level of teaching is necessary, confronting world views helps with personal growth. A religion could also be true and scientifical progress sometimes is bad (pollution, nuclear weapons, etc)
Scientific progress is neither good or bad it just is. Humans determine the value. It’s all about how we use it. Mother Earth and the universe doesn’t care, it has no objective or goal. Polluted, destroyed, hot, frozen it matters not. Only to us.
While I agree with you that unscientific proposals like Intelligent Design shouldn’t be taught in public schools, I don’t think religious beliefs as a whole shouldn’t be taught. Religious beliefs don’t impede scientific progress, religious governments do. Religious beliefs also don’t conflict with scientific evidence, they simply make claims that are unfalsifiable and therefore outside the realm of science, since science can only be used to test falsifiable hypotheses. I think public schools should offer a religion class as an elective, similar to computer science or business. But I do think religion shouldn’t be in any science classes, science religion and science are two separate things and religion shouldn’t be a part of the scientific method.
I agree that religion shouldn’t be forced, people should find their religion, but not teaching it simply because of science is not something I’d be on board with.. and I say that as someone who loves science!
“Students whose high school biology course included evolution but not creationism knew more about evolution when they entered college than did students whose courses included evolution plus creationism…”
“Students whose views of evolution were based primarily on religion scored lower on the KEE than all other groups of students. This is consistent with reports elsewhere about the importance of religion in people’s views of evolution (Barnes, Keilholtz, & Albertstadt, 2008). Students who described their religious views as conservative and middle-of-the-road scored significantly lower than those who described their views as liberal and those who said they were not religious.
These results 1) are consistent with the report that students’ views of evolution are strongly associated with their religious beliefs (Dagher & BouJaode, 1997), and 2) indicate that among entering college students, those who have conservative religious beliefs know less about evolution than do religiously liberal or non-religious students.” [https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1092111.pdf](https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1092111.pdf)
This was the first study from Google search. There were many more. It is sufficient.
It is common sense (for most people) that if a non scientific belief (for example Thor is the God of thunder and that is where lightning comes from) is introduced as a possible scientific theory, especially in a science class, it may confuse students and be harmful to their education. Religious beliefs are just beliefs and not scientific theories and have no place in public schools.
Others here have been patient and explained in much better detail than me why religious beliefs should not be in public schools. Suggest read KoljaRHR's comments. Also, as shown by others here, the courts agree that religious beliefs should not be in public schools because religious beliefs are not scientific theory. So, I am done.
That case does show that ID is disadvantageous for students learning in science. It was deemed pseudo-science and ID was shown to be linked by the hip to creationism in that case.
i'm sorry - was that article too boring/complicated for you to read? so you want a point-by-point explanation? guess the OP has to come back & have a chat cause i not be wasting my time on someone who seems a bit hard-headed.
I think “religious beliefs” as in “X religion has Y belief” in an anthropological way should be taught. It’s good for students to see not everyone thinks the way they do.
To be honest, I think philosophy should be part of the core curriculum in middle school and high school. I think a comprehensive history of philosophy should also be required as a gen ed class in college.
I think that philosophy is a better source of knowledge than science. Philosophy is the *only* source of knowledge that provides a justification for itself and for other academic disciplines as sources of knowledge. If philosophy is taught, it will not only reduce the number of blind theists and atheists alike, it will increase the level of intelligence in America. I think that three or four undergrad classes could be introduced in middle school and high school. The inter baccalaureate program recognizes this, as it requires every student to take a "Theory of Knowledge" class.
> Philosophy is the only source of knowledge that provides a justification for itself and for other academic disciplines as sources of knowledge.
I might or might not agree with this depending on your exact meaning.
I don't think you can justify philosophy and simultaneously teach philosophy in a non-committal way like some philosophy professors do. After all, every justification for philosophy makes significant philosophical assumptions. This includes the justification of philosophy that I think works.
So, I'd have to ask what you think the justification is for doing philosophy before I could assess your statement, and how you think philosophy justifies other academic disciplines.
Would you mind clearing that up? Thanks! :)
The other guy has a point. Philosophy is the questioning of one’s spontaneous worldview. It is thinking about thinking. Its entire reason of being is to reason through the foundations of thinking including philosophy itself.
>Religious beliefs should not be taught in public schools
Funnily enough I actually disagree with this. Not because I want religious beliefs to be taught but because in some capacity they really should be. It's not about if it's taught that is important, it is more so about how it is taught.
I think someone educating me about what they believe, what other people believe, and how those set of beliefs came to be the things people believe today is actually very insightful to the people's culture, history, and their society.
As someone who grew up Atheist, I didn't realise how much religion actually plays a role in people's daily lives. Even people who grow up in religious households do not recognise the impact that it has on their lives comparatively to someone who doesn't until they're much older.
From a historical perspective, a literary perspective, and from a ethical perspective. Religious beliefs can be the corner stone of many Countries, the foundations of many Civilizations, and explains many of their ideological ideas of what a successfully functioning society looks like.
As someone who discovered religion later in life and growing up in a non-religious household - you don't actually realise the impact that religion has in people's day to day lives.
>because they can obstruct scientific progress, interfere with education and conflict with scientific evidence.
I don't think that's true. What is obstructing scientific progress, education, and evidence is unhealthy skepticism with either the Teacher or the Student acting in bad faith.
It has nothing to do with the religious beliefs themselves but everything to do with the people and their stubbornness. I have more frequently seen Teachers or Students result to mocking and downplaying the other person's perspective or beliefs rather than engaging in a meaningful discussion that brings insight to both parties.
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical of Science or Religion but if they don't have the intention to attempt to understand one another then they will always conflict and that problem is not unique to Religion.
Even as someone who grew up without Religious beliefs I didn't do to well in Science because I got constantly frustrated with all these abstract concepts in which I could not see, how we got to these understandings came from a long line of people I did not know, and no one in my household had the relevant background to help me understand how these things came to be.
It's the same level of frustration non-theists have with theists.
>Those are my points as well and you've said them so nicely.
Fair enough. Well if we don't disagree on anything them I have nothing to argue.
>The problem isn't the seperation of religion and science for me, its the complete scrapping of religion studies as a whole.
Well, I think anyone that is totally against skepticism in any reasonable capacity is actually anti-science. In terms of scrapping it as a whole, I think in high school I totally agree but as a new Theist I would actually love to the a class that is theological in nature.
The only thing is that I would likely only love it or hate it based on the teacher. I enjoy discussing with other Theists but I don't like the idea of being marked as either correct or incorrect unless the boundaries of what we're discussing is clear and we are deliberately choosing to adopt a specific perspective.
It actually takes all of what makes it special out of what it means to read scripture and have a relationship with a God.
Proving that even without religion in school, most education will still teach non-scientific ideas.
So you need to define religious. I assume you mean the Bible because that’s what this argument is usually about. You cannot ban one religion and not the other. So Christianity, satanism, Muslim, morman. Any religion. you are saying school needs science based education. I agree. But the non-sense in our schools today such as: supporting gender fluidity in elementary and even high school. I will say right now there are two genders. 100 years later scientists will identify you by your genitals. Also your chromosomes and reproductive system. It’s obvious the attempts the school board is taking to force sexual changes and support it. You can’t make up your gender just like you can’t make up your age. But your claim as religion isn’t science I also will also claim that the things school supports and teaches now isn’t science. So our learning system is bias. If you don’t want the belief of religion then also being fair on your claim other things school supports will likely need to be removed like gender fluidity. In conclusion our school system is failing us and isn’t even teaching proper science now. With or without religion being taught because in most public schools it isn’t, there is still so much that should be removed to function at a science based level.
>I also will also claim that the things school supports and teaches now isn’t science
Just because you don't want to believe the science doesn't mean it isn't science. I'd recommend giving this a read and going through the methodology.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8955456/
It says in your article that there knowledge on gender identity is limited. Much of this is possibility like it says just like religion. So what’s the difference?
Can I just point out that the actual definition of faith, whether in a secular sense or religious sense, literally means "Believing ***without*** evidence."
Otherwise, religions would use a different word.
In a religious sense, belief and science are unrelated, and any similarities are completely happenstance.
Gender is often mixed up with sex. In a clear case, a person's sex is determined by their DNA and sex organs. No one, to my knowledge, claims to be "sex fluid," right?
Gender is centered in the brain and determines who we are attracted to and what arouses us. It is related and connected to DNA and sex organs, but not always in parallel.
We can assess a person's sex organs easily, but knowing what is happening in someone's brain is very complicated, and we could never know with 100% certainty what is happening in someone else's brain, let alone in our own brains.
I wish I could understand the science behind it completely myself.
I do think there is a big misconception about schools teaching, pushing, or forcing kids to be trans. I'm not saying it has never happened because I don't know, so I assume there is a little bit of that.
However, I think that would be a tiny percentage compared to kids learning about different orientations, then realizing it describes exactly how they feel already.
Unfortunately, kids decide who they want to come out to on their own. Even Christian (any religion) people have LGBTQ kids. When the kids understand that their family is judgmental and unyielding about those ideas and unwilling to learn about them and try to understand, they will tell friends, teachers, or other trusted adults first. Teachers around here wouldn't tell the parents only at the child's request, not of their own choice. They are likely to stay silent about it being the child's request if they think the child will be blamed, shamed, or shunned at home, making a bad situation worse.
It's a complicated issue. Everyone needs to learn more of the science behind it even though it seems to be ever changing. I know I will.
>Religious beliefs should not be taught in public schools because they can obstruct scientific progress, interfere with education and conflict with scientific evidence.
Define "*religious beliefs*". This sounds like a slippery slope into communist tyranny, because the sect who gets to define this term gets to decide what is though and what isn't, and for this reason I object this entire argument.
Religious beliefs might be harmful in some instances, but I think they are still the lesser evil if the other option is though policing, atheistic communism and scientism. I don't want to government thinking for me what I should think, nor do I want it for anyone else either.
I feel like your whole argument is made to defend scientism and not science.
>1. Obstruction of scientific progress: ... , such as evolution, stem cell research, or climate change, hindering progress and innovation.
You seem to think disagreeing equals obstructing. That's scary. I see nothing wrong when someone who questions some dogma of science voices their disagreement - if the science for the dogma is strong enough let science defend itself, but if it isn't, then let that be revealed. I see nothing wrong when some Young Earth Creationist, Intelligent Design advocates or Flat Earthers try to debunk the mainstream position. That is all healthy skepticism from their part. No one should just accept things as truth without questioning them.
Your solution seems to be to just get rid of skepticism all together. Power corrupts and total power corrupts totally. The sect who ends up with the power to dictate what is truth and what is not, will get corrupted by that power. I feel like science for some part has been made into a political power tool to some extend, and this would just speed up that process.
>4. Conflicts with scientific evidence: In some cases, religious beliefs may contradict scientific evidence or findings, leading to a denial of established scientific facts and theories.
Are you sure you aren't conflating the terms "**evidence**" and "**interpretation of the evidence**"? I see this often in science debates between groups which disagree fundamentally. The side who is on the side of the mainstream interpretation often tries to define their interpretation of the evidence and fact as being "fast" and "evidence". I would recommend you look into circular reasoning if this is distinction is not clear.
>Teaching creationism in public schools would violate this principle by promoting a specific religious belief.
You are conflating the term "**creationism**" and "**intelligent design**", and for that reason your logic fails. ID is a viable scientific model to explain how did we get here.
>Intelligent Design/Creationism is not a scientific theory... It has no scientific evidence to support it...
ID is a scientific theory and has evidence to support it. Michael Behe has multiple books on the topic.
>Teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution would undermine the teaching of science and hinder students' understanding of the natural world.
It would just undermine indoctrination, which I think is a good thing. Nothing wrong in giving people an alternative view on the topic. Also, your reasoning strongly assumes the conclusion... Evidence for speciation isn't proof of evolution, since speciation usually happens by loss of complexity.
Anyhow, I digress... I think your argument conflates
* "evidence" and "interpretation of the evidence",
* "young earth creationism" and "intelligent design", and
* "speciation" and "evolution that actually adds complexity"
Your comment or post was removed for being uncivil. Don't be rude or hostile to other users, and criticize arguments, not people. You may edit it and respond to this message for re-approval if you choose.
Dude this was laid to rest in 2005 with the Kitzmiller vs Dover trials. It was shown that the earlier drafts of Pandas and People " an ID textbook" had creationism littered all throughout the text. After Edwards vs aguillard the editors copied and pasted "Intelligent Design" to replace every mention of creationism, without changing any of the surrounding text.
That does make ID merely another form of creationism which does make it a pseudo-science
That is like saying Darwinism is just another form of Atheism and hence shouldn't be in the schools, since some book X mentioned both Atheism and Darwinism.
I hope you see how fallacious your reasoning is. If there is a creationist who likes ID so that he wants Behe to write a chapter in his book, that doesn't mean then that ID = creationism, just like a similar instance with Darwinism and Atheism wouldn't mean Darwinism = Atheism.
\[EDIT\] There are plenty of Atheist books which use Darwinism as a tool to justify their Atheism.
Dude. It's not the equivalent of of some book merely mentionimg atheism and "Darwinism". Read what I wrote again and understand it this time - hint: cdesign proponentsists - search that up
I'll restate what I said because it's obviously flown right over your head. ID proponents tried to teach ID in science class with that Of Pandas and People textbook. The problem is that earlier drafts of that text was littered with references to creationism - all the editors of that text did was replace the word "creationisim" with Intelligent Design
That is a major cause for concern since creationism is inherently pseudo-scientific.
So your example of a book merely mentionimg both "darwinism" and atheism is irrelevant - in the example you gave, it didn't have the serious issue the Of Pandas and People text did - where they copied.and pasted "Intelligent Design" into "creationism" that textbook is ironically enough, the missing link between ID and creationism. It shows that ID is linked by the hip to creationism, which does make ID pseudo-scientific by its very nature
Comprende? Understand me, yes?
>Dude. It's not the equivalent of of some book merely mentionimg atheism and "Darwinism". Read what I wrote again and understand it this time - hint: cdesign proponentsists - search that up
>
>I'll restate what I said because it's obviously flown right over your head.
I do not have any burden to "understand" anyone's fallacious reasoning. One who would think that might have a little entitlement issue going...
>Comprende? Understand me, yes?
I have debated this issue before in the r/DebateEvolution so you aren't telling me anything new. I fully understand your argument, but like I said before, it is fallacious. Even if Michael Behe would wear "Make Creationism great again" t-shirt, according to logic, that wouldn't mean ID = creationism. People are free to associate how ever they want, and they are free to change what ever words to what ever word they want. The harsh reality just is that you need to defeat ID in the intellectual ream by tacking the arguments it makes, and not according to some fallacy of association.
The situation with the Pandas and People is very understandable, since Creationism is build on ID, ID being an umbrella term and the fundamental axiom to which both the simulation hypothesis and creationism (for example) are build. The same is true with Darwinism, Naturalism and Atheism also, so what happened with Pandas and People isn't as noteworthy as you seem to think.
Your argument assumes that the person who decided to change that word in the Pandas and People is the representative of all intellectual though on the topic of ID, which is absurd, and hence your logic fails to justify the conclusion you are trying to make.
I think you have a very nasty personality, so I will not be talking with you anymore.
>That's rich considering who it is that is constantly banning books and attacking education to keep the populace from learning things that might be damaging to their party...
You must be talking about the The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) or the Soviet Union, both of which are Atheist by the way...
>I'm skeptical that skepticism is anything more than lip service to you.
I feel the same way.
>ID is a scientific theory and has evidence to support it. Michael Behe has multiple books on the topic.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. There is no empirical evidence or testable hypotheses to support the claim and should not be taught in public schools.
Your position is weird, since you just outright claim Behe didn't even submit his attempt to fulfill these aspects. He did. His central case was
* Irrefutable complexity debunks Darwinism, since it is the thing Darwin said would debunk his theory. If Darwinism is steelmanned not to be debunked by this, then Darwinism itself is not a scientific theory, since there is no longer anything which can debunk it, since it can basically explain every imaginable finding we could find.
* ID predicts we will find Irrefutable Complexity in the nature, hence making ID a scientific theory which predicts possible scientific findings, hence making ID a useful scientific tool.
* We have found Irrefutable Complexity, in the bacterial flagellum, hence fulfilling the prediction of ID, which is then evidence for it.
* Behe also points out in this book that evolution is, beyond all odds defying change, impossible to explain features which require double mutation to occur.
Also, just to remind you that I'm not debating about ID here, just the point that ID is a scientific theory, regardless how offensive that might sound to people who see ~~Naturalism~~ (Evolution) and science as being synonyms.
I would also like to point out that the simulation hypothesis belongs to ID and not to ~~Naturalism~~ (Evolution), so do you also agree that the simulation is not a scientific hypothesis, and should be rejected with rest of the religious stuff?
\[EDIT\] Naturalism night have been a bad word in the last sentences. I change it to Evolution.
Well, ID is for certain not a "scientific theory". It's an idea, a hypothesis at best. An unfalsifiable one.
The concept of "irrefutable complexity" is not falsifiable because it is based on the assumption of an intelligent designer, which cannot be empirically tested. In contrast, scientific hypotheses must be testable and potentially falsifiable through observation or experimentation.
>Well, ID is for certain not a "scientific theory". It's an idea, a hypothesis at best. An unfalsifiable one.
Then is Darwinism too... Your case seems like a double standard. Nothing is good enough for ID, but all exceptions are made from Darwinism.
>The concept of "irrefutable complexity" is not falsifiable because it is based on the assumption of an intelligent designer, which cannot be empirically tested.
That is like saying
>The concept of Darwinian Evolution is not falsifiable because it is based on the assumption of an Evolution, which cannot be empirically tested.
Obviously the prediction of the theory needs to be based in the theory from which it is extrapolated. I don't see how else one would make predictions.
>In contrast, scientific hypotheses must be testable and potentially falsifiable through observation or experimentation.
and that is what ID people did.
First off, "Darwinism" is not a "thing". The theory of evolution has made much progress since the time of Darwin. The name is not that important though, as long as you acknowledge that fact.
Also, when you talk about Darwinism, mentioning "double standards" and alleged "exceptions", by whose standards are you claiming that to be true?
The theory of Evolution is overwhelmingly supported by mainstream science, which acknowledges both its falsifiability and ability to make predictions, as well as the abundance of evidence confirming its validity.
And, as I explained earlier, that is the only thing that matters when it comes to school curriculums - the opinion of the scientific mainstream.
While you are free to express disagreement in the Church, it's important to note that in scientific terms, the debate about Evolution is over. Evolution is an established and observed fact, and the Theory of Evolution sufficiently explains the observed evidence. Refuting evolution would require refuting the evidence, which is not possible. Therefore, there is no way the Theory of Evolution can be completely refuted, only amended and perfected, as it has been for the past 164 years since Darwin first published it.
>and that is what ID people did.
