Should religion have a place in Schools

[Bottle]

I don't think this subject needs to be covered until college, frankly. If there are students who are excelling in their other coursework and they have time for electives, then sure, I have no problem offering debate, logic, ethics, or even comparative cultures options. Nothing wrong with that. But these should be elective options, and should be of much lower priority than maths, language studies, science, music, physical education, literature, civics, and other core subjects.

Except that religion is an intrinsic part of civics and history. You can't separate them and have a meanigful understanding of the events.

Again, you can teach ABOUT religions (just as you can teach ABOUT racism) without side-tracking onto debates about those subjects. I'm all for teaching about Jim Crow era, but I don't think school hours should be used to debate the belief that black people are lazy.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Except that religion is an intrinsic part of civics and history. You can't separate them and have a meanigful understanding of the events.

Again, you can teach ABOUT religions (just as you can teach ABOUT racism) without side-tracking onto debates about those subjects. I'm all for teaching about Jim Crow era, but I don't think school hours should be used to debate the belief that black people are lazy.

Right.

[Gudbai]

To be technical, you can't really "prove" a theory. All you can do is reinforce it over time and testing. The theory of evolution is still a "theory" (though it may be considered a law or rule by this point, technically).

No. Laws are single facts, usually expressed as a mathematical equation. Theories are larger, more complex explanations, often incorporating multiple laws. By definition, a theory has more supporting evidence than a law.

Being dismissive of religious beliefs is about as self-destructive as being dismissive of scientific findings. Teach what is necessary to everyone, teach what you believe amongst those who share your faith, but disregard neither common knowledge nor personal beliefs or quite simply we're all being ignorant and foolhardy.

I wouldn't agree with you about the first part. Dismissing of religious belief is much less self-destructive than dismissing scientific findings. But there's no real way to quanitfy that, so moving on.
The bolded section suggests to me that you support teaching religion as a voluntary extra-curricular subject. Am I right in this interpretation?

Thanks for the clarification on rules and laws. As I said, I wasn't entirely sure, just aware there are different designations, of which I've failed to keep track.

It's a matter of what kind of damage. Being dismissive of scientific findings is denying education and advancement. It's harmful personally and socially. Being dismissive of religious beliefs is to deny a person or many persons' faiths and that's really a rights violation, a stunting of spiritual growth and repression of a people. That too is harmful to both individuals and society, though in a less apparent way to many. How would society have faired if people went around telling Socrates and Plato they were wrong when they were philosophizing? It's like saying you can no more ignore your heart than your mind. To deny knowledge or to deny people their personal beliefs, either is a great injustice and injures societies greatly.

Edit:
...and I support religion as private study, mostly because I don't think it's feasible as extra-curricular activity. As addressed in a prior post, the time and money required to provide reasonable information regarding even a representative majority of religions seems impractical through public funding and would almost assuredly exclude many religions anyway. It seems best that individual seek out their own enlightenment to various walks of life, though it might be wise for schools to offer information helpful to seeking out knowledge from others, like a local theology directory or similar useful contacts besides the school system itself.

[The Archregimancy]

Am I the only person really confused by this?

He's not a native English speaker and didn't understand what you were saying to him. He thought you meant his opinion was irrelevant and he rebutted by pointing out that you didn't even voice an opinion, so it is you who is irrelevant, so there! I explained what you meant by TGs and I'm 60% sure he understood.

Ah - that clarifies things immensely, thank you.

And thank you for taking the time to explain to him what was going on via TG; much appreciated, and very helpful.

[EnragedMaldivians]

I feel sorry for you scientists having to explain yourselves over and over again - while addressing points that have been soundly rebutted ad nauseum.

I suppose it's the same feeling when an Economist stumbles upon a stubborn Austrian.

