Gifford, Nathan F wrote:
> I think the best issues to explore this concept on would be the
> teaching of evolution. It seems to me that if a science class is mandated
> then anyone with a creation myth should be able to petition the school board
> to include it in the curriculum. On the other hand if a class is an
> elective then its memetic base should be arbitrarily determined by the
> person teaching the course.
Excellent post Nate, and I agree in the large sense, but I find this last
paragraph perplexing. I fail to understand why exactly we should permit parents
to petition for religious classes if science is taught. I think for good reason
there is not a "evolution myth" or a "mathematics myth". I hold still, and have
not heard a non emotional argument against the concept, that religion is a part
of science, a small little subset of social sciences. If it were up to me, the
public schools would have a science requirement that taught about all the worlds
religions and treated them as equals. All religions are subjective, lacking in
physical evidence of any kind, and based upon tracable fictions (some deny this
about their own sects, but are sure of it for everyone else's sect). This is not
the case with evolution or most other sciences (Im not suggesting that our
knowledge of these subjects is complete, I am suggesting that the framework of
evolution and most other sciences is accurate)
I imagine that to some of the religious the argument looks like: It is
wrong to teach science if it detracts from our religious teachings and we need
to be sure our religion is not undermined there.
To sceintists: It is wrong to teach religion when it is keeps the facts from
being taught to students, and teaches myth as fact.
This is not the argument at all, the argument to me is: What is the purpose of
education? How can we make it fair and accessible for all?
What is the purpose of Education to me, and the meme I would like to propagate
about education: To provide the tools necessary for children to function and
grow in society as adults, foster creativity and creative thinking habits,
provide a perspective that will prepare them for a life of learning and
expanding their social, emotional and intellectual skills.
Science is absolutely necessary to technological, social and intellectual
advancement. To argue otherwise would ignore the whole of history. Science
anywhere in the world, is transplantable from society to society without ill
effect or translation (except possibly in Taleban ruled Afganistan or in the
Khmer Rouge). To not teach your children about science, is to not give them a
future in this world. I am willing to bet that the association between a
countries technological capability, standard of living, life expectancy, etc...
are directly related. Obviously Religious people can and do use science, and
were responsible for many of the earlier advances in science, I am not arguing
that one is exclusive of the other.
On the other hand - The same cannot be said of religion. Countries that are
ruled by religious groups are almost universally behind in all the areas I
mentioned as benefits of science. In many countries, religious persecution is
much more accute than it is here. To teach religion as fact, should be a crime
as it prevents critical thought in at least this one area, and promotes an
attitide of "saints and sinners" "us vs. them" "Tim vs. Bill" etc... Now, if it
were up to me, religion would have a significant place in the curriculum - much
as American History is taught, so would Worlds Religions. In same way I say that
a person is robbed if not taught science, the same is true of religion. It would
be impossible to understand our history, human motivation and behaviour,
politics and many other social sciences without an understanding of the role
religion plays in society.
I think it would behoove everyone if the duality between science and religion
would disappear to be replaced with an understanding of Science that is similar
to this: Science is the attempt to understand the Universe around us based upon
tools that are verifiable, reproduacable and improving. Science can use these
tools to investigate all aspects of religion. There is no conflict with religion
because Religion is not interested in these tools. Religion is based upon the
tool of "faith" and nothing else. From a religious standpoint, Science uses
tools that seem to degrade their view of the universe. This is a self defeating
outlook, without genocide on the part of the religious, myth cannot hold up to
the rigor of science, and will slowly have less and less effect on the course
of daily events.
If I were a Religious person - I hope my attitude would be this: I have faith in
my creator - The world does not seem to behave in the way it is written that it
should. Somewhere I am missing information to eliminate this apparent paradox.
When my time comes to meet my maker, I am sure this paradox will be resolved.
Until then, Ill keep the "faith" and use the science as a "tool of man". I would
NOT try to reconcile science with religion any longer. This may have been
feasable a few hundred years ago, but certainly not now. I would simply say "It
is a matter of faith".