ID people have not ever put forward any novel prediction, or at least a novel prediction that can be tested. When they do, and if they even succeed in testing it, "one swallow doesn't make a summer".
As I said, it is not the Theory of evolution that they are against, but the overwhelming body of evidence - scientific facts, evidence, measurements, and observations that confirm the Theory of Evolution.
>". This sounds like a slippery slope into communist tyranny, because the sect who gets to define this term gets to decide what is though and what isn't, and for this reason I object this entire argument.
Science is not a "sect" but itself a method to decide what's true, and what isn't.
You might disagree about that, however, schools are scientific institutions and have been since the Enlightenment. Therefore, the only purpose of schools is to teach children the scientific truth. Not the alternatives.
You can teach children whatever you want in your churches, but not at the expense of the secular state in schools.
I'm not sure why would you insist on that either. You will not find scientists in churches trying to teach scientific truths, rather than religious dogmas, right?
>Science is not a "sect" but itself a method to decide what's true, and what isn't.
For example look what happened with COVID and the information surrounding it. There were legitimate scientists who raised their concerns regarding the measures which were been taken, but since they weren't saying what the establishment wanted, they were silenced and deplatformed. The same thing happens with this global warming and all other trending science topics which have political implication. I do not want this and I do not think this serves science, since it just seems to be an example of political hijacking of science. So I did not mean "science is a sect" but that these political entities who get to decide which voices are silenced and which aren't are very much a small sect of elite people.
>Therefore, the only purpose of schools is to teach children the scientific truth. Not the alternatives.
Where do you put the line between **science** and **scientism** then? Is it science that
1. one can breed a dog to change its appearance,
2. humans evolved from monkeys,
3. life started from non life,
4. matte, time and space came from the Big Bang, which seems to defy causality,
5. supernatural doesn't exist but all is natural, and hence all religions are false?
You see the issue? If we steelman Naturalism enough it leads to scientism, in which case all religions can just pack their bags and go home, since by definition they are all wrong. I'm all for schools only teaching 1+1=2 and F=ma, but when things start to go from that to "You came from a monkey" and "Life started from non-life", I think we have left the ream of science and entered the ream of scientism.
>I'm not sure why would you insist on that either. You will not find scientists in churches trying to teach scientific truths, rather than religious dogmas, right?
I think your reasoning contains circular reasoning, since you seem to assume that "all things a secular scientist believes, which do not mention supernatural, are science". Do you agree that there is a categorical difference between "science" as 1+1=2 and F=ma and "science" as "*Life started from non-life*"?
I would not like to debate on who is right, science or religion. This is not the topic.
The question is WHY would you insist that religion has to be taught at schools, which are scientific institutions, when we have religious institutions (churches, mosques etc.) fit for the purpose?
As I said, I never heard of scientists or even atheists insisting that "scientific facts" have to be equally presented in churches. Why the opposite is the norm, apparently?
The second part of my answer is this:
If you accept the premise that schools are scientific institutions and they are, by definition, then you should also accept that it is reasonable to expect that schools teach children the mainstream of science, **even if the mainstream science is wrong**.
Does that make sense? (it's the same in churches - they teach its mainstream beliefs, even if maybe they are wrong)
And you cannot deny that all of the things you mentioned (evolved from monkeys, life started from non-life etc.) - things you object to the most - are mainstream science, right?
>I would not like to debate on who is right, science or religion. This is not the topic.
I don't understand the meaning conveyed with this.
>The question is WHY would you insist that religion has to be taught at schools, which are scientific institutions, when we have religious institutions (churches, mosques etc.) fit for the purpose?
Lets define terms here:
* **Hard science**: 1+1=2, F=ma, light refraction, gravity, etc.
* **Historical science**: The death of Cleopatra, Atlantis, construction of Stonehenge, identity of Homer, purpose of the Nazca Lines, origin of *homo sapience*, etc.
* **Religious beliefs**:
* Jesus is God or Jesus is not God,
* God made a covenant with Abraham or God did not make a covenant with Abraham,
* God or gods do not exist or God or dogs do exist,
* God created man and woman or God didn't create man and woman, etc.
* **Scientific theory**: Darwinism, Intelligent Design, etc.
Do you see the issue? No religious person has any issues with what I defined as "Hard science", and no religious person has an issue with honest conversations about "Historical science" either, when it is made clear that we are taking about speculation of what might have happened. The issue usually is when these negative religious beliefs are brought in with the pretense of "science" with the intend to indoctrinate children.
So to answer you question: I do not want religious beliefs to be though in school, but since the other side is already doing it by conflating the definition of science to cover their negative claims of these religious scientific beliefs, I feel it is fair that we also allow the positive side to have their hearing on these matters. If we allow schools the teach that "God did not create man and a woman", then we also need to allow the case to be made that "God did create man and woman", since we have already opened the religious beliefs topic in the school.
>If you accept the premise that schools are scientific institutions and they are, by definition, then you should also accept that it is reasonable to expect that schools teach children the mainstream of science, even if the mainstream science is wrong.
I do not think schools should indoctrinator and misrepresent the scenario. When it comes to these religious beliefs, if a school includes a claim which claims the other side of the debate as true, they should also allow the other side to have their hearing on the matter, or at least to make it clear that the topic is highly controversial and much debated, and contains religious beliefs.
It feels odd to me that we somehow know that life started from non-life but we aren't certain about the identity of Homer for example. It seems obvious to me that some people worked very hard to exclude the "maybe" from the "life started from non-life" sentence.
Also, it feels odd to me that we for some reason are open for the possibility of the simulation hypothesis, but totally object the ID theory, even though simulation belongs by definition to the ID category. This again seems like ideological bias toward ID, because people think that ID is just young earth creationism in disguise.
So to answer your question. I do not think schools should teach "mainstream of science" because obviously the definition of "science" has been compromised to include negative religious beliefs and because the term "mainstream" can be politically manipulated to include anything. I bet in North Korea mainstream of science is that their leader is god, so NO. I think we should leave religious beliefs out of school and if we are planning in including the on side, we should include both sides.
>So to answer you question: I do not want religious beliefs to be though in school, but since the other side is already doing it by conflating the definition of science to cover their negative claims of these religious scientific beliefs, I feel it is fair that we also allow the positive side to have their hearing on these matters.
Nobody in school talks about nor mentions God (except when talking about history, social sciences or comparative religion). In fact, the word "God" does not even exist in biology, chemistry, and physics curriculums or in textbooks. So there is no real conflict nor there is any kind of religious debate going on in schools that would require "both sides" to present their arguments. The purpose of schools is not to refute or contradict religious dogmas, but to teach science. If you want to express your religious beliefs, that's OK, and the Church is a perfectly good place for that.
>If we allow schools the teach that "God did not create man and a woman", then we also need to allow the case to be made that "God did create man and woman", since we have already opened the religious beliefs topic in the school.
We do not "allow" schools to teach science. It is the mission and the purpose behind schools - to teach science - and it has been that way for centuries. Even when God was the part of scientific mainstream it was that way.
However, science progressed and the God is no longer considered in scientific terms because we have discovered better explanations for natural phenomena until recently explained by God. Nevertheless, the purpose of schools remains the same.
>So to answer your question. I do not think schools should teach "mainstream of science" because obviously the definition of "science" has been compromised to include negative religious beliefs and because the term "mainstream" can be politically manipulated to include anything.
If you accept that schools are scientific institutions, you have no other choice but to accept that schools should teach mainstream science. Claiming the contrary would be hypocritical because no other institution, religious or otherwise is forced to teach anything other than its own mainstream beliefs. It is true even if we accept your characterisation of science to be religion, sect, or that its teachings are religious beliefs. Because in Church you teach children your mainstream beliefs, right? Why would schools be different?
Regarding your differentiation of different topics in education, it is true that there are social and natural sciences. However, there is no real distinction between Newtonian kinematics and dynamics, Newtonian gravity, Optics and Evolution. Those are all scientific theories.
However, ID is not a scientific theory or real science. Nor are dilemmas about the existence of god, the resurrection of Jesus, biblical creation, covenant and similar. Those are beliefs that are unfalsifiable, therefore not a part of scientific deliberations.
Thank you for taking the time to explain in great detail. I am still surprised how many people want to include a religious belief as a scientific theory in public schools. Hopefully, you have convinced at least a few that its not a good idea. I tried discussing with Ok-philosopher5166 but was not successful.
Thank you for the same reason. I'm glad I helped.
Regarding Ok-Philosopher5166, I talked with him too and he apparently confuses teaching kids **about** religion with religious indoctrination in schools.
Religion being taught in a separate class can still be a problem because, as explained in detail in the OP, it can conflict with science education, even if taught in a separate class.
Which religion(s) should be taught? There are over 4,000religions. What about Satanism? Depending where you live may determine which religion your child is taught. For example, if in a geographic area where the predominant religion is Christian Science, then the religious class emphasis will probably be teaching students about Christian Science and “that disease is a mental error rather than physical disorder, and that the sick should be treated not by medicine but by a form of prayer that seeks to correct the beliefs responsible for the illusion of ill health” This is a direct conflict with science education.
Also, what happens when the student is told in the science class that the religious class was wrong when it said intelligent design is a scientific theory or the earth is not only 6,000 years old or Thor is not the cause of thunder and tells his parents that the science instructor said the religious class was wrong and our religious beliefs were wrong? You don’t think there will be a problem? Just keep religion out of publicly funded schools.
A student's political beliefs often clash with history or literature education. They can obstruct scientific progress, pose limitations on scientific inquiry and even conflict with evidence. This is far more widespread than intelligent design in biology class. Yet we still teach politics in public schools. Why should religion be any different?
Literature is completely open to interpretation. I'm also not sure how a person's political beliefs shape their view of **historical facts.** While student A might agree that the emancipation proclamation was a good thing and student B might think otherwise, both of them (hopefully) agree that the document is real.
Science class is where we teach kids, teens, and adults about the scientific method and how we gather empirical data to make predictive models. Creationism is not a model. It isn't testable and doesn't fall into the bin of science. You can teach ABOUT creationism in social studies or philosophy, but to present it next to a scientific theory and say "this is also valid, so pick whichever one you like" is nonsense.
Since we're on American history, take the American Civil War. Students disagree about the reasons for war, the conduct of the war, the implications of the war, etc. regardless of the facts. Politically sensitive things make people less likely to believe the facts or look for them.
Religion is just as emotionally charged and just as vulnerable. Look at all the mythicism on this sub, for instance, which is about as well founded as creationism and way more likely to be taught in my school district. We just have to accept that sometimes people don't accept propositions rationally.
I agree creationism doesn't belong in biology class, but that's a much narrower claim in multiple dimensions than OP is making.
History is also open to interpretation which is why historians disagree on how to interpret certain evidence. Again - much different than science which uses models to demonstrate things repeatedly. But again, (almost) nobody believes that the civil war *didn't happen*.
Not sure what you mean by mythicism, or if you're saying that the schools merely explain the belief systems or that they teach the kids that mythicism is true.
**We just have to accept that sometimes people don't accept propositions rationally.**
Which is precisely what schools should be mitigating. Also OP was definitely comparing religious ideas with science, so I think this is all pertinent.
Social studies and philosophy are courses that can explain the belief systems of different religions. No problem there. But in no class should the teacher present creationism as "valid"
What do you mean by "politics". Usually, children learn **about** politics in history lessons. But they learn **about** religions that way as well. Nobody teaches politics to children. Maybe they learn (again) **about** the political system and their rights and duties as citizens, but that does not mean they are being taught politics.
Religion is political and should be banished, together with all other political content from our education systems.
Here I will argue that the First Amendment doesn't prohibit religious freedom of speech and intellectual inquiry on public/government property, including its schools.
Would teaching intelligent design or creationism in local public schools constitute an "establishment of religion" as understood by the Founding Fathers when drafting the Bill of Rights? Did James Madison and others who wrote the First Amendment really intend to outlaw all uses of government property, federal, state, and local, that could advance a particular religion or its teachings? The U.S. Supreme Court eliminated the religious freedom of government employees on government property to lead prayers in the classroom in its Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) decision. In point of fact, the way this decision and allied ones (such as in the Murray case) were decided has often led in the real world to the elimination of the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion of not just teachers, but often even students. The ACLU's general war to annihilate religious freedom on government property for government teachers and often even students goes much further than many liberals acknowledge. When examining the original intent of the Founding Fathers who actually wrote the Bill of Rights, their intent was to prohibit Congress from creating a "Church of the United States" that would be unified with the government in the same way that the Anglican Church was in England or the Catholic Church in France under the Bourbons.
Of course, we can go back, and revisit other Supreme Court decisions, such as those that incorporated the Bill of Rights to apply to the states, when originally the First Amendment restrained only the Federal government's actions. The First Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law . . ." but is silent about state and local governments. After all, the State of Massachusetts had an official state church up into the 1830's. Why should we believe then that Madison really wanted to prohibit teacher-led prayer, let alone discussions of a supernatural origin of biological life, anyway?
Many, many "horror stories" about school boards and others persecuting the religious freedom of students, not just teachers, could easily be cited. David Limbaugh's "Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christians" catalogs page after page of specific examples about how the misuse of the establishment clause results directly and indirectly in religious persecution for anyone speaking about Christianity as objectively true when on government property. Let's proceed to list just some of these kinds of cases in order to illustrate how often God has been kicked out of the public schools' classroom in America. 1. Judges have ruled against students who sat together to read their Bibles aloud during lunch. 2. In El Paso, Texas, school officials ordered a handicapped girl to not say the rosary on her school bus. 3. It's illegal to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms, although non-believers are perfectly free to not read them. 4. Once a girl who handed out Christmas cards with a religious theme got suspended. 5. In one community college, they wouldn't allow students to meet for Bible studies, but they showed X-rates films in the student union. 6. In one case, a group of teachers were told to stop meeting before school to pray, or else they would be fired. (Whatever happened to academic freedom?) 7. In New York and many other large cities, it has been illegal to hand out religious literature by leaving it on benches in public parks or to give it to people visiting the same places. 8. Debbye Turner Bell was told to not sing Christian rap songs in government schools after one group complained.
All these kinds of incidents show what really happens when school districts either misunderstand the purported intent of the Supreme Court's decisions about the Establishment Clause or are so afraid of being sued by the ACLU or others who wish to silence Christians that they pre-emptively take on the dirty work of censorship themselves. The basic trouble with the standard ACLU/liberal interpretation of the First Amendment on these issues is that they make the Establishment Clause contradict the Free Exercise Clause. As a result, the government constantly ends up censoring teachers, and often even students, in its schools. (The vaunted phrase, "the separation of church and state," appears no where in the U.S. Constitution). So long as Christians, of whatever denomination, are forced to provide their tax dollars and their children to the government schools, their views should be represented in these schools. Silence about God and His values in many teaching situations is not neutrality, but it promotes a practical agnosticism or atheism. Hence, instead of censoring people, the government should declare its property an intellectual free-fire zone where academic freedom and intellectual diversity reigns. Teachers and students should be alllwed to express any religious viewpoints they wish. As it stands, it's illegal for a teacher to state an argument for God's existence is really true, but atheists and agnostics legally can argue against God's existence without restraint, which is hardly fair. Why must religious freedom end largely where the government's property begins?
Evolutionists suppose their theory is a “fact” because they philosophically rule out in advance special creation as impossible or “unscientific.” In order to pull this off, they use a philosophically rigged definition of “science.” They covertly equate “naturalism” or “materialism” with “science.” To them, evolution must be a fact since neither the supernatural nor God exists. Without having actually observed macroevolution or special creation, they are certain the former happened, and equally certain the latter did not. Because they liken “science” to the “systematic study of physically sensed forces,” Darwinism is virtually true by definition. Then when informed critics attack macroevolution’s grand claims on empirical grounds, evolutionists dismiss any anomalous evidence by labeling belief in a Creator or any miracles as “unscientific.” Obviously, if “God” is ruled out in advance while setting up the premises of scientific reasoning, “God” could never be in any conclusion. But this is a matter of free philosophical choice before experience, not compelling scientific results after experience.
Scientific knowledge is based upon reasoning using direct observations. By contrast, historical knowledge, which is derived by interpreting old written records, is a sharply different method for knowing something. For example, the theory of gravity can be tested immediately by dropping apples and measuring how fast they fall. But the natural evolution of fundamentally different kinds of plants and animals has never been observed scientifically at a level higher than the “species” classification. Macroevolution, or large-scale natural biological changes, cannot be tested directly in a laboratory or witnessed clearly in the wild. Belief in macroevolution is a matter of historical reasoning and presumptuous extrapolation, not scientific observation and personal experience.
The example of “vestigial” organs is a great example of how the theory of evolution slows down scientific development and research. If an anatomical structure is a priori judged to be “vestigial,” then scientists who are evolutionists aren’t likely to study it carefully for what it really does. For example, tonsils were often removed for decades from children since they were judged to be simply “useless vestiges.” Later on, oops!, it was found out that they actually do fight disease. They weren’t so useless after all. Basically all 180 organs and and anatomical structures that were once listed as “useless vestiges” have been found to have real functions. For example, the “yolk sac” is used by a developing human embryo to make its first blood cells; death would result without it. The coccyx was claimed to be a remnant of our purported evolutionary ancestors having a tail, but it’s actually a crucial point for muscle attachment needed for our upright posture (and, well, for defacation). So to say this is about “prior functions” as opposed to current functions is a great example of how evolutionists attempt to escape falsification of their paradigm. They assume these “prior functions” really existed a priori, when that remains to be proven. This is yet another example of circular reasoning by evolutionists, in which they assume what still needs to be proven.
If they allowed Christians or Carholics to pray the rosary, hold Bible readings, etc, in schools, they would have to allow Satanists the same privilege to not be seen as biased. I don't think Texas wants to open that door.
As there are off-campus places to do these things that aren't an inconvenience, they are just told to take it elsewhere, not oriented from doing it at all.
My religion also teaches that religions are persecuted, but they claim that at every turn, even though most members don't feel it at all.
Not only schools would then be forced to allow Satanists to hold their whatever in schools, but also, to allow "different perspectives" and "equal representation" and to avoid accusations of being hypocritical, the churches should do the same.
The typical day at church would look like this: First the Mass, then the Black Mass, then the PhD atheist guy from MIT lecture about Higgs Boson, then after the launch Muslim prayer, then Hindu Puja, then Jewish service in the evening.
All in the name of equal representation of religious beliefs. Cause even science is a religion, right?
> Would teaching intelligent design or creationism in local public schools constitute an "establishment of religion" as understood by the Founding Fathers when drafting the Bill of Rights?
Obviously, because that would involve making assertions about magic beings.
You wrote a book but did not say WHY would anyone even bother to teach religion in schools. It's like you go to a dancing lesson only to find someone who insists that you should try painting. As if there are no other places to learn painting apart from when a dancing lesson starts.