I don't mind explaining things over and over. What I mind is the rudeness of people who suggest that random ideas which are supported by precisely nothing should be given the same weight and respect as ideas which have been tested, examined, and studied extensively by tens of thousands of researchers. To me, that is the same as a kid who refuses to do any homework but then whines when he isn't given an A. I am offended by the idea that we should teach kids that they can sit around having opinions and refusing to do any work at all, and still get the same credit as a student who worked very hard and produced something interesting.

I do. I mean no offense but I have a lot of American friends - and never have I come across people, from a first world Nation, that is so distrusting of scientists. As someone from an Island, I find it absolouetely bizzare and frustrating that so many people from your country think that Global Warming is a hoax - and that the scientific consensus on the matter is completely irrelavant if it does not match their beleifs.

I see it is the same thing with evolution (we get that in the Maldives, for the same religious reasons as well - same creation sorty etc) - by which I mean, that scientific consensus and opinion is secondary their opinion, especially if there is a political element behind that opinion.

It's not unique to Americans - I just find it notable since the U.S is a first world nation, with some of the most prestigious scientific institutions in the world. Why such disregard and ignorance of the scientific method? Is it that all opinions are equally valid bullshit at work?

Is that not a failure of your education system?

[Bottle]

I don't mind explaining things over and over. What I mind is the rudeness of people who suggest that random ideas which are supported by precisely nothing should be given the same weight and respect as ideas which have been tested, examined, and studied extensively by tens of thousands of researchers. To me, that is the same as a kid who refuses to do any homework but then whines when he isn't given an A. I am offended by the idea that we should teach kids that they can sit around having opinions and refusing to do any work at all, and still get the same credit as a student who worked very hard and produced something interesting.

I do. I mean no offense but I have a lot of American friends - and never have I come across people, from a first world Nation, that is so distrusting of scientists. As someone from an Island, I find it absolouetely bizzare and frustrating that so many people from your country think that Global Warming is a hoax - and that the scientific consensus on the matter is completely irrelavant if it does not match their beleifs.

I see it is the same thing with evolution (we get that in the Maldives, for the same religious reasons as well - same creation sorty etc) - by which I mean, that scientific consensus and opinion is secondary their opinion, especially if there is a political element behind that opinion.

It's not unique to Americans - I just find it notable since the U.S is a first world nation, with some of the most prestigious scientific institutions in the world. Why such disregard and ignorance of the scientific method? Is it that all opinions are equally valid bullshit at work?

Is that not a failure of your education system?

It is absolutely a failure of our education system, but that is because of the cultural and political special interests who are playing tug-of-war with pretty much every area of our infrastructure. You have to remember that there is a vocal minority in America who genuinely believe that this world is unimportant, and only the afterlife really matters, so it isn't really surprising that they are prepared to trash the country and cripple our Earthly efforts to built a better world. To them, making sure that 10 year olds are taught to worship Jesus is more important than raising the next generation of scientists who will help feed the hungry, heal the sick, and make the world a safer place.

[Katonazag]

To the OP:
I think that public schools should be required to avoid all controversial issues until high school. By that time, the parents have had adequate time to see to it that the child is religiously developed, and the child is certainly able to think and reason for themselves. When it comes to religion, it should only be taught in context of history or social studies/sciences, and limited to generalities of what the religions officially believe.

Religious education in the context of what to believe is the responsibility of the parents, and should never be touched by the government in any way, shape, or form.

And to some of the other posters in here, religion is not scientific. True science is both observable and repeatable. Since spiritual and supernatural things are not bound by the physical universe, they are often difficult if not impossible to observe, and almost never repeatable.

[Deus in Machina]

No. Laws are single facts, usually expressed as a mathematical equation. Theories are larger, more complex explanations, often incorporating multiple laws. By definition, a theory has more supporting evidence than a law.

I wouldn't agree with you about the first part. Dismissing of religious belief is much less self-destructive than dismissing scientific findings. But there's no real way to quanitfy that, so moving on.
The bolded section suggests to me that you support teaching religion as a voluntary extra-curricular subject. Am I right in this interpretation?

Thanks for the clarification on rules and laws. As I said, I wasn't entirely sure, just aware there are different designations, of which I've failed to keep track.

