Should religion have a place in Schools

[Samuraikoku]

In no way. Nobunaga could have got the gunpowder from somewhere else (China, for example). The Jesuits wanted to evangelize him, he never paid them any mind. So the Jesuits were just a circumstance.

That they were circumstantial has no effect on if they had an affect on Japan.

Not exactly religious but military, since Japan isn't Christian in its majority.

[Dusk_Kittens]

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.

Rather, a very detailed explanation of why I do not support the conclusion which has been claimed to derive from the evidence. Yes, I agree there is evidence, and I agree that the evidence tends to support that conclusion -- if the social assumption of a beginning remains unchallenged. However, there is other evidence, easily observable in nature, with which the conclusion does not cohere. I refer to the cyclic aspect of our ordinary existence. Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter, Spring .... Dusk, Night, Dawn, Day, Dusk, .... New, Waxing, Full, Waning, Dark, New, Waxing, ....

What we do observe in Nature is cyclical (or perhaps more accurately, "spiral"). Hey, look, I'm being empirical.

And as for this bit:

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.

One has only to read this thread to see the arrogant presumptuousness of those who favor the Big Bang as their creation myth, insulting those who hold to a different creation myth, treating them, and indeed anyone who disagrees (such as myself, who disagrees with both the religious creation myths and the "scientific" creation myth), as morons, insisting that your version of creation (a dubious prospect to assume in any case, be the "justification" religious dogma or overzealous use of the Empirical Method) is so spot on that anyone who disagrees must be devoid of the capacity for reason, etc. So yes, it is presented as unassailable truth, and anyone who doesn't accept it is ostracized, mocked, etc. Deny that, and you demonstrate unwillingness to face reality.

Again, I do not believe in any sort of beginning, be it based on religion or "science," and I assert that variable factors may not all have been accounted for in the "Big Bang" story, and I further assert that Scientists, immersed in societies which have an assumption (which is, to some extent, pre-conscious) that there was some sort of "beginning," have failed to challenge that assumption prior to examining the evidence they have found (had they done so, they might have proposed a totally different interpretation of the evidence).

[The USOT]

Under no circumstances. Religion has nothing to do with teachings at school, nor will it ever have anything to do with it. Religion shouldn't be TAUGHT, it should be VOLUNTARILY CHOSEN.

I completely disagree. I know waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many people who make generalisations and complaints about peoples religions without having a clue as to what they are talking about, which inevitably leads to stupid violent acts which currently plague countries like Britain.

Good examples are as follows.

All Mormons support men having multiple wives
All islamic people support Sharia Law AND and there is only 1 variant of Sharia Law.
All Satanists want to kill people
All Pagans are nudists.

May sound crazy, but these are just a few of the things that I personally correct from random conversations every day.

Im not saying 1 religion should be supported and it should be a central part of education (e.g. I am annoyed by my Primary School for enforcing religion onto me) however knowledge in different leading world religions is vital because people are too ready to conform the "commonly held beleif".

[Nulono]

It should be allowed to be practiced, but not enforced.

[The Black Forrest]

It should be allowed to be practiced, but not enforced.

As long as it's not part of class time or used to evangelize......

[Breitkreuzonia]

It should be taught in history and in philosophy classes, because of Religion's role in history. There is also a class at the local school called comparitive religion (which is a voluntary class) that talks religious issues.

[Nulono]

It should be allowed to be practiced, but not enforced.

As long as it's not part of class time or used to evangelize......

I would group that under "enforced".

[Dyakovo]

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

Rather, a very detailed explanation of why I do not support the conclusion which has been claimed to derive from the evidence. Yes, I agree there is evidence, and I agree that the evidence tends to support that conclusion -- if the social assumption of a beginning remains unchallenged. However, there is other evidence, easily observable in nature, with which the conclusion does not cohere. I refer to the cyclic aspect of our ordinary existence. Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter, Spring .... Dusk, Night, Dawn, Day, Dusk, .... New, Waxing, Full, Waning, Dark, New, Waxing, ....

What we do observe in Nature is cyclical (or perhaps more accurately, "spiral"). Hey, look, I'm being empirical.

And as for this bit:

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.

One has only to read this thread to see the arrogant presumptuousness of those who favor the Big Bang as their creation myth, insulting those who hold to a different creation myth, treating them, and indeed anyone who disagrees (such as myself, who disagrees with both the religious creation myths and the "scientific" creation myth), as morons, insisting that your version of creation (a dubious prospect to assume in any case, be the "justification" religious dogma or overzealous use of the Empirical Method) is so spot on that anyone who disagrees must be devoid of the capacity for reason, etc. So yes, it is presented as unassailable truth, and anyone who doesn't accept it is ostracized, mocked, etc. Deny that, and you demonstrate unwillingness to face reality.