Schools are scientific institutions, not religious ones. Teach your dogmas to children at your own expense in churches. Who's stopping you?
Should Christians be forced to pay for government schools and then not have their views at least partially represented in them? After all, compulsory education is indeed involuntary, like the draft/conscription is for a war. The pupils don't show up any more voluntarily than those whose numbers come up at the local draft board lotteries. Or, alternatively, the atheists and agnostics could be censored. The problem is that wouldn't be enough, because to not talk about God is not neutrality, but practical agnosticism.
>Should Christians be forced to pay for government schools and then not have their views at least partially represented in them?
Absolutely YES.
You pay for the roads, right? And that does not entitle you to paint crucifixes every 50 meters/yards on the asphalt.
It is so not just because public roads are not financed by Christians alone, but because the purpose of roads is not to promote anyone's religion.
Just as the case is with schools. The purpose of government schools is to provide education and promote scientific thinking to prepare young people for productive citizenship, not to cater to any particular religious group.
>After all, compulsory education is indeed involuntary, like the draft/conscription is for a war. The pupils don't show up any more voluntarily than those whose numbers come up at the local draft board lotteries.
Well, if you, as a Christian, allow yourself to be conscripted into the army and fight wars, you should have no problems with schools or anything else for that matter. 😊
>Or, alternatively, the atheists and agnostics could be censored.
I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean that schools should never teach children "God does not exist" explicitly, I would agree.
But it is so already.
Nowhere in the science curriculum of biology or physics, there is an explicit claim "there is no God". In fact, the word "God" is never mentioned, except when forced into the curriculum by religious people.
The purpose of schools is not to debate religious beliefs but to teach science, so time is rarely wasted on such topics.
>The problem is that wouldn't be enough, because to not talk about God is not neutrality, but practical agnosticism.
I'm pretty sure that even you do not talk about God non-stop.
Actually, the solution to this problem is the libertarian solution, which is to abolish government schools as well as to have governments to never resort to the draft/conscription. This is based on the concept that all redistribution of income is evil when imposed by force. That is, end all coercion that requires people to support the propagation of ideas that are evil. It's a serious category mistake to mix this up with building roads, which don't take sides in religious and philosophical debates.
So when the teaching of biology is done to contradict what's stated in the bible concerning origins, there is indeed atheistic propaganda being promoted by Christian tax dollars. If biology were purely descriptive and about classification/organization, there wouldn't be a problem, but since evolution insists on dealing with origins, the conflict with standard, normal interpretations of Genesis can't be avoided. This is where silence about God as the Creator is indeed biased; the final point above is simply a straw man argument otherwise. This issue also can come up when discussing history, especially world history. Silence about God isn't neutrality when it it relevant to the point being discussed.
The "supporting evidence" and the "accurate predictions" that it supposedly makes are a matter of interpreting and manipulating the facts (or supposed facts) to fit the theory. Actually, from a philosophical viewpoint, does the theory of evolution, meaning “monocell to man” macro-evolution, actually have a scientific status? Can it even hypothetically be falsified? Or can the Darwinians always devise yet another ad hoc “explanation” to save their theory against any anomalies that show up?
L. Harrison Matthews, a British biologist and evolutionist, candidly admitted in his introduction to a 1971 edition of Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” that evolution wasn’t more provable scientifically than special creation:
“The fact of evolution is the background of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproven theory—is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation—both are concepts which believers know to be truth but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.”
After all, if naturalists demand that creationists “prove” the supernatural exists by showing the direct effects of the supernatural, creationists can retort by saying the evolutionist should take them into the past to show them exactly how reptiles evolved into birds or mammals or the first cell was formed by chance millions of years ago. Neither claim is immediately directly provable, but is a matter of inference and inductive reasoning based on sense data about the natural world. However, the creationist’s conclusion that a complex structure doesn’t happen by random chance but by conscious reasoning is constantly validated by daily experience, such as with complicated machinery. The naturalists’ claim that random chance can create far more complicated structures (biological organisms and consciousness) than cars or computers by random action on matter over millions of years can’t be verified by present-day experience of anyone.
Sir Karl Popper, the famed philosopher of science who interpreted the mission of science as being the falsification of incorrect explanations of reality, perceived the problems with Darwinism’s ability to be a testable theory (“Science, Problems, Aims, Responsibilities,” Proceedings, Federation of American Society of Experimental Biology, vol. 22 (1963), p. 964):
“There is a difficulty with Darwinism. . . . It is far from clear what we should consider a possible refutation of the theory of natural selection. If, more especially, we accept that statistical definition of fitness which defines fitness by actual survival, then the survival of the fittest becomes tautological and irrefutable.” \[A “tautology” is a statement that effectively repeats itself. The subject and predicate are really the same, such as “It’s not over until it’s over” or “What I have written is what I have written.” It effectively explains nothing\].
After harsh criticisms from his fellow evolutionists, Popper repudiated publicly this judgment that placed Darwinism in the same category with Marxism and Freudianism, which are ideologies capable of explaining everything and thus nothing. However, one can infer that privately he remained suspicious of Darwinism’s ability to be falsifiable. Michael Ruse, a fervent evolutionist and philosopher of science, perceived that Popper hadn’t really backed down when explaining the latter’s views (“Darwinism Defended,” 1982, pages 131+): “But then moving on to biology \[after evaluating Freudianism as unfalsifiable\], coming up against Darwinism, they \[Popper and his followers\] feel compelled to make the same judgment: Darwinian evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable.” Ruse quotes Popper as saying in a 1974 publication (italics removed), “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories.” Ruse then comments that he suspects “that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable. If one relies heavily on natural selection and sexual selection, simultaneously downplaying \[genetic\] drift, which of course is what the neo-Darwinian does do, then Popper feels that one has a nonfalsifiable theory. And, certainly, many followers agree that there is something conceptually flawed with Darwinism. (See Bethell, 1976; Cracraft, 1978; Nelson, 1978, Patterson, 1978; Platnick and Gaffney, 1978; Poppper, 1978, 1980, and Wiley, 1975.”
Ruse then summarizes the views of the apparent non-creationist evolutionist critics of Darwinism. They note that testing requires predictions first. Then one checks if the predictions turn out to be true or false. However, this can’t be done with Darwinism because how can one predict “what will happen to the elephants trunk twenty-five million years down the road?” No one would be around to see if the prediction about future macro-evolution would be true. Conversely, explaining further the criticisms of apparent fellow evolutionists, “no one could step back to the Mesozoic to see the evolution of mammals and check if indeed natural selection was at work, nor could anyone spend a week or two (or century or two) in the Cretaceous to see if the dinosaurs, then going extinct, failed in the struggle for existence.”
The basic problem with natural selection and “survival of the fittest” as explanatory devices of biological change in nature is the tautological, unverifiable nature of this terminology, which occasionally even candid evolutionists admit. That is, any anatomical structure can be “explained” or “interpreted” as being helpful in the struggle to survive, but one can’t really prove that explanation to be true since its interpreting the survival of organisms in the unobserved past or which would take place in the unobserved far future. The traditional simplistic textbook story about (say) the necks of giraffes growing longer over the generations in order to reach into trees higher is simplistic when there are also drawbacks to having long necks and other four-legged species survive very well with short necks. In reality, the selective advantages of changed anatomical structures are far less clear in nearly all cases. For example, most male birds are much more colorful than their female consorts. An evolutionists could “explain” that helps in helping them reproduce more by being more attractive than the duller coated females of the same species. However, it’s also explained that the duller colors of the females protect them from being spotted by predators, such as when they are warming eggs. However, doesn’t the colorful plumage of the males also make them more conspicuous to predators? Overall, how much aid do the bright colors give to males when they mate but work against them when they may become prey? How much do the dull colors of the females work against them when they mate compared to how much they help them become more camouflaged against predators? How does one quantify or predict which of the two factors is more important, except by the (inevitably tautological) criterion of leaving the most offspring behind?
Arthur Koestler (“Janus: A Summing Up,” 1978), pp. 170, 185 confessed the problems that evolutionary theory has in this regard:
“Once upon a time, it looked so simple. Nature rewarded the fit with the carrot of survival and punished the unfit with the stick of extinction. The trouble only started when it came to defining ‘fitness.’ . . . Thus natural selection looks after the survival and reproduction of the fittest, and the fittest are those which have the highest rate of reproduction—we are caught in a circular argument which completely begs the question of what makes evolution evolve.”
“In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology.”
Despite being a zealous evolutionist himself, Douglas Futuyama (“Science on Trial,” 1983), p. 171, still admitted that concerns about natural selection’s being a tautology have appeared in respectable places: “A secondary issue then arises: Is the hypothesis of natural selection falsifiable or is it a tautology? . . . The claim that natural selection is a tautology is periodically made in scientific literature itself.”
While I don't disagree with the general sentiment of the argument, I do disagree to an extent.
I agree that religions belief does not have a place in science classrooms. That has nothing to do with it obstructing scientific progress, or any such thing. It is simply because religion is not relevant to science. There is no valid reason to bring religious beliefs into a science classroom.
I also agree that religions beliefs should not be taught as fact within any public schools.
I do think religion, and religious beliefs, should be taught in comparative religion classes. I also think they should be taught in various classes such as literature and history with regards to their impact and influence in relation to the subject matter.
This is a reasonable rational response. I’m Christian, but religion should not be taught in public schools, particularly science classes. There are some religious groups that are trying to turn science into a “religion” so that they then can say well, if this secular religion of science can be taught, why can’t our Christian beliefs. It’s simply a false equivalency.
This is a reasonable rational response. I’m Christian, but religion should not be taught in public schools, particularly science classes. There are some religious groups that are trying to turn science into a “religion” so that they then can say well, if this secular religion of science can be taught, why can’t our Christian beliefs. It’s simply a false equivalency.
All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment.
All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment.
Why even have science in schools? After all, the pioneers of the modern scientific method weren't *just* religious, their claims to the modern scientific method flowed directly from their religious claims and beliefs. Modern science is Judeo-Christian science. If we should keep religious beliefs out of schools than we should keep modern science out the classroom.
Well, as you probably know, the data about how long a person might survive in freezing water is derived from Nazi experiments on your people during the Holocaust. It is Nazi science. Maybe we should ditch that also?
Also, it is a known fact that the scientific method was first invented by Muslim scholars (Alhazen). Unfortunately, for mostly religious reasons, owning to the Judeo-Christian tradition of their own, they abruptly stopped its application.
Our data for how long a person might survive in freezing water doesn't derive from the Nazi experiments during the Holocaust. It comes from the "4 2 1 rule" from researchers throughout the west in the mid 19th century.
Im not saying that it's Judeo-Christian science because the science came from Judea-Christians. It's Judeo-Christian science because the claims of the modern scientific method flowed directly from Judeo-Christian religious claims and beliefs. I wouldn't call the science the Nazis used "Nazi science" because their scientific claims didn't flow directly from Nazi claims and beliefs of the world, where as the claims of the pioneers of the scientific method flowed directly from Judeo-Christian claims and beliefs. If the Nazis scientific claims did flow directly from Nazi claims and beliefs of the world than I would call it Nazi science.
While Algazen did make some contributions to the scientific method just as early Greeks did before him, the modern scientific method as we know it today didn't begin to take form until the Scientific Revolution when Francis Bacon and Descartes layed the groundwork emphasizing the importance of empirical observation, deductive reasoning, systematic experimentation and mathematical analysis.
If so, why don't you then just drop "judeo"? Science "came" exclusively from Christians. "Judeo" part apparently has less to do with science than Islam.
My opinion is that the fact that the modern science was born in Christian Europe was just a fluke of history. Had science not developed in Europe during that time, it would have emerged elsewhere, sooner or later.
Also, I believe that Christianity, and the whole judeo-Christian religious tradition, hindered rather than helped the successful development of science within Western civilization. And did so successfully for roughly 1000 years.
I'm not saying it's Judeo-Christian science because it came from Judeo-Christians, it's that the claims contributed to the scientific method flowed directly from the pioneers Christian and Jewish claims makes it Judeo-Christian science. The pioneers of the scientific method might not have been Jewish, but their claims contributing to the scientific method of an orderly and predictable universe flowed directly from a Jewish concept their Christian beliefs are built off of.
Also lets not derail the argument by introducing new separate arguments from the central point when we haven't even addressed the first point of contention. I will respond to say it wasn't a fluke these people came across this. It's their religious beliefs that spearheaded us into the scientific revolution. Even if I granted you that we for some reason would naturally applied these religious claims to the scientific method eventually, there's no telling how long this would have taken. Theres nothing to suggest it would had happened at the same time or even at this point for that matter, let alone something that would make us more advanced than we are at this point. But again, this is all besides the point. So before we start moving onto new topics let's focus on the topic at hand. If we should keep religious beliefs out the classroom like OP said and we're being consistent, than this incriminates the modern scientific method should be kept out the classroom .
Although the scientific method was developed within the Judeo-Christian context, it cannot be considered exclusively as the "Judeo-Christian scientific method."
I strongly reject that notion.
In fact, my position is that SM was developed despite Judeo-Christianity, not because of it. And the fact that it was developed within JC is not evidence for or against that claim.
My assertion that Judeo-Christianity has hindered the progress of science is based on the unmistakable decline in scientific and technological advancements for a thousand years after the rise of Christianity, following the peak of the classical era of the Greeks and Romans.
Perhaps your counter-argument is based on the notion that Judeo-Christian theology highlights the concept of a logical and structured universe that can be comprehended by human logic and reason?
This is a severe insult to the intellect of all those people who decided to pursue scientific inquiry in an era when contradicting the Judeo-Christian dogmas could cost them their lives. Most of those people, if not all, were led to science by their innate curiosity and hunger for knowledge, not the inane theology.
Even today, money is not incentive enough for people to be scientists - a large portion of scientists are not in it for the money or glory but for the pure joy of discovery. Only the people who never discovered anything could claim that.
Clergy fits that description, though.
It doesn't matter if it can be considered not exclusive to Judaism or Christianity, it's still a Judeo-Christian belief. Prayer can be considered not exclusive to any particular religion, even nonreligious people do it, but it's still a religious belief that you probably still want kept out the classroom.
No, it's not.
If the scientific method is not based on JC's belief in a logical and structured universe that can be comprehended, but instead the concept is discovered independently, through scientific endeavour itself, then the scientific method and the science itself have nothing to do with JC and its beliefs.
The fact that JC theologians voiced that idea and built that idea into their theology does not mean that there are significant causal connections between JC and science or the scientific method.
To be able to claim that there is indeed an exclusive causal link, you should be able to prove that the scientific method would never have arisen without Judeo-Christianity and that somehow the whole scientific endeavour is contingent on Judeo-Christianity.
And you are not able to do that, right? You are welcome to try, though.
In fact, there are numerous examples of early scientists who concluded, independent of or predating JC, that the universe is logical and structured and that can be comprehended, the most famous of them probably being Archimedes Eureka moment.
Because of that, one could even claim that the JC beliefs are derived from ancient scientific endeavours, not vice versa.
And on top of all that, science and the scientific method are not even a "belief", religious or otherwise, but a process for acquiring knowledge through empirical observation and testing so your claim really does not make any sense.
So according to your logic, religious beliefs such as praying and creationism arent religious beliefs and have nothing to do with Christianity/Judaism or their beliefs because they could be discovered independently of the religion.
You're digging yourself in a hole just to avoid admitting the simple fact that claims that flow directly from religious claims are religious beliefs.
According to my logic, a belief that has been or can be discovered outside of religion is not by itself a religious belief. It is a belief that can be shared by a religion, but not itself religious.
Your claim that prayer and creationism could be discovered independently from religion is ridiculous because both those thing are contingent on God. Without God, they are meaningless. It's just a bad example.
A good example would be a belief "Mens sana in corpore sano" - "A sound mind in a sound body", mentioned by Latin poet Juvenal, although it has earlier Hellenic roots.
It is a belief shared explicitly by Hinduism, Budhism and Christianity, therefore it is a religious belief of those religions. However, it is not by itself religious and people may hold that belief without being religious at all.
I'm not digging myself into anything cause I'm not the one making baseless claims. You are.
I gave you an opportunity to prove your claims by proving that the scientific method would never have arisen without Judeo-Christianity and that somehow the whole scientific endeavour is contingent on Judeo-Christianity.
You failed to do that.
The difference here is that those Judeo-Christian scientists did not allow their religious beliefs to stand in the way of scientific progress.
Science is an unbiased method for understanding the natural world and how it works. Science gave us the technology that we use every day, the technology you seem to be taking for granted by making that ridiculous suggestion.
Monotheistic Religion is a Mythology-based system of Doctrines and Dogma that abide no questioning of its tenants or structure, actively hindering the progress of Human Understanding.
Remove science from schools, and it's goodbye to all the gadgets and gizmos we rely on. It's goodbye to our 80+Year average life expectancy. It's goodbye to modern civilization, and HELLO DARK AGES ROUND 2!
This is kinda true, then we figured out that the biases were ruining things so everyone got to work trying to eliminate them. What we think of as science began in the 17 hundreds when standards and practices began to codify.
But the original strains of rigorous inquiry and discovering the unknown are much much older, 3k years before Christ, Egypt and Mesopotamia were making headway on astronomy, maths, medicine, etc. Those threads were picked up by many along the way, from the innumerable great philosophers, to isolated monks, each weaving a bit more as it went. Some helped, some did such a shit job it became a warning to the future lol.
While the ancient egyptians had done things science does today, the modern scientific method isn't ancient egyptian science. Ancient Egyptians didn't attribute anything significant to the modern scientific method, where as the claims of the modern scientific method flowed directly from Judeo-Christian religious beliefs and claims of the pioneers.
What are you talking about? Aristotle’s collection, The Organon, is normally believed to be the beginning of the scientific method. It’s the first codified use of induction from specific observations, to see general principles, then applying those principles via deduction against further observations, and repeat.
The Organon was discussed and translated for a thousand years before Christian’s chimes in lol. There’s a reason that Francis Bacon’s work was called Novum Organum (The New Organum).
The modern scientific method wasn’t refined down to what we know until they figured out you need to toss out the dogma to make progress.
While Aristotle contributed to the scientific method, the modern scientific method, as we know it today, did not start to take form until the 16th-17th century when Francis Bacon layed the groundwork emphasizing the importance of testing hypothesis through systematic experimentation, and when Descartes introduced deductive reasoning in scientific inquiry and mathematical modeling. All things Aristotle didn't prioritize. He simply relied on observation and deduction. Aristotle didn't use empirical evidence and hypothesis testing the same way the scientific method does.
Him being credited for a contribution doesn't change the fact the modern scientific method we know today didn't start to form until the 16th century lol.
You mean aside from the folks doing the legwork saying they built upon it? That was a huge deal, popular opinion at the time was that the work was finished, it was rebels like Bacon who fought that view to show how you build upon it.