It's a matter of what kind of damage. Being dismissive of scientific findings is denying education and advancement. It's harmful personally and socially. Being dismissive of religious beliefs is to deny a person or many persons' faiths and that's really a rights violation, a stunting of spiritual growth and repression of a people. That too is harmful to both individuals and society, though in a less apparent way to many. How would society have faired if people went around telling Socrates and Plato they were wrong when they were philosophizing? It's like saying you can no more ignore your heart than your mind. To deny knowledge or to deny people their personal beliefs, either is a great injustice and injures societies greatly.

Edit:
...and I support religion as private study, mostly because I don't think it's feasible as extra-curricular activity. As addressed in a prior post, the time and money required to provide reasonable information regarding even a representative majority of religions seems impractical through public funding and would almost assuredly exclude many religions anyway. It seems best that individual seek out their own enlightenment to various walks of life, though it might be wise for schools to offer information helpful to seeking out knowledge from others, like a local theology directory or similar useful contacts besides the school system itself.

You have crafted a beautiful post to which I can add nothing. Some I already believed but could not put into such eloquent words. Some I had not thought about and has given me a fresh perspective to consider. I do not own a hat, so my scalp goes off to you, sir.

[Dusk_Kittens]

And if it does how should it be taught;
Extra curricular subject,
Voluntary subject,
Creationism, should it be allowed,
not at all,
blanket teach multiple religions alongside each other,
just the "main" ones,

Thoughts...?

All religions and sacred traditions should be taught in cultural studies, not in the form of indoctrination, but in the form of clinical disinterest, insofar as they have had influences on historical events and the formation of cultures. "Creationism" is not scientific; many religions and sacred traditions have a creation myth, but not all do. As such, the idea of creation myth should be included in the cultural studies, but note should be made of those religions and/or sacred traditions which have no creation myth, such as Celtic Heathenry (I'm fully aware that some Reconstructionists believe that there was a Celtic creation myth which has been "lost," but I disagree with them based on reports of Classical writers and the record of Old Irish and Middle Irish texts) -- and the creation myth of science should be taught as well in these cultural studies classes (the "Big Bang" Theory, because, let's face it, that is a creation myth, in that it assumes a beginning of sorts).

[Salandriagado]

And if it does how should it be taught;
Extra curricular subject,
Voluntary subject,
Creationism, should it be allowed,
not at all,
blanket teach multiple religions alongside each other,
just the "main" ones,

Thoughts...?

All religions and sacred traditions should be taught in cultural studies, not in the form of indoctrination, but in the form of clinical disinterest, insofar as they have had influences on historical events and the formation of cultures. "Creationism" is not scientific; many religions and sacred traditions have a creation myth, but not all do. As such, the idea of creation myth should be included in the cultural studies, but note should be made of those religions and/or sacred traditions which have no creation myth, such as Celtic Heathenry (I'm fully aware that some Reconstructionists believe that there was a Celtic creation myth which has been "lost," but I disagree with them based on reports of Classical writers and the record of Old Irish and Middle Irish texts) -- and the creation myth of science should be taught as well in these cultural studies classes (the "Big Bang" Theory, because, let's face it, that is a creation myth, in that it assumes a beginning of sorts).

The Big Bang Theory is in no way a creation myth. It doesn't assume a beginning, it is built from a mathematical model of the growth of the universe that led to an infinite density at a finite time in the past. It says nothing about whether this was unique, original or even significant. It is entirely possible that the Big Bang was one of an infinite number of such rapid expansions occurring within infinite high-dimensional spacetime at random, all of which resulted in utterly different universes. We haven't found any evidence for that bit yet though, so we are limited at analysing our particular universe.

[Norstal]

and the creation myth of science should be taught as well in these cultural studies classes (the "Big Bang" Theory, because, let's face it, that is a creation myth, in that it assumes a beginning of sorts).

