Should religion have a place in Schools

[Free Soviets]

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

but they do have the pompous blowhard bit down cold. you can get surprisingly far in the field with just that.

[Boatail hollowpoints]

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.

+1 for your insight. It should be taught in every nation of the world, whatever that national based religion is. In the USA, since it was founded with Christian beliefs, well then that should be studied and taught. In Japan, whatever their national backed religion is should also be taught... I'm sure it ISN'T Chrisitanity.
Every nation has a base religion or multiple religions. I see nothing wrong with continuing the education. After all, that's what SCHOOL is for, education. I don't mean it should be turned into a church or monestary, on the contrary, it should be taught and studied, not forced on someone to convert them.

[Hardened Pyrokinetics]

Only in schools tailored for religion. Secular schools should remain secular, although an optional religious STUDIES class would be a nice addition as well.

[Avenio]

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.

For a very very limited range of circumstances, yes, our 'ordinary existence' can be cyclical. But, as I'm sure you're not doubt aware, this does not apply to cosmology as a field. As far as we can tell, using all of our models and theories and based upon careful observation, the universe expanded outward from a single point some 13-odd billion years ago, and from which all of the laws of the universe, the matter in it and time itself began. Anything beyond that, unfortunately, according to the attitudes of science, is an unfounded assumption, seeing as the evidence to support 'something' existing before the Big Bang theory does not exist. And unfounded assumptions are things that even you recognize are not healthy for empirical thought.

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).

I don't know which scientists you've talked to, but most are more than willing to accept other theories than the Big Bang. The caveat that they have is that said theory must have the empirical evidence to support it, which is where the problem lies. The Big Bang theory itself, like any theory, is not perfect; there are facts in physics that we have not yet discovered that may undermine it in the near future. Such is science. But it is the most likely explanation, given all the evidence we've gathered, and that's good enough for now; science itself thrives on changing worldviews based upon the observable evidence, and I have no doubt that twenty to thirty years from now, the modern Big Bang theory will look quite outdated.

Which is where the 'arrogance' comes in; in many cases, people who believe in other cosmologies are denying observable fact; there are many creationists on this board, for example, who deny evolution, despite the mountains of evidence in favour of it. In the case of the Big Bang theory, the problem is that said evidence (Which, though much younger than evolution, is no less rigorous in its support) is not easily understood nor available to the non-scientific audience, much like a five hundred-word post about the justification of belief, and it is easy for those who do not understand it to create false impressions of it and dismiss it out of hand. In fact, it could indeed be likely that the irritation of scientists (With or without the superfluous capitalization) stems not from their dismissal of one particular theory or another, but rather their refusal to accept the evidence given to them, and, by extent, the core values upon which science is built, such as reason, empiricism and the like.

And I would note that if you would care to share those 'variables' that cause you to believe the way you do, I would imagine the physics buffs and experts in this forum would take great enjoyment out of examining them.

[Dusk_Kittens]

The Big Bang Theory is not a creation myth.

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

1. I'm not a Philosophy Major. I've already got my degree in Philosophy.

2. I'm not attempting to argue. I simply stated my position, and when certain other posters misrepresented what I was saying, I undertook to correct them.

3. I'm not done with you yet in the other threads; the length of my response, however, will likely result in your inability to stay focused long enough to read it all.

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.

For a very very limited range of circumstances, yes, our 'ordinary existence' can be cyclical. But, as I'm sure you're not doubt aware, this does not apply to cosmology as a field. As far as we can tell, using all of our models and theories and based upon careful observation, the universe expanded outward from a single point some 13-odd billion years ago, and from which all of the laws of the universe, the matter in it and time itself began. Anything beyond that, unfortunately, according to the attitudes of science, is an unfounded assumption, seeing as the evidence to support 'something' existing before the Big Bang theory does not exist. And unfounded assumptions are things that even you recognize are not healthy for empirical thought.

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).

I don't know which scientists you've talked to, but most are more than willing to accept other theories than the Big Bang. The caveat that they have is that said theory must have the empirical evidence to support it, which is where the problem lies. The Big Bang theory itself, like any theory, is not perfect; there are facts in physics that we have not yet discovered that may undermine it in the near future. Such is science. But it is the most likely explanation, given all the evidence we've gathered, and that's good enough for now; science itself thrives on changing worldviews based upon the observable evidence, and I have no doubt that twenty to thirty years from now, the modern Big Bang theory will look quite outdated.