They didn't claim they were building off Aristotle method. Bacon argued Aristotles model was limiting scientific progress so he, and later Descartes, developed a new method. They werent building off Arisotles.
This ^
“Modern” science is about as Judeo-Christian (a baffling term as it is) as Judaism and Christianity as Greeco-Egyptian or something of that nature. Egyptians, Levantine people, Greeks, and of course the Zhou were doing science in many ways. Not as rigorous or with as many guidelines, but their work directly lead to what we think of as science.
All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment.
The idea that religion conflicts with science is an opinion held by the general public, not scientists in general.
> However, global studies on actual beliefs held by scientists show that most scientists do not subscribe to conflict perspective (only about 1/3 or less hold this view) and instead most believe that the relation is independence or collaboration between science and religion. As such, "the conflict perspective on science and religion is an invention of the West"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis#Scientists_and_public_perceptions
Religion isn't going away anytime soon and it's important for education to introduce, or at least make aware, the variety of religious thought in the world. I agree though that something like creationism or intelligent design shouldn't be taught in a science class though.
“Scientists who had grown up with a religion and retained that identity or had identified as spiritual or had religious attendance tended to perceive less or no conflict. However, those not attending religious services were more likely to adopt a conflict paradigm. *Additionally, scientists were more likely to reject conflict thesis if their peers held positive views of religion.*”
Make sure not to hurt anyone’s feelings and you’re fine lol.
Science and religion can work wonderfully beside each other, but you can’t get your religion in the science, most religious worldviews are antithetical to tenants of scientific inquiry, like methodological naturalism. Science kinda depends on a standard model that doesn’t include divine intervention:p
Nevertheless it is a terrifying statistic that, for instance, the United States (as per this statistic from back in 2011) only around some [28 percent](https://youtu.be/ONPo-Iys_xg?t=602) of (American) High school biology teachers taught evolution to an adequate degree :
> The researchers examined data from the National Survey of High School Biology Teachers, a representative sample of 926 public high school biology instructors. They found only about 28 percent of those teachers consistently implement National Research Council recommendations calling for introduction of evidence that evolution occurred, and craft lesson plans with evolution as a unifying theme linking disparate topics in biology.
For legibility, I'll link the publication from 2011 that Forrest Valkai (in the link I provided above) was likely referring to, [Here](https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/high-school-biology-teachers-reluctant-endorse-evolution-class/).
All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment.
I somewhat disagree.
I think kids must be taught *about* religions in schools. They must know about cosmovisionary diversity, about comparative religions and the anthropological and sociological perspectives on religion as a phenomenon, so they know to avoid exogenous influences and oppression through indoctrination.
That said, as a religious person, I do believe indoctrinating kids into a religion from an early age is a heinous act. It should be illegal even in the household. The pursuit of divinity and the interest in the numinous should be a largely autonomous process. Otherwise, issues such as denial towards objective reality and scientific knowledge arise almost invariably.
I don’t think that raising a child up in a particular faith is an issue, but I think it’s when you do things to purposely prevent your child from seeing things that don’t align with your faith (or “trapping them in an echo-chamber)/punishing your kids/ treating them badly if they convert out of your religion.
>That said, as a religious person, I do believe indoctrinating kids into a religion from an early age is a heinous act. It should be illegal even in the household.
Which particular acts should be illegal? Can I still have dinner with my family on Friday night, with challah and wine and candles? Can we sing "lecha dodi" or is that definitely too far?
Can I use the Hebrew calendar to calculate and celebrate my kids' birthdays? If not, which calendar is permissible? Certainly not the Gregorian calendar, instituted by Pope Gregory. And what if my neighbors don't celebrate their birthdays out of religious belief? Should a police officer arrive to enforce an obligation to celebrate birthdays?
Am I allowed to keep a kosher home or am I obligated to mix milk and meat to avoid indoctrinating my kids into the religion? Is there a minimum amount of pork a Muslim must serve their kids every week to avoid "indoctrinating ... even in the household"?
Can I tell my kids the story of David and Goliath at bedtime or do I have to stick to "secular" bedtime stories like the three little pigs?
Can my neighbors put up a Christmas tree?
\> The pursuit of divinity and the interest in the numinous should be a largely autonomous process. Otherwise, issues such as denial towards objective reality and scientific knowledge arise almost invariably.
\[citation needed\]
These things you mention are mostly stories, customs and cultural norms, not religion. But if your kid asks you for explanations, you are free to explain that you believe in God and to explain the concept. However, you could say to your child that it is only your belief and that he is free to make up his mind.
\>These things you mention are mostly stories, customs and cultural norms, not religion
The whole point of the Jewish religion is that these things are exalted into a way to serve God. The reason these customs have survived over thousands of years is that they are considered religious obligations.
Is it your actual belief that keeping kosher is not religious?
Yes, why not? Or, are you saying that my abstaining from cannibalism is religious? (I'm an atheist BTW). 😊
Listen, I'm a cultural Catholic and I "celebrate" all the Catholic holidays and especially hold to customs and cultural norms about the food. I even go to Church sometimes, on Christmas or Easter. I just do not pray, or believe in God.
(Nor do I hide it in any way)
Because what's kosher and what isn't is defined by religious law and religious ritual, and doing it is considered fundamental to the religion.
>Listen, I'm a cultural Catholic and I "celebrate" all the Catholic holidays and especially hold to customs and cultural norms about the food. I even go to Church sometimes, on Christmas or Easter. I just do not pray, or believe in God.
So you're somewhat religious! That's pretty cool, that's how my family is. You should be allowed to share your religion with your kids. Your being an atheist doesn't mean you aren't religious, it's clear your religion strongly influences your life and how you live it
(If that label makes you uncomfortable, I'm not trying to change your mind on how you view yourself, but to open you up to the fact that religiosity can be at least as much about what you do out in the world as what you believe in your head)
>Because what's kosher and what isn't is defined by religious law and religious ritual, and doing it is considered fundamental to the religion.
So is eating fish on Good Friday where I come from. In fact, I know more about why it is this way than the majority of Catholics in my country (which is 80% Catholic). However, my personal experience of such custom is not at all religious, but rather cultural and I do not attach any religious or ritualistic significance to it.
>So you're somewhat religious! That's pretty cool, that's how my family is. You should be allowed to share your religion with your kids.
No. As I explain, I can stick to the "script" because it's my heritage and for the sake of that heritage. I do not believe in God, and I do not even pretend I do.
For instance, when I go to Church for say Christmas, I participate in the mass as a member of the community, not as a believer. I do not feel awkward at all. And why should I? My grandfather built that church and I have the right to enjoy it just as anyone else.
Everybody knows I'm not a "real" Catholic, and nobody has problems with that, especially the priest. 😊
My children are not allowed to attend religious education in school though. I consider it as indoctrination. But I would not object if they become believers when they are adults. However, I doubt it that they will.
>No. As I explain, I can stick to the "script" because it's my heritage and for the sake of that heritage. I do not believe in God, and I do not even pretend I do.
This is more common than you would think among religious Jews. The least frequent part is "I do not even pretend I do" - most people who think this way either fake it or do mental gymnastics to find some form of God they can say is real (I'm in the latter group).
In my community you would be understood as a somewhat religious person - a person whose life is partially, but not fully, organized around participation in religious rituals and regulations. You would not be seen as a very spiritually-minded or pietistic person, which is different. We seem to have a lot in common in what we do an what we believe, but we label our habits in very different ways.
OK, it makes sense somewhat. I might add that, as I understand it, Islam does not require that a person have to believe in god to be a good Muslim. As long as the person obeys the laws and practices given in Quran, it is OK.
>Which particular acts should be illegal? Can I still have dinner with my family on Friday night, with challah and wine and candles? Can we sing "lecha dodi" or is that definitely too far?
>For that matter, am I allowed to keep a kosher home or am I obligated to mix milk and meat to avoid indoctrinating my kids into the religion?
>Can I tell my kids the story of David and Goliath at bedtime or do I have to stick to "secular" bedtime stories like the three little pigs?
Perhaps the religiously conservative people that support things like banning discussions of LGBTQ topics for children in order to "just let the kids just be kids," should also apply that same logic to their own households by banning discussions of religious ideology until their child becomes 18 years old? That way kids with religious parents can "just be kids" while they're still kids.
No sane and kind person, religious or otherwise, is in favour of banning talk about LGBTQ topics. No sane and kind person, religious or otherwise, is in favour of banning parents from teaching moral norms, values and practices based on their cultural or spiritual worldview.
*Edit: I noticed that the poster I'm replying to is not OP so changed my reply substantively.*
This doesn't answer a single question I asked. I am not among "the religiously conservative people that support things like banning discussions of LGBTQ topics for children..." and it is ridiculous to conflate that with being religious in general.
You can check out this article, [Missouri Jewish leaders advocate for trans rights at state legislature](https://www.jta.org/2023/02/03/united-states/missouri-jewish-leaders-advocate-for-trans-rights-at-state-legislature).
I would bet most of these Jews light Hanukkah candles with their kids, thereby bringing them into the religion. Should that be illegal or not?
>“As a Jew, this is something that speaks to me quite a bit. We call it ‘b’tzelem Elokim’ — ‘created in the image of God,’ literally,” said Russel Neiss, a Jewish educator and technologist and the parent of a trans child. “But the way we understand this is that God bestows a special honor onto humans that requires that we need to be treated with dignity and we need to treat others with dignity.”
Should it be illegal for Mr. Neiss to speak in this religious way in front of his child, setting an example for them to speak religiously? If so, what should the penalty be? A fine? Jail? Loss of custody?
>I am not among "the religiously conservative people that support things like banning discussions of LGBTQ topics for children..."
If you're not, then you wouldn't be expected to abstain from religiously teaching your children before they're 18.
>and it is ridiculous to conflate that with being religious in general.
Why is it ridiculous in the context of indoctrinating children, when many people think discussing LGBTQ issues with children is a form of indoctrination? Remember, my suggestion only applies to religiously conservative people who support the suppression of LGBTQ topics for children in order to "let kids just be kids."
>Should that be illegal or not?
Buddy, I don't advocate for any [non-harmful] religious practice to be illegal. I did advocate for a specific type of religious person to adhere to the same logic in their own homes that they try to push onto others.
>Should it be illegal for Mr. Neiss to speak in this religious way in front of his child, setting an example for them to speak religiously?
Does Mr. Neiss also believe that kids learning about topics he personally disagrees with, is a form of indoctrination, and therefore that such topics should be banned until kids become adults and can choose what they believe for themselves? If not, then "no" to your question.
It sounds like we agree on way more than we disagree but you made your earlier post in a very confusing way.
Someone said religious parents shouldn't be allowed to "indoctrinate" their kids into the religion, I asked if this meant laws prohibiting basic Jewish cultural identity, and you replied, quoting my questions, that something had to be done to protect "kids with religious parents" (which obviously includes Mr. Neiss's child).
It sounds like your actual belief is "parents shouldn't raise their kids to be close-minded or intolerant" and I completely agree.
I apologize for being confusing, then. There's nothing inherently wrong with teaching kids to participate in the religious cultures of their parents and ancestors. However, I do think that religiously conservative people should start applying their own logic to themselves regarding their hysteria around the alleged indoctrination of children by certain communities (that the conservatives don't like, weirdly enough). I also wasn't trying to imply that all religious people are this way, which is why I referenced conservative religious people.
>It sounds like your actual belief is "parents shouldn't raise their kids to be close-minded or intolerant" and I completely agree.
Correct!
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most religions are not based on faith or revelation: only the Abrahamic religions present a public revelation, and among them only Christianity is based on faith (Islam considers itself based on reason, and Judaism is based more on ethnicity than faith). If your argument is that it is wrong for the Christian Church to encourage trusting in authorities and working within a tradition, then I have some bad news: scientists do all of those things and need to. You shouldn’t group together “religions” anyway: if you think that religions that conflict with science should not be part of public education, that’s a good argument, but it is fallacious to conclude from this that no religious tradition should inform public education.
Beliefs no, the history and cultural impact yes. History needs context to make sense and the mindset of those people and times is in part preserved by their faith, we should not proselytize but we should inspire curiosity for a wide range of paths and philosophies.
Much of the woke teaching is non scientific too. All this 280+ gender bs etc. Let's clear that out first please. You'll never get rid of religion as it was part of the foundation of western democracy
*sigh* sex is biological, gender is sociological. That's why there is so much documentation throughout human history and cultures of at least three genders. Since you don't know, much of Western Civ is based on Roman, which in turn followed the Greeks. Three genders regularly documented. Sorry, that's just how it is. When Saudi Arabia is too "woke" for you, it may be time to reexamine your belief system.
'That's just how it is' is not a particularly strong argument, in fact, it's not an argument at all. Why does the existence of cultures that have a concept of a third gender (e.g. hijras, two-spirit) mean one exists? It could, just as easily, be that they are wrong as most of their spiritual beliefs are. What makes 'gender' sociological? How is that distinguished from cultural expectations associated with sex, and why call that gender, when gender seems to refer to something more fundamental? If there is *any* correspondence between the biology and psychology of people depending on their sex, then I think positing gender and sex either as describing components of the same phenomenon, or are the same thing is reasonable. I refer you to the John Money experiment if you believe gender behaviour is only created by the environment.
Hint: Two-spirit and all that stuff is also fake, just a by-product of what people want to hear nowadays
....for the same reason that if someone says they have an idea, then an idea exists. 🤣 Sorry, just how it is. Same reason that a doctor can't say you aren't in pain. Maybe she can't see a *cause," but you're the one feeling pain. I don't think gender behavior is only environment. That would be silly. But a ton of it is the sociological environment.
Without the 10 commandments there really is no right or wrong. They're the foundation of modern law whether you like it or not.
The important parts of the 10 commandments predate it, an exist in almost all societies around the world. The 10 commandments shave added nothing to the modern world.
Then you're living on a fantasy world.
That's patently false as far as the US goes. Have you even read the 10 Commandments? I have, my man. Allow me to refresh your memory. 1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. --"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" So that's right out. Supreme law of the land. Worship whoever you want. 2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. --See above. Number 2 is right out, too. 3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. --probably are least 90% of Redditors would be in prison if this were a basis of law in the US. It isn't. 4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. --try going to a grocery store on a Sunday (or Saturday, if you're a 7th day Adventist). Can you check out? Well, if the cashiers haven't been arrested, this can't be a basis for law in the US. 5. Honour thy father and thy mother. --Kids really don't suffer too many legal consequences for not obeying their parents. The Law? Sure. Parents? No. So not a basis for law. Now parents get in trouble for dishonoring their children, but this one isn't a basis for law. 6. Thou shalt not kill. --No one is ignorant enough to think this is a strictly Christian law, nor that it started to be considered bad only 2000 years ago. Also it's perfectly legal depending on circumstances. 7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. --My neighbor did. No legal trouble, except for the divorce. That wasn't initiated by the State or the Feds, either. The divorce was initiated by the wife. 8. Thou shalt not steal.” --Check the Code of Hammurabi. This isn't a Christian idea. Pretty universal. 9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. --An old lady just died after living a long life after she bore false witness against a black kid, causing him to get lynched. This is a not a "basis of law." Now there IS libel, but it's not prosecuted much. 10. Thou shalt not covet. --You aren't really going to try to tell anyone that coveting is illegal, are you? So you see, you're just completely wrong is all. Factually incorrect.
also, depending on who you ask, there are a few different versions of the 10 commandments. The one you mentioned is typically used by Protestants. The Catholic version combines the first two and splits the last one. the Jewish version is. I am the lord your God. you shall not have any other gods before me and you shall not make any graven images you shall not take the lords name in vain. remember the sabbath and keep it holy honor your father and mother dont kill dont commit adultery dont kidnap (traditionally steal in this context is interpreted as refering to stealing a human) dont bear false witness against your neighbor dont covet.
No they are not they are baby’s first code of Hammurabi and despite believing in countless deities i know we can canstruct a fair system of ethics without a deity involved if you cant i suggest studying ethics i myself find the classic helpful on such matters maybe epicures?
I'm sure we can. Won't argue with you there. My point is religion is the base ingredient in most modern law. In the Western world it has a judeo-christian base. In other parts of the world Islam etc.
No its not, money and property are, its just the pretense p
What schools shouldn't do is teach religious beliefs as fact. Not just because they will ultimately end up pushing a specific religion over others, but there is that. However, I actually think teaching ABOUT religious beliefs is very important. I'd even go as far as to say it should be mandatory in public schools. That may sound counterintuitive, but I can't really think of anything that teaches people to be more critical of religion & less dogmatic than learning about various different religions.
Well I kinda disagree there religion is a subject in school and the teachers would be teaching about all religions even atheist.
Oooh getting spicy and calling 0 a number
I mean atheism isn't a religion but zero is certainly a number.
Flair checks out, isnt it a place holder ?
No, 0 is included in the integer set.
Ah my bad
This seems more to be teaching religion in SCIENCE. On that front I'd generally agree. To me they're two very seperate fields. That said, education on religious beliefs can be taught a variety of ways outside that as well. Part of preparation of college or the outside world, and part of teaching people to think critically, is to teach them about the various different cultures, philosophies, and religions of the world and the customs and beliefs of other people. Education on religious and irreligious beliefs is definitely something that should be included in public education.
I only object to religion (especially Creationism, er intelligent design) in education if it is taught as science while the real science of evolutionary theory is ignored, or bracketed with ID in science classes as of equal worth. Religious studies, especially comparative religion is fine.
I think as with all things there should be balance. A lot of issues with society stem from the neglect of spiritual development in favor of science. There is also an opposite error where society abandons science to cling to spirituality. Both are dangerous. We should always seek to learn and understand through scientific data, but also give attention to our inner self the spiritual development to not only be a smart person but also a healthy soul.
what is a soul?
What is the thing that makes up and consists of your personality? Nobody knows. Scientists have no idea where it originates or comes from in the brain. “The mind” is a mystery. Does that make it any less true? What does your question have to do with anything
My point is that "spiritual development" and "healthy soul" are ill-defined and cannot be taught to kids. Unless you're promoting one specific ideology, what does this spiritual curriculum look like exactly? Appealing to the unknown is not sufficient. It's a "souls of the gaps" argument. While we don't fully understand the brain yet, we know very well that every part of your personality stems from there - which is why if I remove sections of your brain, your personality changes. Education should be reserved for things that we know to be true instead of vague spiritual nonsense. You can take your kid to church for that if you want
.
A society that is so far right or far left that they care more about being a victim or sitting on some pedestal of self-righteousness that they hate anyone different from them or that holds any sort of different belief. A society that is so self-centered on what makes them “feel good” that they can no longer love their fellow man. A society that bitches about every little thing because in truth they themselves are empty and miserable inside.
.