We don't "assume" those theories. We have mathematical models to prove it. We predict it, thus it's a hypothesis with some parts of it slowly becoming a theory.

[Katonazag]

All religions and sacred traditions should be taught in cultural studies, not in the form of indoctrination, but in the form of clinical disinterest, insofar as they have had influences on historical events and the formation of cultures. "Creationism" is not scientific; many religions and sacred traditions have a creation myth, but not all do. As such, the idea of creation myth should be included in the cultural studies, but note should be made of those religions and/or sacred traditions which have no creation myth, such as Celtic Heathenry (I'm fully aware that some Reconstructionists believe that there was a Celtic creation myth which has been "lost," but I disagree with them based on reports of Classical writers and the record of Old Irish and Middle Irish texts) -- and the creation myth of science should be taught as well in these cultural studies classes (the "Big Bang" Theory, because, let's face it, that is a creation myth, in that it assumes a beginning of sorts).

The Big Bang Theory is in no way a creation myth. It doesn't assume a beginning, it is built from a mathematical model of the growth of the universe that led to an infinite density at a finite time in the past. It says nothing about whether this was unique, original or even significant. It is entirely possible that the Big Bang was one of an infinite number of such rapid expansions occurring within infinite high-dimensional spacetime at random, all of which resulted in utterly different universes. We haven't found any evidence for that bit yet though, so we are limited at analysing our particular universe.

So, one might say that it's all speculation?

After all, nobody was there to observe it, and nobody has been able to repeat it in laboratory conditions for study. In my opinion, as far as science is concerned, the "big bang" is no more plausible than saying "God did it". They're equally scientifically unsupportable.

[Norstal]

So, one might say that it's all speculation?

No, it's a prediction. If I say "this apple will fall to the ground with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2", I'm not speculating. I'm predicting.

[Gudbai]

To be technical, you can't really "prove" a theory.

And to be accurate, evolution isn't a theory. Evolution is a fact.

The theory is about HOW and WHY evolution occurs, not whether evolution occurs.

Seriously, I think this thread is proving again and again that we need to invest more in SCIENCE education. It's absolutely horrifying to see the level of ignorance among the general public on this subject.

I'm pretty sure you just backhandedly called me ignorant, whether intentional or not... Be careful how you speak, you don't influence many minds when you're too busy stepping on toes.

[Salandriagado]

The Big Bang Theory is in no way a creation myth. It doesn't assume a beginning, it is built from a mathematical model of the growth of the universe that led to an infinite density at a finite time in the past. It says nothing about whether this was unique, original or even significant. It is entirely possible that the Big Bang was one of an infinite number of such rapid expansions occurring within infinite high-dimensional spacetime at random, all of which resulted in utterly different universes. We haven't found any evidence for that bit yet though, so we are limited at analysing our particular universe.

So, one might say that it's all speculation?

No, it's the simplest (requiring fewest assumptions) currently existing theory that explains all available evidence. How many damn times do we have to explain the simplest basis of science to people participating in a discussion about it?

[Gudbai]

It did used to be better. And before that, it used to be worse. 4th Edition sucks. 2nd Edition sucked worse. I don't see where the conflict is.

You believe whatever you want, brah. It's a free country. Just keep that 3.x - loving dogma out of our skewlz!

Pathfinder all the way. I love me some Paizo.

[Gudbai]

I feel sorry for you scientists having to explain yourselves over and over again - while addressing points that have been soundly rebutted ad nauseum.

I suppose it's the same feeling when an Economist stumbles upon a stubborn Austrian.

I don't mind explaining things over and over. What I mind is the rudeness of people who suggest that random ideas which are supported by precisely nothing should be given the same weight and respect as ideas which have been tested, examined, and studied extensively by tens of thousands of researchers. To me, that is the same as a kid who refuses to do any homework but then whines when he isn't given an A. I am offended by the idea that we should teach kids that they can sit around having opinions and refusing to do any work at all, and still get the same credit as a student who worked very hard and produced something interesting.

