Evangelical Indoctrination of Children

No, wrong. We are asserting that it is the only explanation with evidence supporting it. And we are not claiming anything is truth, Truth, TRUTH, or even TRVTH. We'll leave those terms to philosophers and theologists, and others who study those squishy subjects. Will they question it on the basis of established science, or religious indoctrination? (Ever see the silly little Jack Chick tracts? That's what creationists are encouraging students to bring into science classes. What a load of nonsense!) Questions are allowed, of course. But the answers will be based on scientific evidence and theory, and that might mean that someone's pet religious belief will be excluded as not appropriate for a science class.Alternatives? The place for alternatives, if there are any, is in the technical journals and professional meetings. Science is not made in grade school classes. Science is taught and hopefully learned in those settings.And that's where creationists give it all away: they want their religious beliefs taught as science in the school settings. (They must be getting desperate in their efforts to counteract science and all that evidence.)And that brings us back to evidence. Creationism has none, while the theory of evolution has mountains of evidence.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

If you don't like methodological naturalism, don't use it.Come up with something else. Knock yourself out! Go for it!But why don't you leave those who do follow methodological naturalism (i.e., science) alone?If your method, whatever it is, is so superior why do you need to pick on science? Take your method and your results and go forth!Well, the reason you need to try to destroy science is that science produces results, and those results are counter to revelation and scripture. Science has enormous prestige because it produces those verifiable results. Theology, philosophy, and those other squishy subjects just can't compete.Hence, the need to destroy science, or to water it down enough so that the squishy subjects can compete. (See, for example, Behe's testimony at Dover concerning his definition of "science." He's not out to strengthen science with that definition...) If there was "positive proof" wouldn't that be observable "evidence," and fitting with what naturalism studies? I mean, if you could prove your religious beliefs there would be no issue, now would there? The problem is that you have no evidence, and no proof. As such, you want to water down or destroy science and the scientific method because they are in your way, and because they come up with the "wrong" answers.Ay, there's the rub. Science comes up with the wrong answers.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

First, there has been no empirical evidence for "the existence and attributes of a god or gods" although there have been millennia of dialog on the subject.Second, there are some 4,000 world religions (of which Christianity is the largest), and there are some 38,000 subdivisions, sects, or denominations of Christianity.And this isn't subjective? Theology is the virtual definition of subjectivity!The last thing theologians or believers want is empirical evidence to decide among their various claims. (I suspect they're afraid that all of their claims would be found wanting.)We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

But only one of these two is based on empirical evidence.As Heinlein noted,

Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Or perhaps he was correct.All you need to do to show Heinlein was incorrect is provide empirical evidence of one or more deities.If you can't, then theology has nothing but an elaborate and ancient fantasy as its source of study, and Heinlein was correct.If no evidence can be provided for deities, then theology is analogous to literary criticism--endless discussion and argument over what is ultimately a fictitious subject.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

But those "objective texts" are historical fiction, and many different interpretations, many mutually-exclusive, can be drawn from them, else there would not be some 38,000 denominations or subdivisions of Christianity alone.38,000 denominations? That alone shows how subjective theology is; if it was objective there would be some way of determining which interpretation is correct. Many interpretations rely on belief, which is subjective as well.Add: but this is all off topic, so I won't be posting on this subject again here. Start a new thread?Edited by Coyote, : Reminder of being off topic

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.