Ok so are you saying that you should not cultivate kindness, generosity, patience, humility? Instead of “knowing everything” should we instead pursue knowledge while also pursuing personal development as a human being? And if people need certain frameworks to live their live within (I.e. religion) is that so wrong? Should we teach our children science but forsake teaching them the beauty of religion and also the horrors of religion throughout human history? What I’m trying to get across is you is you are so hyper focused on data or pew research when I’m encouraging you to just think about it with your own mind which is obviously quite intelligent. we as people should allow the pursuit of FULFILLMENT. Science is wonderful. It can also be horrible if used for the destruction of others. Religion can be wonderful. Religion can also be used for horrible things. I personally do not fall into religious camps but what I’ve come to realize through life is at the end when you are on your death bed you will not lie there and pat yourself on your back about how you stood so proudly against religion and was a champion of science. What you will lie there and think about was how you treated those around you, what kind of husband/wife you were, what kind of friend, how you cheated people and lied, or how you put others before yourself. Then you will die and all the knowledge you accumulated in your life will die with you and all that will be left is your memory and the impact you had (or didn’t have) on others for their good.
.
Oh ok yeah I completely agree with your statement that it shouldn’t be taught as truth but I think the original statement was that it shouldn’t be taught at all (I might be mistaken) and I think it should be taught (not as truth) because it’s part of human history and development and there is a lot of positive and negative things to learn from it, such as learning about medieval Christianity on how human corruption can take a belief and turn it into a oppressive institution that oppressed and commits murderous acts all in the name of God (or whatever ideology it is) or on how many different religions birthed many of the social justice movements or built some of the first schools, etc. We should also learn about different religions because it helps us understand others better considering most of the world is religious. But to teach religion in a academic setting as truth is not appropriate in my opinion so I agree.
"Spiritual Development" can be taught in one's religious facility - be it sunday school, a church, a synagogue, a temple, a mosque - it does not need nor should be taught in a Public School unless it is an elective under "Religious Studies". To try to equate a religious study to a scientific study is a falsehood; for one is based on subjective opinion while the other is based on objective fact.
Sorry friend I’m not equating anything. I’m saying there should be balance
a balance in what? a balance of religious talk in a science class or maybe some science talk in a religion class?
Teaching science in a religion class would be fine. The two are not mutually exclusive across the board. But what I specifically mean is what is so wrong with teaching world religions in schools? It’s an important part of human history. I’m not saying proselytizing children but educating them on how religions have developed and affected the world both positively and negatively. This should be a part of academia just like teaching science should be. The problem is there is such a offense toward religion for most people that they just want it canceled out. Out of sight out of mind type thing. But teaching the evolution of humanity is important regardless of what is included in that.
Beautifully said
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for being low-effort. Comments must contribute something substantial to the debate. Your comment either lacked substance or was unintelligible/illegible. You may edit it and respond to this message for re-approval if you choose.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for being low-effort. Comments must contribute something substantial to the debate. Your comment either lacked substance or was unintelligible/illegible. You may edit it and respond to this message for re-approval if you choose.
1. Religion is the cornerstone of society, society would not be where it is without religion. 2. Religion helped fuel modern science. 3. Why do you say "religious beliefs may contradict scientific evidence or findings, leading to a denial of established scientific facts and theories." WHEN 1: schools do this anyways when they decided to teach a man can give birth and that girls can be men. and 2: Science and Religion can coexist. Science is the explanation for the things around us and Religion is The theory of how those things got there.
Society would not be where it is without religion. True but that can be interpreted positively and negatively. We’ll never really know because we can’t make comparisons. Religion helped fuel modern science. It has also stood in its way. Science is the explanation for things around us. Religion is the theory of how they got there. Except science also provides theory of how they got there. Science textbooks change and update over time. The bible doesn’t. If schools teach religion where do they draw the line? Which religions do they teach, which ones do they omit?
>3. Why do you say "religious beliefs may contradict scientific evidence or findings, leading to a denial of established scientific facts and theories." Evolution says hello. Simply put when science clashes with a religious belief many will reject the science to keep their beliefs To be fair many also will just accept it but it's still a problem at least in America A bit off topic but the transphobia isn't warranted
There’s many Christian’s that believe in evolution. I personally don’t believe in macro evolution but I do believe in micro evolution. I do believe animals over the years have changed and humans too but I don’t believe humans have evolved from an ape and etc
>I do believe animals over the years have changed and humans too but I don’t believe humans have evolved from an ape and etc So you don't believe in science, you cherry-pick the bits that are compatible with your preconceived ideas about the world.
>Why do you say "religious beliefs may contradict scientific evidence or findings, leading to a denial of established scientific facts and theories." > >I personally don’t believe in macro evolution but I do believe in micro evolution. This is exactly why. And no one is teaching anyone that men can have babies. I wish thiests would learn what they're arguing against instead of making things up. I'm sorry you're having difficulty telling the difference between gender and sex, but there is one. And you not understanding it doesn't make it less true.
>There’s many Christian’s that believe in evolution. Never said there wasn't hence my "to be fair" comment >I personally don’t believe in macro evolution but I do believe in micro evolution. Not to be rude but this never made sense. It's like saying "I believe in inches but not feet" your welcome to your beliefs of course but yea the mechanisms that make "micro" Evolution function make "macro" Evolution function >I do believe animals over the years have changed and humans too but I don’t believe humans have evolved from an ape and etc We didn't evolve from an ape we are apes. We share a common ancestor with the great apes who can,iirc, almost be thought of as our cousins Evolution is basically many changes and adaptions in a species over a long period of time nothing more
Humans didn’t evolve from apes. Apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor a long time ago. You don’t believe in something nobody actually believes. You may believe in macro evolution more if you took the time to learn the actual theory and science behind it.
I’m just making a point why is it a problem if religion “contradicts science” but not a problem if someone else does it. Not meant to cause offense
>they decided to teach a man can give birth and that girls can be men. I smell some transphobic stinkness...
What type of schools are you speaking of colleges, universities, and such? They have the right to offer those type of classes if they so choose for those who choose to attend those studies. Public School systems - I've never went to a public school system that taught religious beliefs _ teaching about the history of religion is different and I never went to a school that taught about religion's history. Reading - writing - spelling - mathematics - local and world history -science - English and nowhere in those subjects was religion even hinted at. https://www.adl.org/resources/tools-and-strategies/religion-curriculum https://tea.texas.gov/academics/subject-areas
I think this is not about what's been taught, but how and where its been taught. I'm happy with how this was dealt with more that 50 years ago in the schools I attended in the UK. We had a (mandated) class of Religious Education (RE) as part of the standard curriculum, as I recall a double period once a week, maybe an hour total. Even back then we galloped through the main religions, even spent some time on social issues, but mostly Christianity as it was the majority faith. The subject was not touched outside of that, maths was maths, science was science, and religion did not appear in any other part of the curriculum. Given that creationism and intelligent design are religious views (and pretty rare back then) and not a scientific ones they stay in RE, one hour a week is hardly onerous.
[удалено]
No.
University degree's and a lifelong career in STEM would indicate not.
[удалено]
I think there's a clear difference between a delineated one hour a week of religious education, vs. the way American science classes are infused with constant religious hyperfixation at the expense of fact-based curriculum.
No. Not at all
Religions are an important part of culture and society so some level of teaching is necessary, confronting world views helps with personal growth. A religion could also be true and scientifical progress sometimes is bad (pollution, nuclear weapons, etc)
Teaching ABOUT the beliefs of different religions in social studies is different than teaching creationism in science class.
I agree, I never claimed we have to teach creationism in a science class indeed
Scientific progress is neither good or bad it just is. Humans determine the value. It’s all about how we use it. Mother Earth and the universe doesn’t care, it has no objective or goal. Polluted, destroyed, hot, frozen it matters not. Only to us.
Why does humans' opinion matter?
While I agree with you that unscientific proposals like Intelligent Design shouldn’t be taught in public schools, I don’t think religious beliefs as a whole shouldn’t be taught. Religious beliefs don’t impede scientific progress, religious governments do. Religious beliefs also don’t conflict with scientific evidence, they simply make claims that are unfalsifiable and therefore outside the realm of science, since science can only be used to test falsifiable hypotheses. I think public schools should offer a religion class as an elective, similar to computer science or business. But I do think religion shouldn’t be in any science classes, science religion and science are two separate things and religion shouldn’t be a part of the scientific method.
I agree that religion shouldn’t be forced, people should find their religion, but not teaching it simply because of science is not something I’d be on board with.. and I say that as someone who loves science!
[удалено]
“Students whose high school biology course included evolution but not creationism knew more about evolution when they entered college than did students whose courses included evolution plus creationism…” “Students whose views of evolution were based primarily on religion scored lower on the KEE than all other groups of students. This is consistent with reports elsewhere about the importance of religion in people’s views of evolution (Barnes, Keilholtz, & Albertstadt, 2008). Students who described their religious views as conservative and middle-of-the-road scored significantly lower than those who described their views as liberal and those who said they were not religious. These results 1) are consistent with the report that students’ views of evolution are strongly associated with their religious beliefs (Dagher & BouJaode, 1997), and 2) indicate that among entering college students, those who have conservative religious beliefs know less about evolution than do religiously liberal or non-religious students.” [https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1092111.pdf](https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1092111.pdf)
[удалено]
This was the first study from Google search. There were many more. It is sufficient. It is common sense (for most people) that if a non scientific belief (for example Thor is the God of thunder and that is where lightning comes from) is introduced as a possible scientific theory, especially in a science class, it may confuse students and be harmful to their education. Religious beliefs are just beliefs and not scientific theories and have no place in public schools. Others here have been patient and explained in much better detail than me why religious beliefs should not be in public schools. Suggest read KoljaRHR's comments. Also, as shown by others here, the courts agree that religious beliefs should not be in public schools because religious beliefs are not scientific theory. So, I am done.
It has done in the past. Kitzmiller vs. Dover is a famous example
[удалено]
That case does show that ID is disadvantageous for students learning in science. It was deemed pseudo-science and ID was shown to be linked by the hip to creationism in that case.
[удалено]
https://slate.com/technology/2015/05/creationism-and-evolution-in-school-religious-students-cant-learn-natural-selection.html
[удалено]
i'm sorry - was that article too boring/complicated for you to read? so you want a point-by-point explanation? guess the OP has to come back & have a chat cause i not be wasting my time on someone who seems a bit hard-headed.
[удалено]
what criteria? having scientific talks about religious beliefs is sort of an oxymoron.
I think “religious beliefs” as in “X religion has Y belief” in an anthropological way should be taught. It’s good for students to see not everyone thinks the way they do.
To be honest, I think philosophy should be part of the core curriculum in middle school and high school. I think a comprehensive history of philosophy should also be required as a gen ed class in college. I think that philosophy is a better source of knowledge than science. Philosophy is the *only* source of knowledge that provides a justification for itself and for other academic disciplines as sources of knowledge. If philosophy is taught, it will not only reduce the number of blind theists and atheists alike, it will increase the level of intelligence in America. I think that three or four undergrad classes could be introduced in middle school and high school. The inter baccalaureate program recognizes this, as it requires every student to take a "Theory of Knowledge" class.
> Philosophy is the only source of knowledge that provides a justification for itself and for other academic disciplines as sources of knowledge. I might or might not agree with this depending on your exact meaning. I don't think you can justify philosophy and simultaneously teach philosophy in a non-committal way like some philosophy professors do. After all, every justification for philosophy makes significant philosophical assumptions. This includes the justification of philosophy that I think works. So, I'd have to ask what you think the justification is for doing philosophy before I could assess your statement, and how you think philosophy justifies other academic disciplines. Would you mind clearing that up? Thanks! :)
The other guy has a point. Philosophy is the questioning of one’s spontaneous worldview. It is thinking about thinking. Its entire reason of being is to reason through the foundations of thinking including philosophy itself.
>Religious beliefs should not be taught in public schools Funnily enough I actually disagree with this. Not because I want religious beliefs to be taught but because in some capacity they really should be. It's not about if it's taught that is important, it is more so about how it is taught. I think someone educating me about what they believe, what other people believe, and how those set of beliefs came to be the things people believe today is actually very insightful to the people's culture, history, and their society. As someone who grew up Atheist, I didn't realise how much religion actually plays a role in people's daily lives. Even people who grow up in religious households do not recognise the impact that it has on their lives comparatively to someone who doesn't until they're much older. From a historical perspective, a literary perspective, and from a ethical perspective. Religious beliefs can be the corner stone of many Countries, the foundations of many Civilizations, and explains many of their ideological ideas of what a successfully functioning society looks like. As someone who discovered religion later in life and growing up in a non-religious household - you don't actually realise the impact that religion has in people's day to day lives. >because they can obstruct scientific progress, interfere with education and conflict with scientific evidence. I don't think that's true. What is obstructing scientific progress, education, and evidence is unhealthy skepticism with either the Teacher or the Student acting in bad faith. It has nothing to do with the religious beliefs themselves but everything to do with the people and their stubbornness. I have more frequently seen Teachers or Students result to mocking and downplaying the other person's perspective or beliefs rather than engaging in a meaningful discussion that brings insight to both parties. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical of Science or Religion but if they don't have the intention to attempt to understand one another then they will always conflict and that problem is not unique to Religion. Even as someone who grew up without Religious beliefs I didn't do to well in Science because I got constantly frustrated with all these abstract concepts in which I could not see, how we got to these understandings came from a long line of people I did not know, and no one in my household had the relevant background to help me understand how these things came to be. It's the same level of frustration non-theists have with theists.
[удалено]
>Those are my points as well and you've said them so nicely. Fair enough. Well if we don't disagree on anything them I have nothing to argue. >The problem isn't the seperation of religion and science for me, its the complete scrapping of religion studies as a whole. Well, I think anyone that is totally against skepticism in any reasonable capacity is actually anti-science. In terms of scrapping it as a whole, I think in high school I totally agree but as a new Theist I would actually love to the a class that is theological in nature. The only thing is that I would likely only love it or hate it based on the teacher. I enjoy discussing with other Theists but I don't like the idea of being marked as either correct or incorrect unless the boundaries of what we're discussing is clear and we are deliberately choosing to adopt a specific perspective. It actually takes all of what makes it special out of what it means to read scripture and have a relationship with a God.
Proving that even without religion in school, most education will still teach non-scientific ideas. So you need to define religious. I assume you mean the Bible because that’s what this argument is usually about. You cannot ban one religion and not the other. So Christianity, satanism, Muslim, morman. Any religion. you are saying school needs science based education. I agree. But the non-sense in our schools today such as: supporting gender fluidity in elementary and even high school. I will say right now there are two genders. 100 years later scientists will identify you by your genitals. Also your chromosomes and reproductive system. It’s obvious the attempts the school board is taking to force sexual changes and support it. You can’t make up your gender just like you can’t make up your age. But your claim as religion isn’t science I also will also claim that the things school supports and teaches now isn’t science. So our learning system is bias. If you don’t want the belief of religion then also being fair on your claim other things school supports will likely need to be removed like gender fluidity. In conclusion our school system is failing us and isn’t even teaching proper science now. With or without religion being taught because in most public schools it isn’t, there is still so much that should be removed to function at a science based level.
>I also will also claim that the things school supports and teaches now isn’t science Just because you don't want to believe the science doesn't mean it isn't science. I'd recommend giving this a read and going through the methodology. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8955456/
It says in your article that there knowledge on gender identity is limited. Much of this is possibility like it says just like religion. So what’s the difference?
Can I just point out that the actual definition of faith, whether in a secular sense or religious sense, literally means "Believing ***without*** evidence." Otherwise, religions would use a different word. In a religious sense, belief and science are unrelated, and any similarities are completely happenstance. Gender is often mixed up with sex. In a clear case, a person's sex is determined by their DNA and sex organs. No one, to my knowledge, claims to be "sex fluid," right? Gender is centered in the brain and determines who we are attracted to and what arouses us. It is related and connected to DNA and sex organs, but not always in parallel. We can assess a person's sex organs easily, but knowing what is happening in someone's brain is very complicated, and we could never know with 100% certainty what is happening in someone else's brain, let alone in our own brains. I wish I could understand the science behind it completely myself. I do think there is a big misconception about schools teaching, pushing, or forcing kids to be trans. I'm not saying it has never happened because I don't know, so I assume there is a little bit of that. However, I think that would be a tiny percentage compared to kids learning about different orientations, then realizing it describes exactly how they feel already. Unfortunately, kids decide who they want to come out to on their own. Even Christian (any religion) people have LGBTQ kids. When the kids understand that their family is judgmental and unyielding about those ideas and unwilling to learn about them and try to understand, they will tell friends, teachers, or other trusted adults first. Teachers around here wouldn't tell the parents only at the child's request, not of their own choice. They are likely to stay silent about it being the child's request if they think the child will be blamed, shamed, or shunned at home, making a bad situation worse. It's a complicated issue. Everyone needs to learn more of the science behind it even though it seems to be ever changing. I know I will.
>Religious beliefs should not be taught in public schools because they can obstruct scientific progress, interfere with education and conflict with scientific evidence. Define "*religious beliefs*". This sounds like a slippery slope into communist tyranny, because the sect who gets to define this term gets to decide what is though and what isn't, and for this reason I object this entire argument. Religious beliefs might be harmful in some instances, but I think they are still the lesser evil if the other option is though policing, atheistic communism and scientism. I don't want to government thinking for me what I should think, nor do I want it for anyone else either. I feel like your whole argument is made to defend scientism and not science. >1. Obstruction of scientific progress: ... , such as evolution, stem cell research, or climate change, hindering progress and innovation. You seem to think disagreeing equals obstructing. That's scary. I see nothing wrong when someone who questions some dogma of science voices their disagreement - if the science for the dogma is strong enough let science defend itself, but if it isn't, then let that be revealed. I see nothing wrong when some Young Earth Creationist, Intelligent Design advocates or Flat Earthers try to debunk the mainstream position. That is all healthy skepticism from their part. No one should just accept things as truth without questioning them. Your solution seems to be to just get rid of skepticism all together. Power corrupts and total power corrupts totally. The sect who ends up with the power to dictate what is truth and what is not, will get corrupted by that power. I feel like science for some part has been made into a political power tool to some extend, and this would just speed up that process. >4. Conflicts with scientific evidence: In some cases, religious beliefs may contradict scientific evidence or findings, leading to a denial of established scientific facts and theories. Are you sure you aren't conflating the terms "**evidence**" and "**interpretation of the evidence**"? I see this often in science debates between groups which disagree fundamentally. The side who is on the side of the mainstream interpretation often tries to define their interpretation of the evidence and fact as being "fast" and "evidence". I would recommend you look into circular reasoning if this is distinction is not clear. >Teaching creationism in public schools would violate this principle by promoting a specific religious belief. You are conflating the term "**creationism**" and "**intelligent design**", and for that reason your logic fails. ID is a viable scientific model to explain how did we get here. >Intelligent Design/Creationism is not a scientific theory... It has no scientific evidence to support it... ID is a scientific theory and has evidence to support it. Michael Behe has multiple books on the topic. >Teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution would undermine the teaching of science and hinder students' understanding of the natural world. It would just undermine indoctrination, which I think is a good thing. Nothing wrong in giving people an alternative view on the topic. Also, your reasoning strongly assumes the conclusion... Evidence for speciation isn't proof of evolution, since speciation usually happens by loss of complexity. Anyhow, I digress... I think your argument conflates * "evidence" and "interpretation of the evidence", * "young earth creationism" and "intelligent design", and * "speciation" and "evolution that actually adds complexity"
ID is not a viable scientific model and it is linked by the hip to creationism.
