Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 9
Is the US hostile to science?
Topic Started: Oct 28 2005, 08:26 PM (2,859 Views)
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
The equivalent religous behaviour of the denial of the existence of dinosaurs because they're not mentioned in the bible is, to me at least, incomprensible, and that's the politest term I can find for it.

Where on earth did you get the notion that this is a commonly held belief of Christians?

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
AlbertaCrude
Oct 29 2005, 06:49 PM
Jolly
Oct 29 2005, 02:46 PM
For many, science is its own religion.....

It's entirely the fault of that Rene Descartes with his cogito ergo sum line.

I think therefore I think I am. I think.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Does anybody know what they'd be getting from a chapter about ID in a gradeschool biology textbook? We all know more or less what we'd get from a chapter on evolution.

And who'd be writing these textbooks anyway? I wonder what percentage of published gradeschool biology text authors would even consider adding an ID chapter to their books. Would the entire book be colored in a certain way if the author was the sort to want to include a chapter about ID?
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Larry
Oct 29 2005, 06:38 PM
Where on earth did you get the notion that this is a commonly held belief of Christians?

Google: Christians Dinosaurs

It would appear that your accpetance of their existence (except perhaps concurrent with man) is in the minority.
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Amanda
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
JBryan
Oct 29 2005, 09:41 PM
AlbertaCrude
Oct 29 2005, 06:49 PM
Jolly
Oct 29 2005, 02:46 PM
For many, science is its own religion.....

It's entirely the fault of that Rene Descartes with his cogito ergo sum line.

I think therefore I think I am. I think.

Clever, JBryan.

But this only works in English. Only language I know, where "think" is used in the sense of a cognitive process (cogitation) and in the sense of "belief" (as in "I'm not sure, but I THINK so").

Makes for a lot of errors by native English speakers in other languages! :smile: The word "think" as you used it actually has two very different meanings. How would you translate your thought into Chinese? (No, no! Not the pictograms!)
[size=5]
We should tolerate eccentricity in others, almost to the point of lunacy, provided no one else is harmed.
[/size]

"Daily Telegraph", London July 27 2005
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
All that shows me is that anyone can put up a website. I didn't find a single site I would consider to be representative of mainstream thought.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Larry
Oct 29 2005, 07:10 PM
All that shows me is that anyone can put up a website. I didn't find a single site I would consider to be representative of mainstream thought.

There are no wesites representative of mainstream thought?

That seems unlikely. What do you consider to be mainstream?
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
I didn't say there weren't any mainstream Christian websites, Steve. I said the ones that come up using the parameters you've given aren't representative of mainstream thought. Where dinosaurs fit into the picture isn't something mainstream Christianity spends a lot of time focusing on. All you'll get using those two keywords are the nutbobs who make mountains out of molehills. Mainstream Christianity accepts as you do that dinosaurs existed, and leave it at that, so you won't find much discussion on the subject from them. You *will* however, find a lot of discussion among the nutbobs.

Now - I've acknowledged there are nutbobs among Christianity. What say you acknowledge the nutbob equivalent on the side of science? They exist, you know, and it all serves to further support my argument that if you want to fully educate people and teach them to think critically, you should present *all* sides. The first things to die out as a result are the nutbobs from *both* sides of the equation.





Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Quote:
 
Where on earth did you get the notion that this is a commonly held belief of Christians?


I didn't say that it was. I have however, heard some Christians state that dinosaurs did not exist. The same ones who claim the earth is only 4000 years old. Presumably because you couldn't have one thing without the other. I wouldn't dream of claiming that all Christians believe this, it's a minority.

'Fundamentalist' is a word which can mean many things to different people. I used the word to describe people who believe that the bible is literally true. If that is the incorrect word, then my apologies.

Lastly, I don't have any problem with the teaching of ID. I have a problem with it being taught as a scientific theory. It's not a scientific theory, it's not based on observation and formulation based on the observation. It should be taught as part of religious education, which leads to...

When I first came to the US, I was amazed to find that religion is not taught in state schools. I don't believe that the intent of the constitution was ever to prohibit this. Please bear in mind that I'm an atheist. However, I still believe that teaching of religous beliefs, and more importantly the value structure beneath them, is important. I spoke to a friend of mine about this, who could best be described as a conservative Christian, and to my British eyes a fairly hard-line one. He said he didn't think it would be good to teach religion in schools since the kids would have to learn about all the other religions as well. Now granted, this is a sample size of one, but this attitude left me speechless, which as you may have noticed, is a pretty unusual situation for me. Why on earth wouldn't we want our children to learn about other religions?