Which is where the 'arrogance' comes in; in many cases, people who believe in other cosmologies are denying observable fact; there are many creationists on this board, for example, who deny evolution, despite the mountains of evidence in favour of it. In the case of the Big Bang theory, the problem is that said evidence (Which, though much younger than evolution, is no less rigorous in its support) is not easily understood nor available to the non-scientific audience, much like a five hundred-word post about the justification of belief, and it is easy for those who do not understand it to create false impressions of it and dismiss it out of hand. In fact, it could indeed be likely that the irritation of scientists (With or without the superfluous capitalization) stems not from their dismissal of one particular theory or another, but rather their refusal to accept the evidence given to them, and, by extent, the core values upon which science is built, such as reason, empiricism and the like.

And I would note that if you would care to share those 'variables' that cause you to believe the way you do, I would imagine the physics buffs and experts in this forum would take great enjoyment out of examining them.

Thank you for your response. As for the variables I mentioned, what I'm saying is that there may be variables of which we all are unaware; this evidence which has been found, and the theories which have been based upon it, concern an extremely complex and vast system. To assume that we have all necessary evidence to form such theories strikes me as a bit presumptuous.

But I maintain that the Big Bang theory was postulated based on an interpretation of the evidence by people whose facticity (call that "baggage," if you will) included the almost-universal belief (in the West, at least, almost universal, since not every worldview in the West has always espoused such a belief, but those which have not are largely long-forgotten, or rather obscure to all but their adherents), indeed, an unexamined assumption, that there was some sort of "beginning," based in part on religious dogma and myth, and based also in part on a linear view of time.

Theories are evolving, however, and new theories are being proposed, like String Theory, and the newer "Brane Theory," which may hold promise for a greater understanding of the evidence we already have, and better models for interpreting evidence we have yet to uncover.

[Owlrusopia]

For a very very limited range of circumstances, yes, our 'ordinary existence' can be cyclical. But, as I'm sure you're not doubt aware, this does not apply to cosmology as a field. As far as we can tell, using all of our models and theories and based upon careful observation, the universe expanded outward from a single point some 13-odd billion years ago, and from which all of the laws of the universe, the matter in it and time itself began. Anything beyond that, unfortunately, according to the attitudes of science, is an unfounded assumption, seeing as the evidence to support 'something' existing before the Big Bang theory does not exist. And unfounded assumptions are things that even you recognize are not healthy for empirical thought.

There is a recent astrophysics paper I read that might indicate a cyclical universe. More conclusive data is said to arrive in 2018.

[Natty Narwhal]

Well, if the school offers a course in religion (comparative, preferably) as an elective, and not obligatory, than I see no problem.

[Dyakovo]

The Big Bang Theory is not a creation myth.

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

Fixed for accuracy...

[Owlrusopia]

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.

If they started holding lectures on evolution and nihilism in churches, I might go! Perhaps it would be win-win?

[Tim-Opolis]

-

[Ceannairceach]

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.

If they started holding lectures on evolution and nihilism in churches, I might go! Perhaps it would be win-win?

Schools shouldn't be forced to teach falsehoods.

[Samuraikoku]

Also- to the person that said about Japan and what their national religion would be. In theory it is Shintoism but over 65% of the country is atheist

Exactly. That's why I said not always religion has to do with the development of a country.

[Ifreann]

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.

+1 for your insight. It should be taught in every nation of the world, whatever that national based religion is. In the USA, since it was founded with Christian beliefs,...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_ ... Article_11

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

[Dukis]

One can actually scientifically deductively prove that evolutionism is a religion. Therefor region is taught in most schools in the world as a required course. I'm trying really hard to not go crazy so I'll stop here.
However some school offer a world religions course as an option and I am fine with that.

[Ceannairceach]

One can actually scientifically deductively prove that evolutionism is a religion.

How so?

[Horsefish]

One can actually scientifically deductively prove that evolutionism is a religion.

How so?

Because, despite the mountains of evidence compiled over many years, my church pastor/vicar/bishop told me it was wrong! I then read a few biased articles on the internet written by people with no scientific background which supported this-ergo it must be right!

[Samuraikoku]

One can actually scientifically deductively prove that evolutionism is a religion.

Just when I think nothing else can surprise me...

[Ifreann]

One can actually scientifically deductively prove that evolutionism is a religion.

[Dukis]

One can actually scientifically deductively prove that evolutionism is a religion.

How so?

One example.
When looking at a chest full of gold coins and you want to know how old it is you look for the youngest coin right.
The younger "coins" in our universe point to it only being about 6000 years old.
The evolutionist people have found the oldest "coin" and say that is how old the universe is.
Plus our population got reset to about 10 people 4400 years ago. Right about the time of Noah's flood.
The existence of the great flood is one of the most recurring stories on the planet.
I am going to stop ranting now.

[Flameswroth]

One can actually scientifically deductively prove that evolutionism is a religion.

How so?

