Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Article: Religion and Science
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 76 of 230 (219039)
06-23-2005 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by lfen
06-23-2005 2:19 PM


Re: Where would it end?
Good post Ifen. I agree completely.
I have a question though that I keep trying to get answered.
Ifen writes:
What is factual does change. I strongly oppose teaching ID in public schools.
Could you please define what you mean by ID. What are you suggesting would be taught. What I have assumed is meant by ID is that there is Intelligent Design behind the universe with the obvious inference that somewhere there is an Intelligent Designer. It is a philosphical question though, not a scientific one. (At least at this point. Scientists is doing such a remarkable job who knows how far they can take their discoveries.)
It seems that the whole concept of ID has political overtones that I'm not aware of. I'd just like to see our terms defined.
Even evolution seems to mean different things to different people. In my view evolution is still evolution whether there is Intelligent Design behind it or not. I get the feeling that not everyone would agree with that although I'm not sure of that either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by lfen, posted 06-23-2005 2:19 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by lfen, posted 06-23-2005 10:07 PM GDR has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 77 of 230 (219053)
06-23-2005 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by lfen
06-23-2005 2:19 PM


Re: Where would it end?
Hi L'f,
My initial post is regarding the teaching of a child's entire spectrum of education being left to a fundy school, not just in regard to religion.
It was hypothetical.
A child is entitled to a balanced all round education, and they wouldnt be getting that.
I have no problem with parents teaching their children what they BELIEVE, it is when they force this information on to kids as being FACTUAL before the child is suitably equiped to make an informed conclusion about the information.
Teaching a child that the universe is 6000 years old, when the child is deprived of a mainstream education with which to help them come to a decision about whether this is plausible or not is wrong.
Take the 2+2 = 5 example.
Don't you think that a child should be exposed to an environment where 2+2 = 4 is promoted?
I am talking about an exclusively fundamentalist education where no mainstream education is accessed.
Brian.
AbE, The people you know who were brought up as fundies, but are now not, I would be surprised if they did not have access to mainstream education as well as fundy ed.
This message has been edited by Brian, 06-23-2005 03:23 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by lfen, posted 06-23-2005 2:19 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 06-23-2005 3:46 PM Brian has replied
 Message 108 by lfen, posted 06-23-2005 10:22 PM Brian has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 78 of 230 (219065)
06-23-2005 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Brian
06-23-2005 3:16 PM


Re: Where would it end?
You have a bizarre idea of what is taught in a "fundy" school, but the answer to you in general is it's none of your damn business what is taught unless it is criminal behavior. Leave people alone. If they are wrong that's their business, not yours. You are making the case for totalitarian tyranny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Brian, posted 06-23-2005 3:16 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by EZscience, posted 06-23-2005 4:32 PM Faith has replied
 Message 80 by Brian, posted 06-23-2005 5:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 79 of 230 (219077)
06-23-2005 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
06-23-2005 3:46 PM


Re: Where would it end?
Actually Faith, I think you are making a case for religious tyranny, at least at the familial level. You are arguing for the right to indoctrinate children because they are your own. I guess there is no way to stop someone or some school from doing that, but it doesn't make it right or the best thing to do for the children.
Both my parents were raised catholic, but before I was born, my mother switched to protestantism and my father to atheism. You might think this made for a lot of conflicts around education but it didn't. My mother used to teach me some bible readings (when I was 6-7 years old), but I was taught *about* the bible, but not dogmatically as if it were the exclusive source of all truth. My father the atheist, on the other hand, never tried to influence my beliefs one way or the other. He simply said, you have to make up your own mind what you believe in and what you don't.
The point is, I think my fathers approach is the correct one. I don't think we should try and convince our children to believe in any specific faith or dogma. We can certainly teach them *about* the nature of religion, even specifically about a particular religion we might personally espouse, but we should encourage them to make up their own mind about it instead of trying to brainwash them to believe exactly what we do. This is the approach I take with my own daughters. I will express my opinions, certainly, but I encourage them to approach everything with an open mind and decide for themselves.
ABE: Actually, when my eldest expressed a curiosity about church, I encouraged her to attend a few services with her mother to see what it was like. So you see we atheists are not all about trying to prevent children's access or exposure to religion, unlike the fundies, most of whom are adamant that children *not* be exposed to evolution.
This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-23-2005 03:38 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 06-23-2005 3:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Faith, posted 06-24-2005 3:07 AM EZscience has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 80 of 230 (219089)
06-23-2005 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
06-23-2005 3:46 PM


