Should religion have a place in Schools

[Gudbai]

As if I have enough time in my classes to teach any particular edition. They give me three minutes a week to explain D&D to the kids and I ain't gonna waste it on factional bull honkey.

Just three minutes? Forsooth! That's barely enough time to explain how concealment works!

You know this makes me realize something - if D&D were a religion, it'd probably be the most revised of all time. You think the Catholics nixing Purgatory was bad? Imagine the myriad new player classes that come out in Player's Manual after Player's Manual, let alone the errata during the interim!

Well clearly, those who observed would have to be pretty reasonable and adaptable to accept new content and errata. Life is constantly evolving, why shouldn't your philosophy/religion?

Also, just wait until someone asks about natural weapons, unarmed strikes and iterative attacks.

[Farnhamia]

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.

There's observational evidence for the Big Bang: Hubble's Law & the expansion of space, the Cosmic Background Radiation, the abundance of primordial elements, the evolution and distribution of galaxies, just to name a few.

[Norstal]

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.


Too bad, so sad.

Same to you, buddy.

How softwares work? I'd tell you, but then it's not observable, so you wouldn't believe it anyways. My point is that the Big Bang theory is abstract and can only be explained by math and through other physics theories.

I don't go "Oh shit, this Java program werks when I compile it. MUST BE MAGICZ!!!11oneone".

[Flameswroth]

Well clearly, those who observed would have to be pretty reasonable and adaptable to accept new content and errata. Life is constantly evolving, why shouldn't your philosophy/religion?

Because 4th Edition chose to make Tieflings a playable race, and Gnomes NPCs! Sure, they came in after the fact by quickly adding them in the next motley crew of playables, but that doesn't make it okay! If they preach that gnomes are lesser characters at one time, then just flop around and decide to say they are equal, what will they say tomorrow?!

D&D is supposed to be a foundation upon which we can build our lives - true doctrine, passed down from Gygax himself! But he's gone now, and his apostles...erm, co-workers, are writing up rules and races that he never fucking established! Revisionist D&D eliminates the divinity of the divine father of tabletop games, and that's no good!

[Samuraikoku]

I still believe religion should stay away from schools. Teach Bushido instead if you want students to have a meaning in life.

[Gudbai]

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.

Well if the theology student was supposed to learn that content and didn't that's kind of his own fault now isn't it? I think your counterpoint is a little different. Also, that's why theology is not part of public schooling. It's not something that is going to govern your ability to do work and contribute to society, but philosophy/religion studies can enrich your personal life, so it's something people can take up independently.

Well if there's actually an experiment involved, then yes he'd need to get much more creative or find a way to console his beliefs and his education. However, my example assumes he's learning the curriculum content through other means, so at least for the example given that's kind of moot.

There's a difference between holding your own beliefs and blinding yourself with them. The problem is not that the child doesn't want to cut the frog, it's that he might not learn the content we have him cut the frog to learn. It's not the problem that some people believe in intelligent design, the only problem is if they disregard evolution. They can disbelieve it all they like as long as they know it and can apply it. Passing judgement on others for their beliefs (and not their knowledge and functional capacity) is basically taking us back into the dark ages and the inquisition, except now our banners represent Darwin instead of a deity. How so many people can walk the line of resembling what they villainize is beyond me...

[Gudbai]

Well clearly, those who observed would have to be pretty reasonable and adaptable to accept new content and errata. Life is constantly evolving, why shouldn't your philosophy/religion?

Because 4th Edition chose to make Tieflings a playable race, and Gnomes NPCs! Sure, they came in after the fact by quickly adding them in the next motley crew of playables, but that doesn't make it okay! If they preach that gnomes are lesser characters at one time, then just flop around and decide to say they are equal, what will they say tomorrow?!

D&D is supposed to be a foundation upon which we can build our lives - true doctrine, passed down from Gygax himself! But he's gone now, and his apostles...erm, co-workers, are writing up rules and races that he never fucking established! Revisionist D&D eliminates the divinity of the divine father of tabletop games, and that's no good!

Well, then pick a different denomination of the belief. Like I said prior, power to Paizo's Pathfinder, the true inheritors of Gygax's will: http://paizo.com/pathfinder

[Bottle]

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...

Goodness, my apologies, that was sloppy of me...my intention was to make it clear that you are deeply and profoundly ignorant on this subject, to a degree that would be shocking if it were not so woefully common. I meant to slap your ignorance firmly with the FRONT of my hand.

Be careful how you speak, you don't influence many minds when you're too busy stepping on toes.

Again with the pitiful delusion that your fee-fees are important in matters of fact. Sorry, but I'm not stupid enough to think that anti-science folks are going to be influenced by fact, reason, or pragmatism. I know from experience that people who debate the factual nature of evolution not going to learn anything from me, which is why I care not one tiny bit about protecting their egos. Instead, I slap down the lies and expose ignorance as quickly and efficiently as possible, just as I would yank up a weed from my garden. I do not do this for the benefit of the weeds.