Enough of this rambling diatribe
Bill Roh
Sodom
--------------FC7C2AC979C77729AC6B7704
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Gifford, Nathan F wrote:
I think the best issues to explore this concept on would be theExcellent post Nate, and I agree in the large sense, but I find this last paragraph perplexing. I fail to understand why exactly we should permit parents to petition for religious classes if science is taught. I think for good reason there is not a "evolution myth" or a "mathematics myth". I hold still, and have not heard a non emotional argument against the concept, that religion is a part of science, a small little subset of social sciences. If it were up to me, the public schools would have a science requirement that taught about all the worlds religions and treated them as equals. All religions are subjective, lacking in physical evidence of any kind, and based upon tracable fictions (some deny this about their own sects, but are sure of it for everyone else's sect). This is not the case with evolution or most other sciences (Im not suggesting that our knowledge of these subjects is complete, I am suggesting that the framework of evolution and most other sciences is accurate)
teaching of evolution. It seems to me that if a science class is mandated
then anyone with a creation myth should be able to petition the school board
to include it in the curriculum. On the other hand if a class is an
elective then its memetic base should be arbitrarily determined by the
person teaching the course.
I imagine that to some of the religious the argument looks like: It is wrong to teach science if it detracts from our religious teachings and we need to be sure our religion is not undermined there.
To sceintists: It is wrong to teach religion when it is keeps the facts
from being taught to students, and teaches myth as fact.
This is not the argument at all, the argument to me is: What is the purpose of education? How can we make it fair and accessible for all?
What is the purpose of Education to me, and the meme I would like to
propagate about education: To provide the tools necessary for children
to function and grow in society as adults, foster creativity and creative
thinking habits, provide a perspective that will prepare them for a life
of learning and expanding their social, emotional and intellectual skills.
Science is absolutely necessary to technological, social and intellectual advancement. To argue otherwise would ignore the whole of history. Science anywhere in the world, is transplantable from society to society without ill effect or translation (except possibly in Taleban ruled Afganistan or in the Khmer Rouge). To not teach your children about science, is to not give them a future in this world. I am willing to bet that the association between a countries technological capability, standard of living, life expectancy, etc... are directly related. Obviously Religious people can and do use science, and were responsible for many of the earlier advances in science, I am not arguing that one is exclusive of the other.
On the other hand - The same cannot be said of religion. Countries that are ruled by religious groups are almost universally behind in all the areas I mentioned as benefits of science. In many countries, religious persecution is much more accute than it is here. To teach religion as fact, should be a crime as it prevents critical thought in at least this one area, and promotes an attitide of "saints and sinners" "us vs. them" "Tim vs. Bill" etc... Now, if it were up to me, religion would have a significant place in the curriculum - much as American History is taught, so would Worlds Religions. In same way I say that a person is robbed if not taught science, the same is true of religion. It would be impossible to understand our history, human motivation and behaviour, politics and many other social sciences without an understanding of the role religion plays in society.
I think it would behoove everyone if the duality between science and religion would disappear to be replaced with an understanding of Science that is similar to this: Science is the attempt to understand the Universe around us based upon tools that are verifiable, reproduacable and improving. Science can use these tools to investigate all aspects of religion. There is no conflict with religion because Religion is not interested in these tools. Religion is based upon the tool of "faith" and nothing else. From a religious standpoint, Science uses tools that seem to degrade their view of the universe. This is a self defeating outlook, without genocide on the part of the religious, myth cannot hold up to the rigor of science, and will slowly have less and less effect on the course of daily events.
If I were a Religious person - I hope my attitude would be this: I have faith in my creator - The world does not seem to behave in the way it is written that it should. Somewhere I am missing information to eliminate this apparent paradox. When my time comes to meet my maker, I am sure this paradox will be resolved. Until then, Ill keep the "faith" and use the science as a "tool of man". I would NOT try to reconcile science with religion any longer. This may have been feasable a few hundred years ago, but certainly not now. I would simply say "It is a matter of faith".
Enough of this rambling diatribe
Bill Roh
Sodom
--------------FC7C2AC979C77729AC6B7704--