Re: Where would it end?
I was speaking hypothetically.
but the answer to you in general is it's none of your damn business what is taught unless it is criminal behavior.
It is everyone's business to ensure that children are being treated correctly, and what you are advocating is tantamount to criminal behaviour.
Watch my lips NO ONE OWNS A CHILD, do you understand that? A child is not a piece of property, you cannot do anything that you want to do with a child.
Leave people alone.
Leave them alone to abuse children, I dont think so.
Would you be happy for a child to kill itself at 12 years of age because it was taught that it would be taken away to paradise on a spaceship that is in the tail of a comet? I would appreciate an answer here.
If they are wrong that's their business,
But we are not talking here about teaching something that they MAY be right with, we are talking about teaching something that is 100% bull as being 100% true.
How can you justify teaching a child that all life on Earth was wiped out 4400 years ago and the only surviviors were creatures oon a boat! How can you in good conscience teach that?
By all means teach children that CERTAIN Chrsitan groups believ in a 6000 year old universe, I have actually done this on upteen occassions, granted it is always met with sniggers from the classes, but I repeat that this is a belief that some people hold and that they are entitled to their belief.
This is different from teaching children that the universe is 6000 years old because a collection of ancient myths says so and all alleged contrary evidence is false.
Deliberately misleading a child is abuse.
not yours. You are making the case for totalitarian tyranny.
If you want to call ensuring that every child is well looked after, treated as an individual and not as a piece of property,if this is what you wish to calltyranny, then yes I am a tyrant
You cannot make this stuff up!!
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 06-23-2005 3:46 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Jazzns, posted 06-23-2005 6:10 PM Brian has replied
 Message 82 by Silent H, posted 06-23-2005 6:13 PM Brian has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 81 of 230 (219097)
06-23-2005 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Brian
06-23-2005 5:01 PM


Re: Where would it end?
As weird as it is to say. I actually completely agree with Faith on this issue. Thank goodness that I am also in agreement with ifen and GDR. This will also mark the first time I have really ever disagreed with jar. What is happening, the world is turning inside out!
The government has no business interfering with how parents raise their children short of clear cases of abuse and neglect for 1 very important reason. That reason is simply that there is no objective way to determine abuse except through proof by clinical analysis. We accept a certain level of physical punishment as acceptable towards children when it comes to spanking but not more than that because it can be clinically defined as abuse. The same goes for mental abuse. Trying to define something like religious abuse or indoctrination abuse would be so vague as to make it meaningless and any law based on that definition runs the risk of impinging on freedoms.
The moment you say that you cannot teach kids that 2+2=5 by law then you also cannot tell kids that Santa Clause is real. Even though I disagree with both of those positions I firmly believe that parents have a right to teach their kids both of those things. Teaching a kid to kill themselves the next time they see a comet has permanent physiological implications that can be rigerously defined. Beliving in the flood or the tooth fairy does not.
Moreover, this leads to a slippery slope that has the potential to eliminate the teaching of all metaphysical beliefs to our children. It is not that far removed to say that you cannot teach a child about a particular god because that god is supposidly not real. What is the objective difference between any given god and santa clause? Nothing.
A free society means that almost everyone is going to be exposed to something they do not like or something that is not necessarily good for them. This goes for children as well. Parents are the stewards of their children and in a free society can raise them how they see fit within the bounds of the laws of that society.
Making it illegal to teach YECism to children is un-American.

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Brian, posted 06-23-2005 5:01 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Silent H, posted 06-23-2005 6:17 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 86 by jar, posted 06-23-2005 6:50 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 155 by Brian, posted 06-24-2005 10:10 AM Jazzns has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 82 of 230 (219100)
06-23-2005 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Brian
06-23-2005 5:01 PM