See to me, you're a science teacher who flunks a kid because he's morally opposed to cutting open a frog's dead body. As long as the kid studies what he needs to, has operating knowledge of the subject matter and can test on it, I don't care if he buries the frog in a tiny coffin at a little animal cemetery at his home, the goal of education has been accomplished. Education doesn't have to be prescriptive, just functional.

[Norstal]

After all, nobody was there to observe it, and nobody has been able to repeat it in laboratory conditions for study. In my opinion, as far as science is concerned, the "big bang" is no more plausible than saying "God did it". They're equally scientifically unsupportable.

No scientific support?

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB.html

http://plus.maths.org/content/big-bang

[Katonazag]

So, one might say that it's all speculation?

No, it's a prediction. If I say "this apple will fall to the ground with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2", I'm not speculating. I'm predicting.

But you have observable and repeatable evidence to back your prediction. There's a huge difference between your example and the issue at hand.

[Katonazag]

After all, nobody was there to observe it, and nobody has been able to repeat it in laboratory conditions for study. In my opinion, as far as science is concerned, the "big bang" is no more plausible than saying "God did it". They're equally scientifically unsupportable.

No scientific support?

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB.html

http://plus.maths.org/content/big-bang

I don't buy it.

[Norstal]

See to me, you're a science teacher who flunks a kid because he's morally opposed to cutting open a frog's dead body.

A theology teacher would flunk a kid who doesn't read the Bible. So, bad argument.

As long as the kid studies what he needs to, has operating knowledge of the subject matter and can test on it, I don't care if he buries the frog in a tiny coffin at a little animal cemetery at his home, the goal of education has been accomplished. Education doesn't have to be prescriptive, just functional.

No, it's part of lab work. You can't conclude something nor can you analyze anything without experimenting.

[Norstal]

No, it's a prediction. If I say "this apple will fall to the ground with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2", I'm not speculating. I'm predicting.

But you have observable and repeatable evidence to back your prediction. There's a huge difference between your example and the issue at hand.

Math is observable. And I know a lot of people hate math, but it's concrete evidence. It's the basis for all science branch. Tell me, how does the softwares in your computer work? It's not observable.

I don't buy it.

Too bad, so sad.

[Katonazag]

So, one might say that it's all speculation?

No, it's the simplest (requiring fewest assumptions) currently existing theory that explains all available evidence. How many damn times do we have to explain the simplest basis of science to people participating in a discussion about it?

"Fewest assumptions" relative to the number of assumptions required for both theories is negligible to the point of being scientifically unimportant.

[Gudbai]

Maybe we should teach the common logical arguments that point out that it's really impossible to prove either way, so it's pretty much moot to discuss it with any authority. You can't prove any gods exist or that they don't, so make up your own mind on your own (because you're the only one your choice really matters to) and get on with it.

I don't think this subject needs to be covered until college, frankly. If there are students who are excelling in their other coursework and they have time for electives, then sure, I have no problem offering debate, logic, ethics, or even comparative cultures options. Nothing wrong with that. But these should be elective options, and should be of much lower priority than maths, language studies, science, music, physical education, literature, civics, and other core subjects.

I just think some basic logical proofing that most of a set of religious beliefs cannot be proven as fact, nor can they disproven, thus vast debates on the subject are fruitless and should be saved for later exploration of philosophy, culture and ethics. Just enough to essentially say "nobody can be "right", it's just a matter of theoretics and debate for another time." I think we waste far too much time arguing over who can even be right or wrong and most people don't get that the debates never get resolved because nobody can definitely prove or disprove either side.

Further deliberation on the subject, can wait until coverage in higher level courses, yes.

[Katonazag]

But you have observable and repeatable evidence to back your prediction. There's a huge difference between your example and the issue at hand.

Math is observable. And I know a lot of people hate math, but it's concrete evidence. It's the basis for all science branch. Tell me, how does the softwares in your computer work? It's not observable.

I don't buy it.

Too bad, so sad.

Same to you, buddy.