[Dusk_Kittens]

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?

So you admit that it requires assumptions.

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

You cannot legitimately take empirical evidence and apply Deductive Logic to it, because you are unaware of all possible variables which might have affected the situation.

I don't believe in a beginning, whether the assertion is religious or "scientific."

[Norstal]

You cannot legitimately take empirical evidence and apply Deductive Logic to it, because you are unaware of all possible variables which might have affected the situation.

I don't believe in a beginning, whether the assertion is religious or "scientific."

You don't believe in math. Which is ok. For all we know, you don't exist either since you're not observable and all the variables that points to your existence is hidden form me.

[Dusk_Kittens]

You cannot legitimately take empirical evidence and apply Deductive Logic to it, because you are unaware of all possible variables which might have affected the situation.

I don't believe in a beginning, whether the assertion is religious or "scientific."

You don't believe in math. Which is ok. For all we know, you don't exist either since you're not observable and all the variables that points to your existence is hidden form me.

I never said I don't believe in Mathematics; don't make a Straw Man of my position. Logic and Mathematics are the only Pure Sciences. What I don't believe in is the use of Deductive Logic with premises gathered by the Empirical Method as a means of attaining certainty. It's a self-referentially incoherent assertion, and here's why:

Epistemology is that branch of the Discipline of Philosophy which is concerned with Knowledge and Reasoning (and as such, it includes Logic). On the question of Knowledge we find one of the extremely rare cases where the vast majority of Philosophers, no matter what their school of thought, actually agree on something, and that is the definition of "Knowledge" as "justified true belief." That, however, is as far as the agreement goes, because then the various schools of thought break up into separate camps arguing over what constitutes "Truth" and what constitutes "Justification for Belief." Leaving aside, for now, the arguments over how to define "Truth," let's see what these schools of thought have to say about "Justification for Belief." Rationalists hold that belief is justified by Reason and/or Inspiration, and emphasize abstract reasoning like Deductive Logic and Mathematics. Skeptics insist that nobody is ever justified in believing anything, and therefore, Knowledge is impossible. Empiricists assert that belief is justified by "Experience" (which is their jargon for "sense perception"), and they emphasize the so-called "Empirical Method," which consists of gathering data via sensory observation, experimentation, statistics, and Inductive Logic. Pragmatists compromise and regard both Reason/Inspiration and "Experience" as justification for belief.

Here's where the self-referential incoherence is found. Empiricists gather their evidence via Inductive Logic, and do not accept conclusions obtained via Deductive Logic alone -- or at least that's the claim they make (in spite of the fact that some Empiricists embrace Classical Foundationalism, which posits the existence of "self-evident truths" -- truths which are not derived from "Experience," which even Classical Foundationalism insists are necessary). Why then, would they "resort" to Deductive Logic in order to derive conclusions based on premises which have their origin in Inductive Logic? Why, indeed, when they admit (if honest) that they cannot predict all possible variable factors that might affect a given outcome? Indeed, it smacks of hubris to insist that their scientific model, even if complemented by Deductive Logic, has provided anything remotely near certainty, because they cannot anticipate all possible variable factors.

Now, having said that, I note that I am an Epistemological Pragmatist, and I furthermore note that I accept the theory of Evolution within a species and Evolution from one species to another; the evidence is overwhelming, and there seems to be no other explanation for that evidence that is remotely logical. But on the matter of the Big Bang, I have to ask where all the evidence is. Sure they have provided a number of pieces of the puzzle, but they're nowhere near a complete picture yet. As such, I disbelieve in the theory until such time as a more convincing amount of evidence has been laid before me and expounded logically (or mathematically, if you will), and even then, I may have doubts as to whether or not all of the variable factors have been accounted for.

My point is about the self-assuredness of the scientific community. They proclaim this as virtually unassailable truth, but know that they may not have accounted for all variable factors. This is not a religious or superstitious objection. It's a Philosophical objection, or, more precisely, an Epistemological objection.

[Free Soviets]

What I don't believe in is the use of Deductive Logic with premises gathered by the Empirical Method as a means of attaining certainty.

does anybody anywhere seriously maintain that they can attain certainty that way? the most you'll find is people saying it as a rhetorical flourish or who are using 'certainty' to mean something like 'it would be fucking crazy to believe otherwise'.

It's a self-referentially incoherent assertion, and here's why:

Epistemology is that branch of the Discipline of...blahblahblah

looks like somebody took themselves a 300-level epistemology course. how nice.

Empiricists gather their evidence via Inductive Logic, and do not accept conclusions obtained via Deductive Logic alone

haha, no. remember your hume - relations of ideas are perfectly respectable things.