Re: Where would it end?
I think I am going to step in and defend Faith on this one.
It is everyone's business to ensure that children are being treated correctly, and what you are advocating is tantamount to criminal behaviour.
And yet...
Watch my lips NO ONE OWNS A CHILD, do you understand that? A child is not a piece of property, you cannot do anything that you want to do with a child.
These are contradictory statements. All you have done is redefined who is the owner of a child.
If children were truly "unowned" then there would be no sense that parents must take care of their children at all, nor should the state if parents do not. Certainly there would be no idea of compulsory education, nor the rights of parents to terminate life support under certain conditions, if children were not in some manner "owned".
Children are in a special class that most societies (perhaps all) have yet to identify completely. They are part owned by the family and part owned by the state. I am unaware of any western society that grants them full autonomy.
I am extremely leery of having the gov't decide what is best for a parent to teach a child, or influence childrearing in any way. It is hardly the sturdy stuff of reason you seem to make it out to be. It is in fact nothing but a compromise of a bunch of adults who could just as easily all believe something you don't like is true rather than agree with you.
I guess its easy to believe the sanitarium will always be run by the staff, but in a democracy it is inherently run by the inmates. In that reality there is no security in appealing to govt to raise children any better than adults.
What's more, I think there is a credible argument to make that the children are in a sense more than just property, they are an extension of the parents.
When you have children they are a part of you, perhaps your only link to immortality or at least an immortality for your "family", "clan", or "people".
Why would parents not have a natural right to raise their children in the manner they believe is best, even if it seems contrary to anyone else?
You claim teaching something that is rejected by modern science is tantamount to criminal behaviour... how? Modern science has been, and as I have shown elsewhere, still is in the hands of politicians. Why can't a person teach that despite what others say, there is another truth?
I get that it is errant to say that modern science says X is true when in fact modern science does not. Maybe you could see it as fraud or brainwashing. But that is the parent trying to do what is best, even if you don't agree.
In the end the child will likely have to interact with others in some way and start making decisions for themselves, at that time the parents beliefs will sink or swim.
Leave them alone to abuse children, I dont think so. Would you be happy for a child to kill itself at 12 years of age because it was taught that it would be taken away to paradise on a spaceship that is in the tail of a comet? I would appreciate an answer here.
This is an unfair comparison to make toward Faith. There is a difference between teaching someone that they must kill themselves, and teaching someone something which is not necessarily accurate. One could be said to lead to the other, but it is still different and Faith has made a distinction to outright criminal behavior (which suicide is).
But let me field that question. Although I would view that circumstance as tragic, I don't see it as wholly wrong or criminal. Indeed I would find it somewhat hypocritical of a society, esp a govt to say that was "wrong". Govts go to war and kill children on the pretext that such sacrifices will lead to a "paradise" of some kind. They kill them not only by attacking, but also through conscriptive service.
In certain circumstances they may even allow many to die in order to save certain sections of other people.
Once we start looking at the world, the fact is that it ends up being a pretty cruel and tragic place. Appealing to the govt to make sense of things is only compounding or perhaps multiplying the tragedy.
As sad as it would be for a family to have the freedom to dupe their kid into believing something which is false, it could be far worse not allowing any family the freedom to rescue their chidlren from being duped by the govt and what it believes is should be taught is true, but is not.
I believe there is a vested interest, if we want real freedom, in keeping parents free to raise their children as they will... with perhaps the exception of outright negligence where they are not attempting to raise the child at all.
But we are not talking here about teaching something that they MAY be right with, we are talking about teaching something that is 100% bull as being 100% true.
As ridiculous as it is, it really does not hinder that kid from living a life. A brianiac about science the kid will not be, but a productive member of science the kid could be.
How much of a person's life depends on knowing that the current paradigm of modern science refutes the literal creationist model? People made lives for centuries without ever being as accurate as we are now, and essentially believing lit creo. The world did not end.
Would it be tragic? To my eyes, absolutely. But to that child and family, my guess is no, not really.
Deliberately misleading a child is abuse.
Parents do this all the time, it is not abuse. It is abuse when one does it to intentionally injure the child. In any case, creos would not be deliberately misleading a child, they honestly believe their mistake is real.
Misleading a child because one pretends knowledge that one does not have happens even more often than deliberate misleading... it is not abuse.
Just because you don't like something, or an action will end in a result you would view as negative, does not make it abuse.
As much as I agree with you about the errancy of their beliefs, I do not believe their actions rise to the level of abuse or crime. What it is is another culture maintaining itself. If you want to be free to have your culture not defined by the govt it is imperative to not use the govt to touch other cultures.
If you want to call ensuring that every child is well looked after, treated as an individual and not as a piece of property,if this is what you wish to calltyranny, then yes I am a tyrant
Well looked after according to your standards (or the majority's standards), lying to say that we are treating them as individuals when in fact we set rules over them just the same as any family and its because society has a right to (which means they are property)? Yeah, that's a "tyranny" of sorts.
I really don't think you are a bad go or mean to be a tyrant (actually I think dictator or fascist is better), but allowing society to take over the rule of parent is a bad idea and a firm step in the direction of dictatorship.
When replying, keep in mind I think creo is ridiculous, it is errant of them to claim modern science says there is any basis to creo, and that I almost always like your posts and do respect your opinions.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Brian, posted 06-23-2005 5:01 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Brian, posted 06-28-2005 11:37 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 83 of 230 (219102)
06-23-2005 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Jazzns
06-23-2005 6:10 PM