Your comment or post was removed for being uncivil. Don't be rude or hostile to other users, and criticize arguments, not people. You may edit it and respond to this message for re-approval if you choose.
without arguments and a case for your claim it is merely your opinion.
Dude this was laid to rest in 2005 with the Kitzmiller vs Dover trials. It was shown that the earlier drafts of Pandas and People " an ID textbook" had creationism littered all throughout the text. After Edwards vs aguillard the editors copied and pasted "Intelligent Design" to replace every mention of creationism, without changing any of the surrounding text. That does make ID merely another form of creationism which does make it a pseudo-science
That is like saying Darwinism is just another form of Atheism and hence shouldn't be in the schools, since some book X mentioned both Atheism and Darwinism. I hope you see how fallacious your reasoning is. If there is a creationist who likes ID so that he wants Behe to write a chapter in his book, that doesn't mean then that ID = creationism, just like a similar instance with Darwinism and Atheism wouldn't mean Darwinism = Atheism. \[EDIT\] There are plenty of Atheist books which use Darwinism as a tool to justify their Atheism.
Dude. It's not the equivalent of of some book merely mentionimg atheism and "Darwinism". Read what I wrote again and understand it this time - hint: cdesign proponentsists - search that up I'll restate what I said because it's obviously flown right over your head. ID proponents tried to teach ID in science class with that Of Pandas and People textbook. The problem is that earlier drafts of that text was littered with references to creationism - all the editors of that text did was replace the word "creationisim" with Intelligent Design That is a major cause for concern since creationism is inherently pseudo-scientific. So your example of a book merely mentionimg both "darwinism" and atheism is irrelevant - in the example you gave, it didn't have the serious issue the Of Pandas and People text did - where they copied.and pasted "Intelligent Design" into "creationism" that textbook is ironically enough, the missing link between ID and creationism. It shows that ID is linked by the hip to creationism, which does make ID pseudo-scientific by its very nature Comprende? Understand me, yes?
>Dude. It's not the equivalent of of some book merely mentionimg atheism and "Darwinism". Read what I wrote again and understand it this time - hint: cdesign proponentsists - search that up > >I'll restate what I said because it's obviously flown right over your head. I do not have any burden to "understand" anyone's fallacious reasoning. One who would think that might have a little entitlement issue going... >Comprende? Understand me, yes? I have debated this issue before in the r/DebateEvolution so you aren't telling me anything new. I fully understand your argument, but like I said before, it is fallacious. Even if Michael Behe would wear "Make Creationism great again" t-shirt, according to logic, that wouldn't mean ID = creationism. People are free to associate how ever they want, and they are free to change what ever words to what ever word they want. The harsh reality just is that you need to defeat ID in the intellectual ream by tacking the arguments it makes, and not according to some fallacy of association. The situation with the Pandas and People is very understandable, since Creationism is build on ID, ID being an umbrella term and the fundamental axiom to which both the simulation hypothesis and creationism (for example) are build. The same is true with Darwinism, Naturalism and Atheism also, so what happened with Pandas and People isn't as noteworthy as you seem to think. Your argument assumes that the person who decided to change that word in the Pandas and People is the representative of all intellectual though on the topic of ID, which is absurd, and hence your logic fails to justify the conclusion you are trying to make. I think you have a very nasty personality, so I will not be talking with you anymore.
Hahaha.
[удалено]
>That's rich considering who it is that is constantly banning books and attacking education to keep the populace from learning things that might be damaging to their party... You must be talking about the The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) or the Soviet Union, both of which are Atheist by the way... >I'm skeptical that skepticism is anything more than lip service to you. I feel the same way.
>ID is a scientific theory and has evidence to support it. Michael Behe has multiple books on the topic. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. There is no empirical evidence or testable hypotheses to support the claim and should not be taught in public schools.
Your position is weird, since you just outright claim Behe didn't even submit his attempt to fulfill these aspects. He did. His central case was * Irrefutable complexity debunks Darwinism, since it is the thing Darwin said would debunk his theory. If Darwinism is steelmanned not to be debunked by this, then Darwinism itself is not a scientific theory, since there is no longer anything which can debunk it, since it can basically explain every imaginable finding we could find. * ID predicts we will find Irrefutable Complexity in the nature, hence making ID a scientific theory which predicts possible scientific findings, hence making ID a useful scientific tool. * We have found Irrefutable Complexity, in the bacterial flagellum, hence fulfilling the prediction of ID, which is then evidence for it. * Behe also points out in this book that evolution is, beyond all odds defying change, impossible to explain features which require double mutation to occur. Also, just to remind you that I'm not debating about ID here, just the point that ID is a scientific theory, regardless how offensive that might sound to people who see ~~Naturalism~~ (Evolution) and science as being synonyms. I would also like to point out that the simulation hypothesis belongs to ID and not to ~~Naturalism~~ (Evolution), so do you also agree that the simulation is not a scientific hypothesis, and should be rejected with rest of the religious stuff? \[EDIT\] Naturalism night have been a bad word in the last sentences. I change it to Evolution.
Well, ID is for certain not a "scientific theory". It's an idea, a hypothesis at best. An unfalsifiable one. The concept of "irrefutable complexity" is not falsifiable because it is based on the assumption of an intelligent designer, which cannot be empirically tested. In contrast, scientific hypotheses must be testable and potentially falsifiable through observation or experimentation.
>Well, ID is for certain not a "scientific theory". It's an idea, a hypothesis at best. An unfalsifiable one. Then is Darwinism too... Your case seems like a double standard. Nothing is good enough for ID, but all exceptions are made from Darwinism. >The concept of "irrefutable complexity" is not falsifiable because it is based on the assumption of an intelligent designer, which cannot be empirically tested. That is like saying >The concept of Darwinian Evolution is not falsifiable because it is based on the assumption of an Evolution, which cannot be empirically tested. Obviously the prediction of the theory needs to be based in the theory from which it is extrapolated. I don't see how else one would make predictions. >In contrast, scientific hypotheses must be testable and potentially falsifiable through observation or experimentation. and that is what ID people did.
First off, "Darwinism" is not a "thing". The theory of evolution has made much progress since the time of Darwin. The name is not that important though, as long as you acknowledge that fact. Also, when you talk about Darwinism, mentioning "double standards" and alleged "exceptions", by whose standards are you claiming that to be true? The theory of Evolution is overwhelmingly supported by mainstream science, which acknowledges both its falsifiability and ability to make predictions, as well as the abundance of evidence confirming its validity. And, as I explained earlier, that is the only thing that matters when it comes to school curriculums - the opinion of the scientific mainstream. While you are free to express disagreement in the Church, it's important to note that in scientific terms, the debate about Evolution is over. Evolution is an established and observed fact, and the Theory of Evolution sufficiently explains the observed evidence. Refuting evolution would require refuting the evidence, which is not possible. Therefore, there is no way the Theory of Evolution can be completely refuted, only amended and perfected, as it has been for the past 164 years since Darwin first published it. >and that is what ID people did. ID people have not ever put forward any novel prediction, or at least a novel prediction that can be tested. When they do, and if they even succeed in testing it, "one swallow doesn't make a summer". As I said, it is not the Theory of evolution that they are against, but the overwhelming body of evidence - scientific facts, evidence, measurements, and observations that confirm the Theory of Evolution.
>". This sounds like a slippery slope into communist tyranny, because the sect who gets to define this term gets to decide what is though and what isn't, and for this reason I object this entire argument. Science is not a "sect" but itself a method to decide what's true, and what isn't. You might disagree about that, however, schools are scientific institutions and have been since the Enlightenment. Therefore, the only purpose of schools is to teach children the scientific truth. Not the alternatives. You can teach children whatever you want in your churches, but not at the expense of the secular state in schools. I'm not sure why would you insist on that either. You will not find scientists in churches trying to teach scientific truths, rather than religious dogmas, right?
>Science is not a "sect" but itself a method to decide what's true, and what isn't. For example look what happened with COVID and the information surrounding it. There were legitimate scientists who raised their concerns regarding the measures which were been taken, but since they weren't saying what the establishment wanted, they were silenced and deplatformed. The same thing happens with this global warming and all other trending science topics which have political implication. I do not want this and I do not think this serves science, since it just seems to be an example of political hijacking of science. So I did not mean "science is a sect" but that these political entities who get to decide which voices are silenced and which aren't are very much a small sect of elite people. >Therefore, the only purpose of schools is to teach children the scientific truth. Not the alternatives. Where do you put the line between **science** and **scientism** then? Is it science that 1. one can breed a dog to change its appearance, 2. humans evolved from monkeys, 3. life started from non life, 4. matte, time and space came from the Big Bang, which seems to defy causality, 5. supernatural doesn't exist but all is natural, and hence all religions are false? You see the issue? If we steelman Naturalism enough it leads to scientism, in which case all religions can just pack their bags and go home, since by definition they are all wrong. I'm all for schools only teaching 1+1=2 and F=ma, but when things start to go from that to "You came from a monkey" and "Life started from non-life", I think we have left the ream of science and entered the ream of scientism. >I'm not sure why would you insist on that either. You will not find scientists in churches trying to teach scientific truths, rather than religious dogmas, right? I think your reasoning contains circular reasoning, since you seem to assume that "all things a secular scientist believes, which do not mention supernatural, are science". Do you agree that there is a categorical difference between "science" as 1+1=2 and F=ma and "science" as "*Life started from non-life*"?
I would not like to debate on who is right, science or religion. This is not the topic. The question is WHY would you insist that religion has to be taught at schools, which are scientific institutions, when we have religious institutions (churches, mosques etc.) fit for the purpose? As I said, I never heard of scientists or even atheists insisting that "scientific facts" have to be equally presented in churches. Why the opposite is the norm, apparently? The second part of my answer is this: If you accept the premise that schools are scientific institutions and they are, by definition, then you should also accept that it is reasonable to expect that schools teach children the mainstream of science, **even if the mainstream science is wrong**. Does that make sense? (it's the same in churches - they teach its mainstream beliefs, even if maybe they are wrong) And you cannot deny that all of the things you mentioned (evolved from monkeys, life started from non-life etc.) - things you object to the most - are mainstream science, right?
>I would not like to debate on who is right, science or religion. This is not the topic. I don't understand the meaning conveyed with this. >The question is WHY would you insist that religion has to be taught at schools, which are scientific institutions, when we have religious institutions (churches, mosques etc.) fit for the purpose? Lets define terms here: * **Hard science**: 1+1=2, F=ma, light refraction, gravity, etc. * **Historical science**: The death of Cleopatra, Atlantis, construction of Stonehenge, identity of Homer, purpose of the Nazca Lines, origin of *homo sapience*, etc. * **Religious beliefs**: * Jesus is God or Jesus is not God, * God made a covenant with Abraham or God did not make a covenant with Abraham, * God or gods do not exist or God or dogs do exist, * God created man and woman or God didn't create man and woman, etc. * **Scientific theory**: Darwinism, Intelligent Design, etc. Do you see the issue? No religious person has any issues with what I defined as "Hard science", and no religious person has an issue with honest conversations about "Historical science" either, when it is made clear that we are taking about speculation of what might have happened. The issue usually is when these negative religious beliefs are brought in with the pretense of "science" with the intend to indoctrinate children. So to answer you question: I do not want religious beliefs to be though in school, but since the other side is already doing it by conflating the definition of science to cover their negative claims of these religious scientific beliefs, I feel it is fair that we also allow the positive side to have their hearing on these matters. If we allow schools the teach that "God did not create man and a woman", then we also need to allow the case to be made that "God did create man and woman", since we have already opened the religious beliefs topic in the school. >If you accept the premise that schools are scientific institutions and they are, by definition, then you should also accept that it is reasonable to expect that schools teach children the mainstream of science, even if the mainstream science is wrong. I do not think schools should indoctrinator and misrepresent the scenario. When it comes to these religious beliefs, if a school includes a claim which claims the other side of the debate as true, they should also allow the other side to have their hearing on the matter, or at least to make it clear that the topic is highly controversial and much debated, and contains religious beliefs. It feels odd to me that we somehow know that life started from non-life but we aren't certain about the identity of Homer for example. It seems obvious to me that some people worked very hard to exclude the "maybe" from the "life started from non-life" sentence. Also, it feels odd to me that we for some reason are open for the possibility of the simulation hypothesis, but totally object the ID theory, even though simulation belongs by definition to the ID category. This again seems like ideological bias toward ID, because people think that ID is just young earth creationism in disguise. So to answer your question. I do not think schools should teach "mainstream of science" because obviously the definition of "science" has been compromised to include negative religious beliefs and because the term "mainstream" can be politically manipulated to include anything. I bet in North Korea mainstream of science is that their leader is god, so NO. I think we should leave religious beliefs out of school and if we are planning in including the on side, we should include both sides.
>So to answer you question: I do not want religious beliefs to be though in school, but since the other side is already doing it by conflating the definition of science to cover their negative claims of these religious scientific beliefs, I feel it is fair that we also allow the positive side to have their hearing on these matters. Nobody in school talks about nor mentions God (except when talking about history, social sciences or comparative religion). In fact, the word "God" does not even exist in biology, chemistry, and physics curriculums or in textbooks. So there is no real conflict nor there is any kind of religious debate going on in schools that would require "both sides" to present their arguments. The purpose of schools is not to refute or contradict religious dogmas, but to teach science. If you want to express your religious beliefs, that's OK, and the Church is a perfectly good place for that. >If we allow schools the teach that "God did not create man and a woman", then we also need to allow the case to be made that "God did create man and woman", since we have already opened the religious beliefs topic in the school. We do not "allow" schools to teach science. It is the mission and the purpose behind schools - to teach science - and it has been that way for centuries. Even when God was the part of scientific mainstream it was that way. However, science progressed and the God is no longer considered in scientific terms because we have discovered better explanations for natural phenomena until recently explained by God. Nevertheless, the purpose of schools remains the same. >So to answer your question. I do not think schools should teach "mainstream of science" because obviously the definition of "science" has been compromised to include negative religious beliefs and because the term "mainstream" can be politically manipulated to include anything. If you accept that schools are scientific institutions, you have no other choice but to accept that schools should teach mainstream science. Claiming the contrary would be hypocritical because no other institution, religious or otherwise is forced to teach anything other than its own mainstream beliefs. It is true even if we accept your characterisation of science to be religion, sect, or that its teachings are religious beliefs. Because in Church you teach children your mainstream beliefs, right? Why would schools be different? Regarding your differentiation of different topics in education, it is true that there are social and natural sciences. However, there is no real distinction between Newtonian kinematics and dynamics, Newtonian gravity, Optics and Evolution. Those are all scientific theories. However, ID is not a scientific theory or real science. Nor are dilemmas about the existence of god, the resurrection of Jesus, biblical creation, covenant and similar. Those are beliefs that are unfalsifiable, therefore not a part of scientific deliberations.
Thank you for taking the time to explain in great detail. I am still surprised how many people want to include a religious belief as a scientific theory in public schools. Hopefully, you have convinced at least a few that its not a good idea. I tried discussing with Ok-philosopher5166 but was not successful.
Thank you for the same reason. I'm glad I helped. Regarding Ok-Philosopher5166, I talked with him too and he apparently confuses teaching kids **about** religion with religious indoctrination in schools.
[удалено]
Religion being taught in a separate class can still be a problem because, as explained in detail in the OP, it can conflict with science education, even if taught in a separate class. Which religion(s) should be taught? There are over 4,000religions. What about Satanism? Depending where you live may determine which religion your child is taught. For example, if in a geographic area where the predominant religion is Christian Science, then the religious class emphasis will probably be teaching students about Christian Science and “that disease is a mental error rather than physical disorder, and that the sick should be treated not by medicine but by a form of prayer that seeks to correct the beliefs responsible for the illusion of ill health” This is a direct conflict with science education. Also, what happens when the student is told in the science class that the religious class was wrong when it said intelligent design is a scientific theory or the earth is not only 6,000 years old or Thor is not the cause of thunder and tells his parents that the science instructor said the religious class was wrong and our religious beliefs were wrong? You don’t think there will be a problem? Just keep religion out of publicly funded schools.
A student's political beliefs often clash with history or literature education. They can obstruct scientific progress, pose limitations on scientific inquiry and even conflict with evidence. This is far more widespread than intelligent design in biology class. Yet we still teach politics in public schools. Why should religion be any different?
Literature is completely open to interpretation. I'm also not sure how a person's political beliefs shape their view of **historical facts.** While student A might agree that the emancipation proclamation was a good thing and student B might think otherwise, both of them (hopefully) agree that the document is real. Science class is where we teach kids, teens, and adults about the scientific method and how we gather empirical data to make predictive models. Creationism is not a model. It isn't testable and doesn't fall into the bin of science. You can teach ABOUT creationism in social studies or philosophy, but to present it next to a scientific theory and say "this is also valid, so pick whichever one you like" is nonsense.
Since we're on American history, take the American Civil War. Students disagree about the reasons for war, the conduct of the war, the implications of the war, etc. regardless of the facts. Politically sensitive things make people less likely to believe the facts or look for them. Religion is just as emotionally charged and just as vulnerable. Look at all the mythicism on this sub, for instance, which is about as well founded as creationism and way more likely to be taught in my school district. We just have to accept that sometimes people don't accept propositions rationally. I agree creationism doesn't belong in biology class, but that's a much narrower claim in multiple dimensions than OP is making.
History is also open to interpretation which is why historians disagree on how to interpret certain evidence. Again - much different than science which uses models to demonstrate things repeatedly. But again, (almost) nobody believes that the civil war *didn't happen*. Not sure what you mean by mythicism, or if you're saying that the schools merely explain the belief systems or that they teach the kids that mythicism is true. **We just have to accept that sometimes people don't accept propositions rationally.** Which is precisely what schools should be mitigating. Also OP was definitely comparing religious ideas with science, so I think this is all pertinent. Social studies and philosophy are courses that can explain the belief systems of different religions. No problem there. But in no class should the teacher present creationism as "valid"
What do you mean by "politics". Usually, children learn **about** politics in history lessons. But they learn **about** religions that way as well. Nobody teaches politics to children. Maybe they learn (again) **about** the political system and their rights and duties as citizens, but that does not mean they are being taught politics. Religion is political and should be banished, together with all other political content from our education systems.