Why then, would they "resort" to Deductive Logic in order to derive conclusions based on premises which have their origin in Inductive Logic? Why, indeed, when they admit (if honest) that they cannot predict all possible variable factors that might affect a given outcome? Indeed, it smacks of hubris to insist that their scientific model, even if complemented by Deductive Logic, has provided anything remotely near certainty, because they cannot anticipate all possible variable factors.

who needs certainty when you've got spaceships?

[Naurobia]

I think that intelligent design should be taught along side evolution since there is more evidence emerging that supports intelligent design and it has more to do with science than religion. But as for flat out teaching religion in public schools. I don't think that should be allowed unless is part of a school club that is NOT funded by tax payer dollars.

[Free Soviets]

there is more evidence emerging that supports intelligent design

name some

[Norstal]

I think that intelligent design should be taught along side evolution since there is more evidence emerging that supports intelligent design and it has more to do with science than religion. But as for flat out teaching religion in public schools. I don't think that should be allowed unless is part of a school club that is NOT funded by tax payer dollars.

I want you to make your argument here:

http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=82

Go on. I urge you. I love seeing people getting shredded by logic.

[Samuraikoku]

I think that intelligent design should be taught along side evolution since there is more evidence emerging that supports intelligent design and it has more to do with science than religion.

Not to be your enemy, because I have friends who believe in it, but I've never heard of any arguments to sustain it, even from them. Except the only one that "evolution hasn't been proven" (which I don't know I believe).

[Georgism]

I think that intelligent design should be taught along side evolution since there is more evidence emerging that supports intelligent design and it has more to do with science than religion. But as for flat out teaching religion in public schools. I don't think that should be allowed unless is part of a school club that is NOT funded by tax payer dollars.

I agree. Only Christian intelligent design though or we might end up teaching falsehoods which confuse children.

[Bottle]

I think that intelligent design should be taught along side evolution since there is more evidence emerging that supports intelligent design and it has more to do with science than religion.

Put up or shut up.

[Levi Simon n Ruben]

put it this way, Schools should have a strong place in Religion

[Levi Simon n Ruben]

put it this way, Schools should have a strong place in Religion

[Zeth Rekia]

No. Teaching kids religion in public schools is like erasing all the hard work you put yourself through in getting them educated in the first place.

Besides, there are schools that teach this crap. Keep it there and out of the way of important things.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

You don't believe in math. Which is ok. For all we know, you don't exist either since you're not observable and all the variables that points to your existence is hidden form me.

I never said I don't believe in Mathematics; don't make a Straw Man of my position. Logic and Mathematics are the only Pure Sciences. What I don't believe in is the use of Deductive Logic with premises gathered by the Empirical Method as a means of attaining certainty. It's a self-referentially incoherent assertion, and here's why:

Epistemology is that branch of the Discipline of Philosophy which is concerned with Knowledge and Reasoning (and as such, it includes Logic). On the question of Knowledge we find one of the extremely rare cases where the vast majority of Philosophers, no matter what their school of thought, actually agree on something, and that is the definition of "Knowledge" as "justified true belief." That, however, is as far as the agreement goes, because then the various schools of thought break up into separate camps arguing over what constitutes "Truth" and what constitutes "Justification for Belief." Leaving aside, for now, the arguments over how to define "Truth," let's see what these schools of thought have to say about "Justification for Belief." Rationalists hold that belief is justified by Reason and/or Inspiration, and emphasize abstract reasoning like Deductive Logic and Mathematics. Skeptics insist that nobody is ever justified in believing anything, and therefore, Knowledge is impossible. Empiricists assert that belief is justified by "Experience" (which is their jargon for "sense perception"), and they emphasize the so-called "Empirical Method," which consists of gathering data via sensory observation, experimentation, statistics, and Inductive Logic. Pragmatists compromise and regard both Reason/Inspiration and "Experience" as justification for belief.

Here's where the self-referential incoherence is found. Empiricists gather their evidence via Inductive Logic, and do not accept conclusions obtained via Deductive Logic alone -- or at least that's the claim they make (in spite of the fact that some Empiricists embrace Classical Foundationalism, which posits the existence of "self-evident truths" -- truths which are not derived from "Experience," which even Classical Foundationalism insists are necessary). Why then, would they "resort" to Deductive Logic in order to derive conclusions based on premises which have their origin in Inductive Logic? Why, indeed, when they admit (if honest) that they cannot predict all possible variable factors that might affect a given outcome? Indeed, it smacks of hubris to insist that their scientific model, even if complemented by Deductive Logic, has provided anything remotely near certainty, because they cannot anticipate all possible variable factors.