Again, I do not believe in any sort of beginning, be it based on religion or "science," and I assert that variable factors may not all have been accounted for in the "Big Bang" story, and I further assert that Scientists, immersed in societies which have an assumption (which is, to some extent, pre-conscious) that there was some sort of "beginning," have failed to challenge that assumption prior to examining the evidence they have found (had they done so, they might have proposed a totally different interpretation of the evidence).

The Big Bang Theory is not a creation myth.

[Revolutionarily]

an elective course in which popular religions and beliefs are taught could be an interesting class

[Ceannairceach]

an elective course in which popular religions and beliefs are taught could be an interesting class

I imagine theology is taught in some schools as an elective.

[Owlrusopia]

In my country, religion is taught as a non-elective subject. Not ONE religion, but at least three of the major ones are taught in high school. I have nothing against that. If there were prayer breaks and a focus on a single religion, however, I would be rather annoyed.

[Revolutionarily]

an elective course in which popular religions and beliefs are taught could be an interesting class

I imagine theology is taught in some schools as an elective.

not mine

[Meikoland]

If it's taught like a religious studies class, where students learn about the fundamentals and history of various religions, I see no problem.

[Vecherd]

As stated before I believe that religion only should take place in private schools and only so long the said religion doesn't teach hate. I only believe in private schools though, but as long as we have public schools we shouldn't teach religion in public school, it is a unnecessary subject to have in schools, but if people want it private school should be able to teach it.

[Xenomorphida]

Religion should always have a place in schools if that religion is Arctisconianism.

[Ceannairceach]

If it's taught like a religious studies class, where students learn about the fundamentals and history of various religions, I see no problem.

Generally, the fundamentals and histories are taught in history classes, at the very least touched upon.

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

Religion must not be advocated in schools, but it can be taught, as history, like Greek or Roman myths.
Or, if you want to pray, because it must be equal, don't forget to bow down to Kali, and me (see my signature).

[New Unsociety]

The role of school is to teach knowledge and principles,and form character.

Knowledge has nothing to do with religion,and principles don't need to be dependent on whether a being on the sky dictated them.

And doubting/not accepting whatever has no evidence of being true and being rational(thus not accepting the existence of God,as there are no evidence and by definition never could be any) is in my opinion a character trait that has to be developed(else we would have people willing to believe ANYTHING,thus not concentrating on the truth and thus not being able to function well to help the society as they would be misinformed).

As for the never could be any evidence part,well if it could be proven God exists,then it would be no God,as God is by definition something supernatural.

Thus,religion has no place in school-at least not as religion.

It should be taught as the Olympian gods are taught about in Roman History-as history,nothing else.

[New Unsociety]

Religion is an extremely important element of human history. It has, in many ways, defined our culture and our very civilization. So even if you guys don't practice religion or are pure religion haters, it is utter ludicrous not to teach some religious basics in schools simply because of the importance it plays in human development.

Then teach it as history(like being taught about the religion of ancient Rome).

[New Unsociety]

Yes they should. Otherwise teachers are free to teach creationism in science class. After evolution was mandated by the U.S government (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_trial), we have many wondrous things such as immunization.

So, no, proved you wrong.

and yet evolution has been proven wrong and we was top of the world in education before the government got involved in the school system explain that

One word:Drosophila

Google it

[New Unsociety]

Then atheist/anti-religious views should have no place either. They can learn that stuff at home or in a "voluntary Gulag".

Which leaves us with nothing religious OR anti-religious to teach at school. Which proves the atheists' point.

Actually,it proves the agnostics' point.

[Deathly Coyotes]

I think Creationism should be toght because it lets people have multipule choose what the point of have a choose if you can't use it

[Norstal]

snip.

The Big Bang Theory is not a creation myth.

You know, for a philosophy major, they are really horrible at arguing.

[Ceannairceach]

I think Creationism should be toght because it lets people have multipule choose what the point of have a choose if you can't use it

They can still choose, but choose it outside of a science room, where only scientific fact should be thought.

[Norstal]

I think Creationism should be toght because it lets people have multipule choose what the point of have a choose if you can't use it

The English language is dead at your feet, with blood leaking from the bullet wounds you have produced, as you kneel to screw its mangled, decaying corpse.

Anyways, no. Unless, evolution and nihilism are to be taught at Churches.