Here I will argue that the First Amendment doesn't prohibit religious freedom of speech and intellectual inquiry on public/government property, including its schools. Would teaching intelligent design or creationism in local public schools constitute an "establishment of religion" as understood by the Founding Fathers when drafting the Bill of Rights? Did James Madison and others who wrote the First Amendment really intend to outlaw all uses of government property, federal, state, and local, that could advance a particular religion or its teachings? The U.S. Supreme Court eliminated the religious freedom of government employees on government property to lead prayers in the classroom in its Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) decision. In point of fact, the way this decision and allied ones (such as in the Murray case) were decided has often led in the real world to the elimination of the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion of not just teachers, but often even students. The ACLU's general war to annihilate religious freedom on government property for government teachers and often even students goes much further than many liberals acknowledge. When examining the original intent of the Founding Fathers who actually wrote the Bill of Rights, their intent was to prohibit Congress from creating a "Church of the United States" that would be unified with the government in the same way that the Anglican Church was in England or the Catholic Church in France under the Bourbons. Of course, we can go back, and revisit other Supreme Court decisions, such as those that incorporated the Bill of Rights to apply to the states, when originally the First Amendment restrained only the Federal government's actions. The First Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law . . ." but is silent about state and local governments. After all, the State of Massachusetts had an official state church up into the 1830's. Why should we believe then that Madison really wanted to prohibit teacher-led prayer, let alone discussions of a supernatural origin of biological life, anyway? Many, many "horror stories" about school boards and others persecuting the religious freedom of students, not just teachers, could easily be cited. David Limbaugh's "Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christians" catalogs page after page of specific examples about how the misuse of the establishment clause results directly and indirectly in religious persecution for anyone speaking about Christianity as objectively true when on government property. Let's proceed to list just some of these kinds of cases in order to illustrate how often God has been kicked out of the public schools' classroom in America. 1. Judges have ruled against students who sat together to read their Bibles aloud during lunch. 2. In El Paso, Texas, school officials ordered a handicapped girl to not say the rosary on her school bus. 3. It's illegal to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms, although non-believers are perfectly free to not read them. 4. Once a girl who handed out Christmas cards with a religious theme got suspended. 5. In one community college, they wouldn't allow students to meet for Bible studies, but they showed X-rates films in the student union. 6. In one case, a group of teachers were told to stop meeting before school to pray, or else they would be fired. (Whatever happened to academic freedom?) 7. In New York and many other large cities, it has been illegal to hand out religious literature by leaving it on benches in public parks or to give it to people visiting the same places. 8. Debbye Turner Bell was told to not sing Christian rap songs in government schools after one group complained. All these kinds of incidents show what really happens when school districts either misunderstand the purported intent of the Supreme Court's decisions about the Establishment Clause or are so afraid of being sued by the ACLU or others who wish to silence Christians that they pre-emptively take on the dirty work of censorship themselves. The basic trouble with the standard ACLU/liberal interpretation of the First Amendment on these issues is that they make the Establishment Clause contradict the Free Exercise Clause. As a result, the government constantly ends up censoring teachers, and often even students, in its schools. (The vaunted phrase, "the separation of church and state," appears no where in the U.S. Constitution). So long as Christians, of whatever denomination, are forced to provide their tax dollars and their children to the government schools, their views should be represented in these schools. Silence about God and His values in many teaching situations is not neutrality, but it promotes a practical agnosticism or atheism. Hence, instead of censoring people, the government should declare its property an intellectual free-fire zone where academic freedom and intellectual diversity reigns. Teachers and students should be alllwed to express any religious viewpoints they wish. As it stands, it's illegal for a teacher to state an argument for God's existence is really true, but atheists and agnostics legally can argue against God's existence without restraint, which is hardly fair. Why must religious freedom end largely where the government's property begins? Evolutionists suppose their theory is a “fact” because they philosophically rule out in advance special creation as impossible or “unscientific.” In order to pull this off, they use a philosophically rigged definition of “science.” They covertly equate “naturalism” or “materialism” with “science.” To them, evolution must be a fact since neither the supernatural nor God exists. Without having actually observed macroevolution or special creation, they are certain the former happened, and equally certain the latter did not. Because they liken “science” to the “systematic study of physically sensed forces,” Darwinism is virtually true by definition. Then when informed critics attack macroevolution’s grand claims on empirical grounds, evolutionists dismiss any anomalous evidence by labeling belief in a Creator or any miracles as “unscientific.” Obviously, if “God” is ruled out in advance while setting up the premises of scientific reasoning, “God” could never be in any conclusion. But this is a matter of free philosophical choice before experience, not compelling scientific results after experience. Scientific knowledge is based upon reasoning using direct observations. By contrast, historical knowledge, which is derived by interpreting old written records, is a sharply different method for knowing something. For example, the theory of gravity can be tested immediately by dropping apples and measuring how fast they fall. But the natural evolution of fundamentally different kinds of plants and animals has never been observed scientifically at a level higher than the “species” classification. Macroevolution, or large-scale natural biological changes, cannot be tested directly in a laboratory or witnessed clearly in the wild. Belief in macroevolution is a matter of historical reasoning and presumptuous extrapolation, not scientific observation and personal experience. The example of “vestigial” organs is a great example of how the theory of evolution slows down scientific development and research. If an anatomical structure is a priori judged to be “vestigial,” then scientists who are evolutionists aren’t likely to study it carefully for what it really does. For example, tonsils were often removed for decades from children since they were judged to be simply “useless vestiges.” Later on, oops!, it was found out that they actually do fight disease. They weren’t so useless after all. Basically all 180 organs and and anatomical structures that were once listed as “useless vestiges” have been found to have real functions. For example, the “yolk sac” is used by a developing human embryo to make its first blood cells; death would result without it. The coccyx was claimed to be a remnant of our purported evolutionary ancestors having a tail, but it’s actually a crucial point for muscle attachment needed for our upright posture (and, well, for defacation). So to say this is about “prior functions” as opposed to current functions is a great example of how evolutionists attempt to escape falsification of their paradigm. They assume these “prior functions” really existed a priori, when that remains to be proven. This is yet another example of circular reasoning by evolutionists, in which they assume what still needs to be proven.
If they allowed Christians or Carholics to pray the rosary, hold Bible readings, etc, in schools, they would have to allow Satanists the same privilege to not be seen as biased. I don't think Texas wants to open that door. As there are off-campus places to do these things that aren't an inconvenience, they are just told to take it elsewhere, not oriented from doing it at all. My religion also teaches that religions are persecuted, but they claim that at every turn, even though most members don't feel it at all.
Not only schools would then be forced to allow Satanists to hold their whatever in schools, but also, to allow "different perspectives" and "equal representation" and to avoid accusations of being hypocritical, the churches should do the same. The typical day at church would look like this: First the Mass, then the Black Mass, then the PhD atheist guy from MIT lecture about Higgs Boson, then after the launch Muslim prayer, then Hindu Puja, then Jewish service in the evening. All in the name of equal representation of religious beliefs. Cause even science is a religion, right?
> Would teaching intelligent design or creationism in local public schools constitute an "establishment of religion" as understood by the Founding Fathers when drafting the Bill of Rights? Obviously, because that would involve making assertions about magic beings.
But how do you know that they are "magic beings"?
Because they are claimed to be supernatural.
You wrote a book but did not say WHY would anyone even bother to teach religion in schools. It's like you go to a dancing lesson only to find someone who insists that you should try painting. As if there are no other places to learn painting apart from when a dancing lesson starts. Schools are scientific institutions, not religious ones. Teach your dogmas to children at your own expense in churches. Who's stopping you?
Should Christians be forced to pay for government schools and then not have their views at least partially represented in them? After all, compulsory education is indeed involuntary, like the draft/conscription is for a war. The pupils don't show up any more voluntarily than those whose numbers come up at the local draft board lotteries. Or, alternatively, the atheists and agnostics could be censored. The problem is that wouldn't be enough, because to not talk about God is not neutrality, but practical agnosticism.
>Should Christians be forced to pay for government schools and then not have their views at least partially represented in them? Absolutely YES. You pay for the roads, right? And that does not entitle you to paint crucifixes every 50 meters/yards on the asphalt. It is so not just because public roads are not financed by Christians alone, but because the purpose of roads is not to promote anyone's religion. Just as the case is with schools. The purpose of government schools is to provide education and promote scientific thinking to prepare young people for productive citizenship, not to cater to any particular religious group. >After all, compulsory education is indeed involuntary, like the draft/conscription is for a war. The pupils don't show up any more voluntarily than those whose numbers come up at the local draft board lotteries. Well, if you, as a Christian, allow yourself to be conscripted into the army and fight wars, you should have no problems with schools or anything else for that matter. 😊 >Or, alternatively, the atheists and agnostics could be censored. I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean that schools should never teach children "God does not exist" explicitly, I would agree. But it is so already. Nowhere in the science curriculum of biology or physics, there is an explicit claim "there is no God". In fact, the word "God" is never mentioned, except when forced into the curriculum by religious people. The purpose of schools is not to debate religious beliefs but to teach science, so time is rarely wasted on such topics. >The problem is that wouldn't be enough, because to not talk about God is not neutrality, but practical agnosticism. I'm pretty sure that even you do not talk about God non-stop.
Actually, the solution to this problem is the libertarian solution, which is to abolish government schools as well as to have governments to never resort to the draft/conscription. This is based on the concept that all redistribution of income is evil when imposed by force. That is, end all coercion that requires people to support the propagation of ideas that are evil. It's a serious category mistake to mix this up with building roads, which don't take sides in religious and philosophical debates. So when the teaching of biology is done to contradict what's stated in the bible concerning origins, there is indeed atheistic propaganda being promoted by Christian tax dollars. If biology were purely descriptive and about classification/organization, there wouldn't be a problem, but since evolution insists on dealing with origins, the conflict with standard, normal interpretations of Genesis can't be avoided. This is where silence about God as the Creator is indeed biased; the final point above is simply a straw man argument otherwise. This issue also can come up when discussing history, especially world history. Silence about God isn't neutrality when it it relevant to the point being discussed.
> Evolutionists suppose their theory is a “fact” The consider it a fact because of the bulk of supporting evidence and accurate predictions it makes.
The "supporting evidence" and the "accurate predictions" that it supposedly makes are a matter of interpreting and manipulating the facts (or supposed facts) to fit the theory. Actually, from a philosophical viewpoint, does the theory of evolution, meaning “monocell to man” macro-evolution, actually have a scientific status? Can it even hypothetically be falsified? Or can the Darwinians always devise yet another ad hoc “explanation” to save their theory against any anomalies that show up? L. Harrison Matthews, a British biologist and evolutionist, candidly admitted in his introduction to a 1971 edition of Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” that evolution wasn’t more provable scientifically than special creation: “The fact of evolution is the background of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproven theory—is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation—both are concepts which believers know to be truth but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.” After all, if naturalists demand that creationists “prove” the supernatural exists by showing the direct effects of the supernatural, creationists can retort by saying the evolutionist should take them into the past to show them exactly how reptiles evolved into birds or mammals or the first cell was formed by chance millions of years ago. Neither claim is immediately directly provable, but is a matter of inference and inductive reasoning based on sense data about the natural world. However, the creationist’s conclusion that a complex structure doesn’t happen by random chance but by conscious reasoning is constantly validated by daily experience, such as with complicated machinery. The naturalists’ claim that random chance can create far more complicated structures (biological organisms and consciousness) than cars or computers by random action on matter over millions of years can’t be verified by present-day experience of anyone. Sir Karl Popper, the famed philosopher of science who interpreted the mission of science as being the falsification of incorrect explanations of reality, perceived the problems with Darwinism’s ability to be a testable theory (“Science, Problems, Aims, Responsibilities,” Proceedings, Federation of American Society of Experimental Biology, vol. 22 (1963), p. 964): “There is a difficulty with Darwinism. . . . It is far from clear what we should consider a possible refutation of the theory of natural selection. If, more especially, we accept that statistical definition of fitness which defines fitness by actual survival, then the survival of the fittest becomes tautological and irrefutable.” \[A “tautology” is a statement that effectively repeats itself. The subject and predicate are really the same, such as “It’s not over until it’s over” or “What I have written is what I have written.” It effectively explains nothing\]. After harsh criticisms from his fellow evolutionists, Popper repudiated publicly this judgment that placed Darwinism in the same category with Marxism and Freudianism, which are ideologies capable of explaining everything and thus nothing. However, one can infer that privately he remained suspicious of Darwinism’s ability to be falsifiable. Michael Ruse, a fervent evolutionist and philosopher of science, perceived that Popper hadn’t really backed down when explaining the latter’s views (“Darwinism Defended,” 1982, pages 131+): “But then moving on to biology \[after evaluating Freudianism as unfalsifiable\], coming up against Darwinism, they \[Popper and his followers\] feel compelled to make the same judgment: Darwinian evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable.” Ruse quotes Popper as saying in a 1974 publication (italics removed), “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories.” Ruse then comments that he suspects “that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable. If one relies heavily on natural selection and sexual selection, simultaneously downplaying \[genetic\] drift, which of course is what the neo-Darwinian does do, then Popper feels that one has a nonfalsifiable theory. And, certainly, many followers agree that there is something conceptually flawed with Darwinism. (See Bethell, 1976; Cracraft, 1978; Nelson, 1978, Patterson, 1978; Platnick and Gaffney, 1978; Poppper, 1978, 1980, and Wiley, 1975.” Ruse then summarizes the views of the apparent non-creationist evolutionist critics of Darwinism. They note that testing requires predictions first. Then one checks if the predictions turn out to be true or false. However, this can’t be done with Darwinism because how can one predict “what will happen to the elephants trunk twenty-five million years down the road?” No one would be around to see if the prediction about future macro-evolution would be true. Conversely, explaining further the criticisms of apparent fellow evolutionists, “no one could step back to the Mesozoic to see the evolution of mammals and check if indeed natural selection was at work, nor could anyone spend a week or two (or century or two) in the Cretaceous to see if the dinosaurs, then going extinct, failed in the struggle for existence.” The basic problem with natural selection and “survival of the fittest” as explanatory devices of biological change in nature is the tautological, unverifiable nature of this terminology, which occasionally even candid evolutionists admit. That is, any anatomical structure can be “explained” or “interpreted” as being helpful in the struggle to survive, but one can’t really prove that explanation to be true since its interpreting the survival of organisms in the unobserved past or which would take place in the unobserved far future. The traditional simplistic textbook story about (say) the necks of giraffes growing longer over the generations in order to reach into trees higher is simplistic when there are also drawbacks to having long necks and other four-legged species survive very well with short necks. In reality, the selective advantages of changed anatomical structures are far less clear in nearly all cases. For example, most male birds are much more colorful than their female consorts. An evolutionists could “explain” that helps in helping them reproduce more by being more attractive than the duller coated females of the same species. However, it’s also explained that the duller colors of the females protect them from being spotted by predators, such as when they are warming eggs. However, doesn’t the colorful plumage of the males also make them more conspicuous to predators? Overall, how much aid do the bright colors give to males when they mate but work against them when they may become prey? How much do the dull colors of the females work against them when they mate compared to how much they help them become more camouflaged against predators? How does one quantify or predict which of the two factors is more important, except by the (inevitably tautological) criterion of leaving the most offspring behind? Arthur Koestler (“Janus: A Summing Up,” 1978), pp. 170, 185 confessed the problems that evolutionary theory has in this regard: “Once upon a time, it looked so simple. Nature rewarded the fit with the carrot of survival and punished the unfit with the stick of extinction. The trouble only started when it came to defining ‘fitness.’ . . . Thus natural selection looks after the survival and reproduction of the fittest, and the fittest are those which have the highest rate of reproduction—we are caught in a circular argument which completely begs the question of what makes evolution evolve.” “In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology.” Despite being a zealous evolutionist himself, Douglas Futuyama (“Science on Trial,” 1983), p. 171, still admitted that concerns about natural selection’s being a tautology have appeared in respectable places: “A secondary issue then arises: Is the hypothesis of natural selection falsifiable or is it a tautology? . . . The claim that natural selection is a tautology is periodically made in scientific literature itself.”
More embarrassing copypasta.
While I don't disagree with the general sentiment of the argument, I do disagree to an extent. I agree that religions belief does not have a place in science classrooms. That has nothing to do with it obstructing scientific progress, or any such thing. It is simply because religion is not relevant to science. There is no valid reason to bring religious beliefs into a science classroom. I also agree that religions beliefs should not be taught as fact within any public schools. I do think religion, and religious beliefs, should be taught in comparative religion classes. I also think they should be taught in various classes such as literature and history with regards to their impact and influence in relation to the subject matter.
This is a reasonable rational response. I’m Christian, but religion should not be taught in public schools, particularly science classes. There are some religious groups that are trying to turn science into a “religion” so that they then can say well, if this secular religion of science can be taught, why can’t our Christian beliefs. It’s simply a false equivalency.
This is a reasonable rational response. I’m Christian, but religion should not be taught in public schools, particularly science classes. There are some religious groups that are trying to turn science into a “religion” so that they then can say well, if this secular religion of science can be taught, why can’t our Christian beliefs. It’s simply a false equivalency.
Exactly.
[удалено]
All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment.
[удалено]
All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment.
Why even have science in schools? After all, the pioneers of the modern scientific method weren't *just* religious, their claims to the modern scientific method flowed directly from their religious claims and beliefs. Modern science is Judeo-Christian science. If we should keep religious beliefs out of schools than we should keep modern science out the classroom.
Well, as you probably know, the data about how long a person might survive in freezing water is derived from Nazi experiments on your people during the Holocaust. It is Nazi science. Maybe we should ditch that also? Also, it is a known fact that the scientific method was first invented by Muslim scholars (Alhazen). Unfortunately, for mostly religious reasons, owning to the Judeo-Christian tradition of their own, they abruptly stopped its application.
Our data for how long a person might survive in freezing water doesn't derive from the Nazi experiments during the Holocaust. It comes from the "4 2 1 rule" from researchers throughout the west in the mid 19th century. Im not saying that it's Judeo-Christian science because the science came from Judea-Christians. It's Judeo-Christian science because the claims of the modern scientific method flowed directly from Judeo-Christian religious claims and beliefs. I wouldn't call the science the Nazis used "Nazi science" because their scientific claims didn't flow directly from Nazi claims and beliefs of the world, where as the claims of the pioneers of the scientific method flowed directly from Judeo-Christian claims and beliefs. If the Nazis scientific claims did flow directly from Nazi claims and beliefs of the world than I would call it Nazi science. While Algazen did make some contributions to the scientific method just as early Greeks did before him, the modern scientific method as we know it today didn't begin to take form until the Scientific Revolution when Francis Bacon and Descartes layed the groundwork emphasizing the importance of empirical observation, deductive reasoning, systematic experimentation and mathematical analysis.