Re: Where would it end?
Wow you beat me to the punch by three minutes (I shouldn't have stopped to eat that candy bar) and were more concise in your arguments. I am glad to see someone familiar on my side.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Jazzns, posted 06-23-2005 6:10 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Jazzns, posted 06-23-2005 6:30 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 84 of 230 (219104)
06-23-2005 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Silent H
06-23-2005 6:17 PM


Re: Where would it end?
Thanks. Nice catch on the contradiction on child ownership by the way. This is all rather silly actually. It is scary sometimes when I see some of the soothing liberal voices on this board take a turn for the worst. For the most part they do a good job it is just every now and they can go off and say crazy stuff like this.

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Silent H, posted 06-23-2005 6:17 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by TimChase, posted 06-23-2005 6:40 PM Jazzns has replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 230 (219105)
06-23-2005 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Jazzns
06-23-2005 6:30 PM


I Agree With Faith
My apologies. Didn't know that the discussion had started up again, and I had been distracted elsewhere.
Like a good number of you, I also have to agree with Faith.
Honestly, I have thought that some of the things that Fundamentalism has been compared to have been a bit beyond the pale.
Moreover, while one may not agree with how someone is bringing up their children in a particular faith, the child is theirs to raise unless one can LEGALLY demonstrate some form of child abuse or neglect as defined by law. To take a different stand would be to seriously undermine the Separation of Church and State -- which I believe is in the interests of no one here.
This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-23-2005 06:51 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Jazzns, posted 06-23-2005 6:30 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Jazzns, posted 06-23-2005 6:53 PM TimChase has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 86 of 230 (219106)
06-23-2005 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Jazzns
06-23-2005 6:10 PM


Re: Where would it end?
I would just like to point out that nowhere have I mentioned or advocated making it illegal to teach incorrect beliefs. I have not mentioned government, rules, laws or statutes TTBOMK.
I have asked how someone can in good conscience teach something that is wrong.
I have said that reagrdless of what someone believes, reality determines what is right or wrong when it comes to factual material. 2 + 2 = 4. Evolution is a fact. The universe is more than 6000 years old.
I ask again, how can anyone in good conscience justify teaching falsehoods?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Jazzns, posted 06-23-2005 6:10 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by TimChase, posted 06-23-2005 6:55 PM jar has replied
 Message 89 by Jazzns, posted 06-23-2005 6:57 PM jar has not replied
 Message 91 by Jazzns, posted 06-23-2005 7:03 PM jar has replied
 Message 110 by lfen, posted 06-23-2005 10:36 PM jar has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 87 of 230 (219108)
06-23-2005 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by TimChase
06-23-2005 6:40 PM


Re: I Agree With Faith
Just to be precise, you really should say the Establishment Clause because there is no mention of the seperation of church and state in Bill of Rights. In particular this would not only violate the first ammendemnt with regards to "or prohibit the free exercise thereof" when this situation regards religion it also violates the freedom of speech. Also, although there is no explicit constitutional ammendment defining parental rights this situation should really fall under the ninth ammendment as a non-explicit right which is also supported by the loads of legislation regarding parental rights.

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by TimChase, posted 06-23-2005 6:40 PM TimChase has not replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 230 (219109)
06-23-2005 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by jar
06-23-2005 6:50 PM


Legislating Truth
At one level or another, reality determines whether any given idea is true, false, or meaningless. How much are you willing to legislate? How much control are you willing to grant the state? And what happens when the apparatus of the state falls into the hands of someone who disagrees with you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 06-23-2005 6:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 06-23-2005 6:57 PM TimChase has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 89 of 230 (219110)
06-23-2005 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by jar
06-23-2005 6:50 PM


Jar is vindicated!
You are right! I am sorry for including you in that list. Your posts just flowed so nicely with Brian's it seemed like you were agreeing with him. I appologize.

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 06-23-2005 6:50 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 90 of 230 (219112)
06-23-2005 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by TimChase
06-23-2005 6:55 PM


Re: Legislating Truth
Please point out where I have advocated turning any such decisions over to the state?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by TimChase, posted 06-23-2005 6:55 PM TimChase has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by TimChase, posted 06-23-2005 7:05 PM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024