I don't know about scientifically or deductively, but you could probably say something like:

"Well, ever since the dawn of man's sentience, he has tried to find the reason for 'why' things happen. Originally, the majority of things were supernatural and/or divine in nature. As knowledge progressed, theories replaced the divine as explanations for the world as we observe it, but ultimately they serve the same function - making sense of things we did not previously understand.

So in a way, evolution is religion in the sense that what religion is is an explanation, based on observations and knowledge at the time, that fills a gap we had in our understanding of 'why'."

For example, the rising and setting of the sun. Stone Age Bill O'Reilly says, "Sun goes up, sun goes down. You can't explain that!" So the 'wise men' step in and declare that the sun is a being, who must rest periodically (for after all, all living things must rest! We do!), and they worship the sun. It's a move, based on the best knowledge for the time, to explain what is not clear. Later, of course, we learn that the rising and setting of the sun is based on the Earth's rotation. It fills that same gap of 'why' that the 'sun being' theory did, so you could call it 'religion' in that sense.

People seem to have a stigma against calling something that is tangible and true 'religion', which I'm sure will make people respond to this with "Religion is made up shit by sand monkeys! Science is real. They are NOT the same," so whatever. I'm just saying that such pieces of knowledge fill the same gap, so in that respect they are the same.

[Norstal]

How so?

One example.
When looking at a chest full of gold coins and you want to know how old it is you look for the youngest coin right.
The younger "coins" in our universe point to it only being about 6000 years old.
The evolutionist people have found the oldest "coin" and say that is how old the universe is.
Plus our population got reset to about 10 people 4400 years ago. Right about the time of Noah's flood.
The existence of the great flood is one of the most recurring stories on the planet.
I am going to stop ranting now.

The fuck.

[Samuraikoku]

How so?

One example.
When looking at a chest full of gold coins and you want to know how old it is you look for the youngest coin right.
The younger "coins" in our universe point to it only being about 6000 years old.
The evolutionist people have found the oldest "coin" and say that is how old the universe is.
Plus our population got reset to about 10 people 4400 years ago. Right about the time of Noah's flood.
The existence of the great flood is one of the most recurring stories on the planet.
I am going to stop ranting now.

[Ceannairceach]

How so?

One example.
When looking at a chest full of gold coins and you want to know how old it is you look for the youngest coin right.
The younger "coins" in our universe point to it only being about 6000 years old.
The evolutionist people have found the oldest "coin" and say that is how old the universe is.
Plus our population got reset to about 10 people 4400 years ago. Right about the time of Noah's flood.
The existence of the great flood is one of the most recurring stories on the planet.
I am going to stop ranting now.

That makes utterly no sense. Its not even a rant; rantings should be able to be understood. This is just trash.

[Norstal]

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

1. I'm not a Philosophy Major. I've already got my degree in Philosophy.

2. I'm not attempting to argue. I simply stated my position, and when certain other posters misrepresented what I was saying, I undertook to correct them.

3. I'm not done with you yet in the other threads; the length of my response, however, will likely result in your inability to stay focused long enough to read it all.

You lost any credibility you had by calling the Big Bang Theory a "creation myth".

And yes, you're right, I do have a short attention span. Do you want to mock my intelligence next? Or perhaps, my weak heart? My anemia perhaps?

[Ceannairceach]

How so?

I don't know about scientifically or deductively, but you could probably say something like:

"Well, ever since the dawn of man's sentience, he has tried to find the reason for 'why' things happen. Originally, the majority of things were supernatural and/or divine in nature. As knowledge progressed, theories replaced the divine as explanations for the world as we observe it, but ultimately they serve the same function - making sense of things we did not previously understand.

So in a way, evolution is religion in the sense that what religion is is an explanation, based on observations and knowledge at the time, that fills a gap we had in our understanding of 'why'."

For example, the rising and setting of the sun. Stone Age Bill O'Reilly says, "Sun goes up, sun goes down. You can't explain that!" So the 'wise men' step in and declare that the sun is a being, who must rest periodically (for after all, all living things must rest! We do!), and they worship the sun. It's a move, based on the best knowledge for the time, to explain what is not clear. Later, of course, we learn that the rising and setting of the sun is based on the Earth's rotation. It fills that same gap of 'why' that the 'sun being' theory did, so you could call it 'religion' in that sense.

People seem to have a stigma against calling something that is tangible and true 'religion', which I'm sure will make people respond to this with "Religion is made up shit by sand monkeys! Science is real. They are NOT the same," so whatever. I'm just saying that such pieces of knowledge fill the same gap, so in that respect they are the same.

Yes, I suppose if we removed the definition of religion as a cultural system that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values, it is similar.