Now, having said that, I note that I am an Epistemological Pragmatist, and I furthermore note that I accept the theory of Evolution within a species and Evolution from one species to another; the evidence is overwhelming, and there seems to be no other explanation for that evidence that is remotely logical. But on the matter of the Big Bang, I have to ask where all the evidence is. Sure they have provided a number of pieces of the puzzle, but they're nowhere near a complete picture yet. As such, I disbelieve in the theory until such time as a more convincing amount of evidence has been laid before me and expounded logically (or mathematically, if you will), and even then, I may have doubts as to whether or not all of the variable factors have been accounted for.

My point is about the self-assuredness of the scientific community. They proclaim this as virtually unassailable truth, but know that they may not have accounted for all variable factors. This is not a religious or superstitious objection. It's a Philosophical objection, or, more precisely, an Epistemological objection.

A very long winded way of saying you refuse to connect the dots no matter how logical it seems to do so.

[Bottle]

I never said I don't believe in Mathematics; don't make a Straw Man of my position. Logic and Mathematics are the only Pure Sciences. What I don't believe in is the use of Deductive Logic with premises gathered by the Empirical Method as a means of attaining certainty. It's a self-referentially incoherent assertion, and here's why:

Epistemology is that branch of the Discipline of Philosophy which is concerned with Knowledge and Reasoning (and as such, it includes Logic). On the question of Knowledge we find one of the extremely rare cases where the vast majority of Philosophers, no matter what their school of thought, actually agree on something, and that is the definition of "Knowledge" as "justified true belief." That, however, is as far as the agreement goes, because then the various schools of thought break up into separate camps arguing over what constitutes "Truth" and what constitutes "Justification for Belief." Leaving aside, for now, the arguments over how to define "Truth," let's see what these schools of thought have to say about "Justification for Belief." Rationalists hold that belief is justified by Reason and/or Inspiration, and emphasize abstract reasoning like Deductive Logic and Mathematics. Skeptics insist that nobody is ever justified in believing anything, and therefore, Knowledge is impossible. Empiricists assert that belief is justified by "Experience" (which is their jargon for "sense perception"), and they emphasize the so-called "Empirical Method," which consists of gathering data via sensory observation, experimentation, statistics, and Inductive Logic. Pragmatists compromise and regard both Reason/Inspiration and "Experience" as justification for belief.

Here's where the self-referential incoherence is found. Empiricists gather their evidence via Inductive Logic, and do not accept conclusions obtained via Deductive Logic alone -- or at least that's the claim they make (in spite of the fact that some Empiricists embrace Classical Foundationalism, which posits the existence of "self-evident truths" -- truths which are not derived from "Experience," which even Classical Foundationalism insists are necessary). Why then, would they "resort" to Deductive Logic in order to derive conclusions based on premises which have their origin in Inductive Logic? Why, indeed, when they admit (if honest) that they cannot predict all possible variable factors that might affect a given outcome? Indeed, it smacks of hubris to insist that their scientific model, even if complemented by Deductive Logic, has provided anything remotely near certainty, because they cannot anticipate all possible variable factors.

Now, having said that, I note that I am an Epistemological Pragmatist, and I furthermore note that I accept the theory of Evolution within a species and Evolution from one species to another; the evidence is overwhelming, and there seems to be no other explanation for that evidence that is remotely logical. But on the matter of the Big Bang, I have to ask where all the evidence is. Sure they have provided a number of pieces of the puzzle, but they're nowhere near a complete picture yet. As such, I disbelieve in the theory until such time as a more convincing amount of evidence has been laid before me and expounded logically (or mathematically, if you will), and even then, I may have doubts as to whether or not all of the variable factors have been accounted for.

My point is about the self-assuredness of the scientific community. They proclaim this as virtually unassailable truth, but know that they may not have accounted for all variable factors. This is not a religious or superstitious objection. It's a Philosophical objection, or, more precisely, an Epistemological objection.

A very long winded way of saying you refuse to connect the dots no matter how logical it seems to do so.

Bless your heart for having the patience to read through it. I just skipped to the last paragraph, saw the laughable claim that scientists proclaim ANYTHING as "unassailable truth," and decided to go get a soda rather than go back and read the rest of it.

[Soviet Russya]

Bible in school?

ЙJЭT!

Opium for the masses has no place in our classes!

[Make up your own mind]

Now, having said that, I note that I am an Epistemological Pragmatist [...] But on the matter of the Big Bang, I have to ask where all the evidence is. Sure they have provided a number of pieces of the puzzle, but they're nowhere near a complete picture yet. As such, I disbelieve in the theory until such time as a more convincing amount of evidence has been laid before me and expounded logically [...], and even then, I may have doubts as to whether or not all of the variable factors have been accounted for.

You don't sound like a Pragmatist to me....

who needs certainty when you've got spaceships?

May I sig this?