And lastly, the word 'evolution' is often mis-used. There's two issues here, Natural Selection, and evolution. Natural Selection is a fact. There's documented proof of it happening. Darwinist evolution is a theory based upon, among other things, the observation of natural selection. There's a lot of evidence to support evolution, however it cannot be considered to be anything other than a scientific theory. There may be other explanations, however there's not too many scientifically rigorous alternatives that I'm aware of. Science does not equal evolution. It's a very small part of an enormous body of knowledge, in my opinion making up the crowning achievment of the last few centuries.

Quote:
 
I'm always amused at how people make statements about "fundamentalist Christians" like they are an authority on them


I'm always amused by how many people talk about 'Scientists' when they haven't got the first clue about what science is. By the way I'm not referring to you, Larry, with this statement.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
John D'Oh
Oct 29 2005, 07:27 PM

When I first came to the US, I was amazed to find that religion is not taught in state schools. I don't believe that the intent of the constitution was ever to prohibit this. Please bear in mind that I'm an atheist. However, I still believe that teaching of religous beliefs, and more importantly the value structure beneath them, is important. I spoke to a friend of mine about this, who could best be described as a conservative Christian, and to my British eyes a fairly hard-line one. He said he didn't think it would be good to teach religion in schools since the kids would have to learn about all the other religions as well. Now granted, this is a sample size of one, but this attitude left me speechless, which as you may have noticed, is a pretty unusual situation for me. Why on earth wouldn't we want our children to learn about other religions?

And therein lies the problem in the United States. We cannot teach "religion." Too many want a specific religion taught specifically as religious instruction and to encourage converts.

We can't even teach science without people wanting to use it as a segue to teach their belief in an omnipotent creator deity.

Hell, we can't even discuss the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice -- one of the most powerful positions in our secular government -- without powerful people wanting that person to enforce and impose their own religious morality on the entire society.

And for some reason, we are arrogant enough think we are the ones with a right to run the world. Sheesh!
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Poor Rick.... he can't decide if he wants to be a Christian or if he wants to stamp it out, and he can't decide if he wants to be an American or if he wants to stamp it out......

Liberalism does that to you, Rick. You're so busy trying to stand for everything that you end up standing for nothing.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Amanda
Oct 29 2005, 09:02 PM
JBryan
Oct 29 2005, 09:41 PM
AlbertaCrude
Oct 29 2005, 06:49 PM
Jolly
Oct 29 2005, 02:46 PM
For many, science is its own religion.....

It's entirely the fault of that Rene Descartes with his cogito ergo sum line.

I think therefore I think I am. I think.

Clever, JBryan.

But this only works in English. Only language I know, where "think" is used in the sense of a cognitive process (cogitation) and in the sense of "belief" (as in "I'm not sure, but I THINK so").

Makes for a lot of errors by native English speakers in other languages! :smile: The word "think" as you used it actually has two very different meanings. How would you translate your thought into Chinese? (No, no! Not the pictograms!)

It would translate pretty much the same into Chinese, without the pictograms. Wo xiang wo shi wo xiang. Wo xiang.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Quote:
 
Poor Rick.... he can't decide if he wants to be a Christian or if he wants to stamp it out


He has a point. There's a separation between church and state which disallows the teaching of religion in schools. The solution? Let's pretend that it's actually science and teach it anyway.

Does anybody here agree with not teaching religious studies in schools? If you do, please can you tell me why, apart from the fact that's its unconstitutional?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Phlebas
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Larry
Oct 29 2005, 05:36 PM
it is the secular liberalists who are afraid of open minded debate, not the "fundamentalists". Yes, there are crackpots amongst the group you label "fundamentalists". But they exist on both sides.

Right. Who's doing the stereotyping now.

Most people I talk to who don't want ID are not "secular librals.' They're people who care about the quality of their kids' educations. ID has no business in science classes because it's not science.

The monsignor who runs my daughter's school calls this movement a load of hogwash. Religious education is fine, and should be taught as such. Just keep it out of science classes. That's why they learn the scientific method, and genetics in my daughter's school.
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML

The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Phlebas
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
John D'Oh
Oct 30 2005, 02:16 AM


Does anybody here agree with not teaching religious studies in schools? If you do, please can you tell me why, apart from the fact that's its unconstitutional?

Actually, it's arguable that teaching religion in schools is unconstitutional.
Religion has a huge impact on history, and society, and all religions should be covered in that context. You get into a grey area when oyu start espouisng certain religions over others in public schools. It's fine to do so in parochial schools, though.

I actually believe that the country would be in better shape if Christian values were taught in all public schools. I guess I'll never get elected to public office, though.
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML

The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
I've taken religious history in public schools, but it was a course on how various religions have influenced history, not really a religion course.

