Bible/Religious Education in America

Because there are differences between private parties presenting their view and a government sponsored program. Once you start forcing people to fund and participate in something, that something needs to live up to a higher standard. People don't generally get their panties in a bunch if they don't live up to your definition of utilitarianism, but they do if you try to tell them what religion they do or do not practice. And my point is that you are being needlessly dense. If Christians cannot agree among other Christians exactly what being Christian entails, don't you think there is going to be some disagreement with any one view of all religions? It is different because you only teach Lamarcke and Darwin, you don't teach Jake the Drive-Thru Attendant's view because you decided it wasn't important. It amazes me that you are so cavalier about doing the same thing with religious beliefs. Because I would be paying for it! Are you one of those people who thinks governments just do stuff by magic?

That's irrelevant. There are private parties, like ICR, who try and "present their view." It doesn't matter though. There are curriculum writers that have to apply by certain standards. Why would theology be any different? Immaterial, especially when I've yet to hear of anyone complaining about theology classes being taught at schools.Your solution is to just not teach it at all. Your real motive for doing so, I suspect, as you've explained on other threads, is to rid the world of religion. It doesn't matter since you'll never get an 100% concensus on ANYTHING, let alone religion. What matters is what has always been historically central to the tenets of any given religion. Acting as if we need 100% approval for ANY curriculum is ridiculous, and in fact, if you want to be fair, then you are going to have to step aside and let creationists share in your victory by allowing their take on it too. [qs]Because I would be paying for it![qs] So your whole solution is just pretend religion doesn't exist at all!

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

With all due respect, I'm studying mathematics in university, and It is all about starting with axioms and proving theorems, there is not scientific method involved in this.It assigned as science, but in the sense modulous was trying to convey, it was not to be included in my opinion.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

With all due respect, you clearly do not understand how those axioms and theorems developed. Do you really think humanity just started with a fully developed system of mathematics, or do you think that perhaps it developed as a model of reality based on observations?You are learning the groundwork of a developed field, and in doing so there is little direct application of the scientific method. Were you to be developing a new field of mathematics then you would apply the scientific method.

And there is the crux of the issue. I think there are certain things that are appropriate and acceptable to be taught by private parties and yet are *not* appropriate and *not* acceptable to be taught by public organizations.

Ok, say I'm an ancient greek and want to develop a new field of mathematics: irrational numbers. How would I apply the scientific method to 'start off' this new field ?How can I ever observe the square root of 2 in nature ?How about imaginary numbers, such as i ?Or how do I 'observe' the periodicity of a number ?or that 0,9999 ... = 1 ?or that A x B = B x A ?Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Does it eventually give you the correct answer in reality? If so, the theory is functioning correctly. If it never correlates to reality at some point then nobody would care.

Nonsense. The principle tool is logical deduction. Once enough of the base framework is developed, it is possible to use a process similar to the scientific method to launch deeper into the field, introducing tentativity and uncertainty. This is often the tactic used by mathematical physicists such as myself, and we are constantly criticised for it Furthermore, any part of the body of work so developed is considered conjecture until it is formally connected with the foundations of the field.Possible example: the relationship between Donaldson Theory and Seiberg-Witten Theory.Mathematics can certainly appear scientific at times, but to claim that Mathematics is a science in the modern understanding of the word is simply wrong. In fact, I know several mathematicians who would claim that tentativity is the antithesis of mathematics.

And you're trying to comment on mathematics with this attitude enough said...

A proven mathematical theorem will not always be represented in reality. Does it mean it is not proven ? Of course not.The proof of a theorem is done outside the realm of the scientific method.

Are you implying that the scientific method does not use logical deduction? Or that logic isn't itself rooted in observation of reality?Let me put it this way: 1 + 1 = 2, and 2 + 2 = 4 as defined by the system of mathematics. However, the reason the system is defined to yield those answers rather than 1 + 1 = 3 or 2 + 2 = 5 is because that is what actually happens in reality. If we woke up tomorrow and combining a pair of objects yielded three objects, then mathematics would change to reflect this new development.Mathematics is based on observation of reality, and while it is awfully fun to come up with new equations and such they are primarily useful in their capacity to provide meaningful information about reality. For instance, fields such as Physics use mathematical models to describe phenomenon they observe, but in almost all cases those equations only yield accurate results within a specific range. Outside their applicable range those formulas are not useful.

I am not implying this, nor its negative. It is irrelevant to our discussion. Oh dear... You're appreciation of what constitutes mathematics is lacking in the extreme. It is no wonder you make the above claims. Don't wory, ignorance is rarely fatal and generally curable But I have a feeling that this is hopelessly off-topic, so maybe time for a new thread?Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

By measuring the diagonal of a square......

How interesting, and how would you measure the diagonal of a square ?Any sort of measuring you would do would result in a finite number, and this would never be but an approximation of the actual number, however precise you would be. Therefore, this in no way would be an observation of the square root of two.

Nobody is deciding what religions are not officially recognized. They're just teaching a representative sample of the available knowledge regarding a certain subject. It would be remiss if as part of the subject it wasn't pointed that there are many religions and many sects of religions.Just like a politics class that discusses Marxism and Capitalism but misses out anarcho-syndicalism. It isn't because anarcho-syndicalism isn't an officially recognized political position - it's because it isn't as important for most people to spend time studying it. If you're parents are anarcho-syndicalists I'm sure they'd teach that to their children if they want. Nope, that would be like saying it OK to teach people that being a Marxist involves wearing a white robe and burning crosses while having a form of communal ownership and rule by soviet. It would be false. No I didn't. I didn't say anything of the sort. If some person's religion is as you describe, and they call it by the name - then they should be prepared to expect confusion when using the word.Likewise, if some people want to call "Giving out candy floss to everyone between the ages of 8-80" the "Holocaust" - I suggest it would be for the best that student learn that he might cause offence if he communicates one while meaning the other. As I have said in a previous post. We don't study Dave from Dagenham's breakfast regime, despite it being history. Drawing lines is entirely possible, and necessary, in education. Nobody is suggesting we teach kids the 'proper way to pray' or the 'correct structure of a mosque'. And especially not that practice x is objectively wrong.If you fear marginalising tiny numbers of people - then the lessons could easily include reminders that unless otherwise stated, the facts about religions apply in general and are about the mainstream variants. Interesting or notable exceptions to general rules might be occasionally noted too.If a pupil was to write in their exam something like "Most Christians regard the creator as the good and divine God, but some gnostic Christians believed the creator to have been a malevolent being sometimes referred to as Ialdaboath or the Demiurge." - I'm sure they would get some nice marks (assuming it was relevant to the question).