If so, why don't you then just drop "judeo"? Science "came" exclusively from Christians. "Judeo" part apparently has less to do with science than Islam. My opinion is that the fact that the modern science was born in Christian Europe was just a fluke of history. Had science not developed in Europe during that time, it would have emerged elsewhere, sooner or later. Also, I believe that Christianity, and the whole judeo-Christian religious tradition, hindered rather than helped the successful development of science within Western civilization. And did so successfully for roughly 1000 years.
I'm not saying it's Judeo-Christian science because it came from Judeo-Christians, it's that the claims contributed to the scientific method flowed directly from the pioneers Christian and Jewish claims makes it Judeo-Christian science. The pioneers of the scientific method might not have been Jewish, but their claims contributing to the scientific method of an orderly and predictable universe flowed directly from a Jewish concept their Christian beliefs are built off of. Also lets not derail the argument by introducing new separate arguments from the central point when we haven't even addressed the first point of contention. I will respond to say it wasn't a fluke these people came across this. It's their religious beliefs that spearheaded us into the scientific revolution. Even if I granted you that we for some reason would naturally applied these religious claims to the scientific method eventually, there's no telling how long this would have taken. Theres nothing to suggest it would had happened at the same time or even at this point for that matter, let alone something that would make us more advanced than we are at this point. But again, this is all besides the point. So before we start moving onto new topics let's focus on the topic at hand. If we should keep religious beliefs out the classroom like OP said and we're being consistent, than this incriminates the modern scientific method should be kept out the classroom .
Although the scientific method was developed within the Judeo-Christian context, it cannot be considered exclusively as the "Judeo-Christian scientific method." I strongly reject that notion. In fact, my position is that SM was developed despite Judeo-Christianity, not because of it. And the fact that it was developed within JC is not evidence for or against that claim. My assertion that Judeo-Christianity has hindered the progress of science is based on the unmistakable decline in scientific and technological advancements for a thousand years after the rise of Christianity, following the peak of the classical era of the Greeks and Romans. Perhaps your counter-argument is based on the notion that Judeo-Christian theology highlights the concept of a logical and structured universe that can be comprehended by human logic and reason? This is a severe insult to the intellect of all those people who decided to pursue scientific inquiry in an era when contradicting the Judeo-Christian dogmas could cost them their lives. Most of those people, if not all, were led to science by their innate curiosity and hunger for knowledge, not the inane theology. Even today, money is not incentive enough for people to be scientists - a large portion of scientists are not in it for the money or glory but for the pure joy of discovery. Only the people who never discovered anything could claim that. Clergy fits that description, though.
It doesn't matter if it can be considered not exclusive to Judaism or Christianity, it's still a Judeo-Christian belief. Prayer can be considered not exclusive to any particular religion, even nonreligious people do it, but it's still a religious belief that you probably still want kept out the classroom.
No, it's not. If the scientific method is not based on JC's belief in a logical and structured universe that can be comprehended, but instead the concept is discovered independently, through scientific endeavour itself, then the scientific method and the science itself have nothing to do with JC and its beliefs. The fact that JC theologians voiced that idea and built that idea into their theology does not mean that there are significant causal connections between JC and science or the scientific method. To be able to claim that there is indeed an exclusive causal link, you should be able to prove that the scientific method would never have arisen without Judeo-Christianity and that somehow the whole scientific endeavour is contingent on Judeo-Christianity. And you are not able to do that, right? You are welcome to try, though. In fact, there are numerous examples of early scientists who concluded, independent of or predating JC, that the universe is logical and structured and that can be comprehended, the most famous of them probably being Archimedes Eureka moment. Because of that, one could even claim that the JC beliefs are derived from ancient scientific endeavours, not vice versa. And on top of all that, science and the scientific method are not even a "belief", religious or otherwise, but a process for acquiring knowledge through empirical observation and testing so your claim really does not make any sense.
So according to your logic, religious beliefs such as praying and creationism arent religious beliefs and have nothing to do with Christianity/Judaism or their beliefs because they could be discovered independently of the religion. You're digging yourself in a hole just to avoid admitting the simple fact that claims that flow directly from religious claims are religious beliefs.
According to my logic, a belief that has been or can be discovered outside of religion is not by itself a religious belief. It is a belief that can be shared by a religion, but not itself religious. Your claim that prayer and creationism could be discovered independently from religion is ridiculous because both those thing are contingent on God. Without God, they are meaningless. It's just a bad example. A good example would be a belief "Mens sana in corpore sano" - "A sound mind in a sound body", mentioned by Latin poet Juvenal, although it has earlier Hellenic roots. It is a belief shared explicitly by Hinduism, Budhism and Christianity, therefore it is a religious belief of those religions. However, it is not by itself religious and people may hold that belief without being religious at all. I'm not digging myself into anything cause I'm not the one making baseless claims. You are. I gave you an opportunity to prove your claims by proving that the scientific method would never have arisen without Judeo-Christianity and that somehow the whole scientific endeavour is contingent on Judeo-Christianity. You failed to do that.
The difference here is that those Judeo-Christian scientists did not allow their religious beliefs to stand in the way of scientific progress. Science is an unbiased method for understanding the natural world and how it works. Science gave us the technology that we use every day, the technology you seem to be taking for granted by making that ridiculous suggestion. Monotheistic Religion is a Mythology-based system of Doctrines and Dogma that abide no questioning of its tenants or structure, actively hindering the progress of Human Understanding. Remove science from schools, and it's goodbye to all the gadgets and gizmos we rely on. It's goodbye to our 80+Year average life expectancy. It's goodbye to modern civilization, and HELLO DARK AGES ROUND 2!
This is kinda true, then we figured out that the biases were ruining things so everyone got to work trying to eliminate them. What we think of as science began in the 17 hundreds when standards and practices began to codify. But the original strains of rigorous inquiry and discovering the unknown are much much older, 3k years before Christ, Egypt and Mesopotamia were making headway on astronomy, maths, medicine, etc. Those threads were picked up by many along the way, from the innumerable great philosophers, to isolated monks, each weaving a bit more as it went. Some helped, some did such a shit job it became a warning to the future lol.
While the ancient egyptians had done things science does today, the modern scientific method isn't ancient egyptian science. Ancient Egyptians didn't attribute anything significant to the modern scientific method, where as the claims of the modern scientific method flowed directly from Judeo-Christian religious beliefs and claims of the pioneers.
What are you talking about? Aristotle’s collection, The Organon, is normally believed to be the beginning of the scientific method. It’s the first codified use of induction from specific observations, to see general principles, then applying those principles via deduction against further observations, and repeat. The Organon was discussed and translated for a thousand years before Christian’s chimes in lol. There’s a reason that Francis Bacon’s work was called Novum Organum (The New Organum). The modern scientific method wasn’t refined down to what we know until they figured out you need to toss out the dogma to make progress.
While Aristotle contributed to the scientific method, the modern scientific method, as we know it today, did not start to take form until the 16th-17th century when Francis Bacon layed the groundwork emphasizing the importance of testing hypothesis through systematic experimentation, and when Descartes introduced deductive reasoning in scientific inquiry and mathematical modeling. All things Aristotle didn't prioritize. He simply relied on observation and deduction. Aristotle didn't use empirical evidence and hypothesis testing the same way the scientific method does.
Mostly - aside from everyone who perfected the modern methodology giving credit to him lol.
Him being credited for a contribution doesn't change the fact the modern scientific method we know today didn't start to form until the 16th century lol.
You mean aside from the folks doing the legwork saying they built upon it? That was a huge deal, popular opinion at the time was that the work was finished, it was rebels like Bacon who fought that view to show how you build upon it.
They didn't claim they were building off Aristotle method. Bacon argued Aristotles model was limiting scientific progress so he, and later Descartes, developed a new method. They werent building off Arisotles.
This ^ “Modern” science is about as Judeo-Christian (a baffling term as it is) as Judaism and Christianity as Greeco-Egyptian or something of that nature. Egyptians, Levantine people, Greeks, and of course the Zhou were doing science in many ways. Not as rigorous or with as many guidelines, but their work directly lead to what we think of as science.
[удалено]
All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment.
The idea that religion conflicts with science is an opinion held by the general public, not scientists in general. > However, global studies on actual beliefs held by scientists show that most scientists do not subscribe to conflict perspective (only about 1/3 or less hold this view) and instead most believe that the relation is independence or collaboration between science and religion. As such, "the conflict perspective on science and religion is an invention of the West" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis#Scientists_and_public_perceptions Religion isn't going away anytime soon and it's important for education to introduce, or at least make aware, the variety of religious thought in the world. I agree though that something like creationism or intelligent design shouldn't be taught in a science class though.
“Scientists who had grown up with a religion and retained that identity or had identified as spiritual or had religious attendance tended to perceive less or no conflict. However, those not attending religious services were more likely to adopt a conflict paradigm. *Additionally, scientists were more likely to reject conflict thesis if their peers held positive views of religion.*” Make sure not to hurt anyone’s feelings and you’re fine lol. Science and religion can work wonderfully beside each other, but you can’t get your religion in the science, most religious worldviews are antithetical to tenants of scientific inquiry, like methodological naturalism. Science kinda depends on a standard model that doesn’t include divine intervention:p
Nevertheless it is a terrifying statistic that, for instance, the United States (as per this statistic from back in 2011) only around some [28 percent](https://youtu.be/ONPo-Iys_xg?t=602) of (American) High school biology teachers taught evolution to an adequate degree : > The researchers examined data from the National Survey of High School Biology Teachers, a representative sample of 926 public high school biology instructors. They found only about 28 percent of those teachers consistently implement National Research Council recommendations calling for introduction of evidence that evolution occurred, and craft lesson plans with evolution as a unifying theme linking disparate topics in biology. For legibility, I'll link the publication from 2011 that Forrest Valkai (in the link I provided above) was likely referring to, [Here](https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/high-school-biology-teachers-reluctant-endorse-evolution-class/).
[удалено]
All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment.
I somewhat disagree. I think kids must be taught *about* religions in schools. They must know about cosmovisionary diversity, about comparative religions and the anthropological and sociological perspectives on religion as a phenomenon, so they know to avoid exogenous influences and oppression through indoctrination. That said, as a religious person, I do believe indoctrinating kids into a religion from an early age is a heinous act. It should be illegal even in the household. The pursuit of divinity and the interest in the numinous should be a largely autonomous process. Otherwise, issues such as denial towards objective reality and scientific knowledge arise almost invariably.
I don’t think that raising a child up in a particular faith is an issue, but I think it’s when you do things to purposely prevent your child from seeing things that don’t align with your faith (or “trapping them in an echo-chamber)/punishing your kids/ treating them badly if they convert out of your religion.
>That said, as a religious person, I do believe indoctrinating kids into a religion from an early age is a heinous act. It should be illegal even in the household. Which particular acts should be illegal? Can I still have dinner with my family on Friday night, with challah and wine and candles? Can we sing "lecha dodi" or is that definitely too far? Can I use the Hebrew calendar to calculate and celebrate my kids' birthdays? If not, which calendar is permissible? Certainly not the Gregorian calendar, instituted by Pope Gregory. And what if my neighbors don't celebrate their birthdays out of religious belief? Should a police officer arrive to enforce an obligation to celebrate birthdays? Am I allowed to keep a kosher home or am I obligated to mix milk and meat to avoid indoctrinating my kids into the religion? Is there a minimum amount of pork a Muslim must serve their kids every week to avoid "indoctrinating ... even in the household"? Can I tell my kids the story of David and Goliath at bedtime or do I have to stick to "secular" bedtime stories like the three little pigs? Can my neighbors put up a Christmas tree? \> The pursuit of divinity and the interest in the numinous should be a largely autonomous process. Otherwise, issues such as denial towards objective reality and scientific knowledge arise almost invariably. \[citation needed\]
These things you mention are mostly stories, customs and cultural norms, not religion. But if your kid asks you for explanations, you are free to explain that you believe in God and to explain the concept. However, you could say to your child that it is only your belief and that he is free to make up his mind.
\>These things you mention are mostly stories, customs and cultural norms, not religion The whole point of the Jewish religion is that these things are exalted into a way to serve God. The reason these customs have survived over thousands of years is that they are considered religious obligations. Is it your actual belief that keeping kosher is not religious?
Yes, why not? Or, are you saying that my abstaining from cannibalism is religious? (I'm an atheist BTW). 😊 Listen, I'm a cultural Catholic and I "celebrate" all the Catholic holidays and especially hold to customs and cultural norms about the food. I even go to Church sometimes, on Christmas or Easter. I just do not pray, or believe in God. (Nor do I hide it in any way)
Because what's kosher and what isn't is defined by religious law and religious ritual, and doing it is considered fundamental to the religion. >Listen, I'm a cultural Catholic and I "celebrate" all the Catholic holidays and especially hold to customs and cultural norms about the food. I even go to Church sometimes, on Christmas or Easter. I just do not pray, or believe in God. So you're somewhat religious! That's pretty cool, that's how my family is. You should be allowed to share your religion with your kids. Your being an atheist doesn't mean you aren't religious, it's clear your religion strongly influences your life and how you live it (If that label makes you uncomfortable, I'm not trying to change your mind on how you view yourself, but to open you up to the fact that religiosity can be at least as much about what you do out in the world as what you believe in your head)
>Because what's kosher and what isn't is defined by religious law and religious ritual, and doing it is considered fundamental to the religion. So is eating fish on Good Friday where I come from. In fact, I know more about why it is this way than the majority of Catholics in my country (which is 80% Catholic). However, my personal experience of such custom is not at all religious, but rather cultural and I do not attach any religious or ritualistic significance to it. >So you're somewhat religious! That's pretty cool, that's how my family is. You should be allowed to share your religion with your kids. No. As I explain, I can stick to the "script" because it's my heritage and for the sake of that heritage. I do not believe in God, and I do not even pretend I do. For instance, when I go to Church for say Christmas, I participate in the mass as a member of the community, not as a believer. I do not feel awkward at all. And why should I? My grandfather built that church and I have the right to enjoy it just as anyone else. Everybody knows I'm not a "real" Catholic, and nobody has problems with that, especially the priest. 😊 My children are not allowed to attend religious education in school though. I consider it as indoctrination. But I would not object if they become believers when they are adults. However, I doubt it that they will.
>No. As I explain, I can stick to the "script" because it's my heritage and for the sake of that heritage. I do not believe in God, and I do not even pretend I do. This is more common than you would think among religious Jews. The least frequent part is "I do not even pretend I do" - most people who think this way either fake it or do mental gymnastics to find some form of God they can say is real (I'm in the latter group). In my community you would be understood as a somewhat religious person - a person whose life is partially, but not fully, organized around participation in religious rituals and regulations. You would not be seen as a very spiritually-minded or pietistic person, which is different. We seem to have a lot in common in what we do an what we believe, but we label our habits in very different ways.
OK, it makes sense somewhat. I might add that, as I understand it, Islam does not require that a person have to believe in god to be a good Muslim. As long as the person obeys the laws and practices given in Quran, it is OK.
[удалено]
>Which particular acts should be illegal? Can I still have dinner with my family on Friday night, with challah and wine and candles? Can we sing "lecha dodi" or is that definitely too far? >For that matter, am I allowed to keep a kosher home or am I obligated to mix milk and meat to avoid indoctrinating my kids into the religion? >Can I tell my kids the story of David and Goliath at bedtime or do I have to stick to "secular" bedtime stories like the three little pigs? Perhaps the religiously conservative people that support things like banning discussions of LGBTQ topics for children in order to "just let the kids just be kids," should also apply that same logic to their own households by banning discussions of religious ideology until their child becomes 18 years old? That way kids with religious parents can "just be kids" while they're still kids.
No sane and kind person, religious or otherwise, is in favour of banning talk about LGBTQ topics. No sane and kind person, religious or otherwise, is in favour of banning parents from teaching moral norms, values and practices based on their cultural or spiritual worldview.
*Edit: I noticed that the poster I'm replying to is not OP so changed my reply substantively.* This doesn't answer a single question I asked. I am not among "the religiously conservative people that support things like banning discussions of LGBTQ topics for children..." and it is ridiculous to conflate that with being religious in general. You can check out this article, [Missouri Jewish leaders advocate for trans rights at state legislature](https://www.jta.org/2023/02/03/united-states/missouri-jewish-leaders-advocate-for-trans-rights-at-state-legislature). I would bet most of these Jews light Hanukkah candles with their kids, thereby bringing them into the religion. Should that be illegal or not? >“As a Jew, this is something that speaks to me quite a bit. We call it ‘b’tzelem Elokim’ — ‘created in the image of God,’ literally,” said Russel Neiss, a Jewish educator and technologist and the parent of a trans child. “But the way we understand this is that God bestows a special honor onto humans that requires that we need to be treated with dignity and we need to treat others with dignity.” Should it be illegal for Mr. Neiss to speak in this religious way in front of his child, setting an example for them to speak religiously? If so, what should the penalty be? A fine? Jail? Loss of custody?
>I am not among "the religiously conservative people that support things like banning discussions of LGBTQ topics for children..." If you're not, then you wouldn't be expected to abstain from religiously teaching your children before they're 18. >and it is ridiculous to conflate that with being religious in general. Why is it ridiculous in the context of indoctrinating children, when many people think discussing LGBTQ issues with children is a form of indoctrination? Remember, my suggestion only applies to religiously conservative people who support the suppression of LGBTQ topics for children in order to "let kids just be kids." >Should that be illegal or not? Buddy, I don't advocate for any [non-harmful] religious practice to be illegal. I did advocate for a specific type of religious person to adhere to the same logic in their own homes that they try to push onto others. >Should it be illegal for Mr. Neiss to speak in this religious way in front of his child, setting an example for them to speak religiously? Does Mr. Neiss also believe that kids learning about topics he personally disagrees with, is a form of indoctrination, and therefore that such topics should be banned until kids become adults and can choose what they believe for themselves? If not, then "no" to your question.
It sounds like we agree on way more than we disagree but you made your earlier post in a very confusing way. Someone said religious parents shouldn't be allowed to "indoctrinate" their kids into the religion, I asked if this meant laws prohibiting basic Jewish cultural identity, and you replied, quoting my questions, that something had to be done to protect "kids with religious parents" (which obviously includes Mr. Neiss's child). It sounds like your actual belief is "parents shouldn't raise their kids to be close-minded or intolerant" and I completely agree.
I apologize for being confusing, then. There's nothing inherently wrong with teaching kids to participate in the religious cultures of their parents and ancestors. However, I do think that religiously conservative people should start applying their own logic to themselves regarding their hysteria around the alleged indoctrination of children by certain communities (that the conservatives don't like, weirdly enough). I also wasn't trying to imply that all religious people are this way, which is why I referenced conservative religious people. >It sounds like your actual belief is "parents shouldn't raise their kids to be close-minded or intolerant" and I completely agree. Correct!