Leaving aside the question of constitutionality, I think it's impossible to have a real course in religious history, where the focus is on the actual religion, its beginnings, its famous people, etc., without seeing it devolve into "my religion is better than yours."

Face it, every religion on the planet can be made to look pretty stooopid, or pretty inspired, based on who is doing the talking.

And ultimately we all have to return to issues of "faith," which can't be argued with. In private we can think people are delusional, but we'll get nowhere if we discuss it. And when you're talking about faith, there is no proof available, no argument the faithless can refute, no stand the faithful can't accept.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Nina - "And when you're talking about faith, there is no proof available, no argument the faithless can refute, no stand the faithful can't accept. "

I actually think it is a bit worse than that. "Faith" is the word people use when they want emotionally to keep believing something, but have no evidence they are willing to state in favor of it. The word "faith" is used like garlic to ward off rational thought and the process of evidence, so people can keep "believing" things that make them feel good.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Maybe if more religion was taught in schools, then it would lead to more sophisticated religious beliefs?

I think that sometimes the refusal to do something 'because it says so in the constitution' can also be an act of blind faith. The people who wrote it weren't infallible demi-gods, and the meaning can be very much open to interpretation.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
I don't think faith is a bad word, or a bad thought.

It's just the ultimate trump card in any discussion about religion. "It's an article of faith to me," also means, "there's nothing you can say to convince me otherwise."

It's no skin off my nose if people have these articles of faith. In fact, we all do. Some are religious, some are political, some are ethnically-based, etc.

My only point is that once the faith card is played, it's fruitless to continue to argue in the hopes of "winning," or convincing the other person that they're wrong. No value judgment on that, just fact.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Until now, I had no idea that religious studies were not offered or taught in US public schools.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
AlbertaCrude
Oct 30 2005, 08:06 AM
Until now, I had no idea that religious studies were not offered or taught in US public schools.

Me, too.

I think they are... at least in higher ed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Phlebas
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Jeffrey
Oct 30 2005, 05:52 AM
"Faith" is the word people use when they want emotionally to keep believing something, but have no evidence they are willing to state in favor of it. The word "faith" is used like garlic to ward off rational thought and the process of evidence, so people can keep "believing" things that make them feel good.

If that's what you think faith is, then you have a simplistic notion of it. There is an emotional aspect to faith, but that's just part of it. There is much more, and it mostly has nothing to do with "feeling good."
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML

The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
Does anybody here agree with not teaching religious studies in schools? If you do, please can you tell me why, apart from the fact that's its unconstitutional?


In elementary or high school? I don't believe in teaching that in public school.

Attendance at public school is compulsory. Religion should not be thrust upon those who don't want it in a compulsory educational setting. And, if you allow religion to be taught, it will inevitably devolve into teaching of the mainstream, most prevalent religion, and it will downplay or dismiss other religions. It would also effectively undercut those who don't believe in any religion at all. Are you going to teach atheism? Buddhism? Confucianism? Druidism?

This nation was founded in an effort to avoid religious persecution in England. It would be ironic indeed to return to some form of state-sponsored religion in a country that was created for, most importantly, religious freedom.

Now, if you're saying there should be teaching of religious history, I have no problem with that. The history of mankind is, in large part, the history of religion. But don't teach the religion itself.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
John D'Oh
Oct 30 2005, 03:16 AM
Quote:
 
Poor Rick.... he can't decide if he wants to be a Christian or if he wants to stamp it out


He has a point. There's a separation between church and state which disallows the teaching of religion in schools. The solution? Let's pretend that it's actually science and teach it anyway.

Does anybody here agree with not teaching religious studies in schools? If you do, please can you tell me why, apart from the fact that's its unconstitutional?

There is nothing unconstitutional in teaching about religion in public schools. The problem is that there is too much political pressure that doles not allow for the teaching about religion. As you found with the gentleman you spoke with, people want their own religion taught -- and as religious instruction -- they do not want an intellectual discussion of various religions and their various teachings. The very idea their child may learn about other religious treaditions without also being told that their own is correct and all others wrong is anathema to too many people.

Hence, we have what is basically a religiously illiterate population in the US.

Of course, I am not so sure how far the teaching of religion would go in Europe if they did not have a history of religious homogenenity. A case in point...do English schools incorporate Islamic beliefs in the school's religious curriculum as fully as they do Christian, and specifically Anglican, belief?

We may find as European countries become more pluralistic they too will be faced with the same controversies we are faced with here.

[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Here's something for you secularist liberals to smoke over - in time, there *will* be a religion taught in schools. You just have to decide if it's going to be one that allows you the freedom to reject it, or if it's going to be one you are forced to accept.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 9