Article: Religion and Science

How is it an attack?If someone believes something that is factually wrong, for example, that 2 + 2 = 5, how should people respond? Should the persons belief be affirmed?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This post is off-topic. Please do not reply. --Admin I have plenty of human decency. Your saying I don't without any evidence to the contrary, is indeed a personal attack. You owe me an apology!You on the otherhand have many times supplied direct evidence that you are willfully ignorant. The evidence is your own words. Someone stating that you are a willfully ignorant person is stating a fact. If you don't like that fact, then open your mind, clear away the blinders and actually learn about the universe that you live in.This message has been edited by Admin, 06-24-2005 09:48 AM

Hi Faith,Though I'm replying to you, you're not the only offender. I haven't done a thorough investigation, but it appears that Crash and Jar are offenders, too.Threads are usually closed after about 300 messages. Please do not waste a thread's bandwidth with off-topic discussions about behavior. If you don't like the way you're being treated you can stop participating in the thread, you can ignore them, you can post a complaint about them in the [forum=-19] forum, probably the General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel thread, you can send me email at Admin, or you can email one of the other moderators.You do seem to be extremely sensitive. You remind me of the humorous dictum, "If you experiment on mice, they'll get cancer." Sometimes it seems that there's an analogous dictum for you: "If you reply to Faith, she'll be offended and insulted." You'd make things so much easier for moderators if you would develop a thicker skin.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Which world are you referring to here? The entire biosphere of earth? The entire earth, core, mantle, crust and biosphere? Or just our human species and societies? Or just civilization?And then what is the wrong and right it has or could have gone?lfen

We are in the End Times! Again But, if the government are not in touch with the child, in this regard, monitoring their education, how are they going to determine whether there is abuse or neglect going on? We can determine if a child is receiving a decent level of education, which is easy to monitor. If they are not receiving this level then they are being denied a basic human right, which, in my book is wrong.
To me, a child who reaches, say the age of thirteen, and has been taught that 2 + 2 = 5 will experience severe emotional turmoil when they discover that 2 + 2 = 4. To be told day after day after day by your parents, and other authority figures, that 2 + 2 = 5, and then suddenly to discover that your parents have been lying to you all these years CAN be very distressing, this is where, IMO, the abuse factor comes in.Keep in mind that I am talking about a hypothetical situation where the ‘worse case scenario’ is involved. I am talking about a fundy approach to the entire curriculum, teaching kids that every subject that they would study in mainstream education can be explained fully and accurately in the biblical texts. This is wilfully depriving a child of a decent quality of education, which is actually against the law in the UK, I do not know what the law is in the USA.In Scotland, I know this doesn’t apply in the USA, but it at least allows you some insight in to where I am coming from. Also, some of the Scottish laws are based on the UN’s Convention of the Child, a convention that the USA have endorsed, and will apparently be signing up to soon (allegedly), so there may be changes in education in the USA sometime in the future.However, back to Scotland, I have reams and reams of literature about education in Scotland and the laws governing it. This website condenses a lot of the information very well, and includes a lot of points that will at least allow you to see some reasons why I appear to have a strange opinion in the eyes of our American friends.The emphases are all mine. The duty of the parent It shall be the duty of the parent of every child of school age to provide efficient education for him suitable to his age, ability and aptitude either by causing him to attend a public school regularly or by other means.

​

This means:

​

If you have a school-age child, you must see that (s)he is provided with education.

​

You can do this either by sending the child to a state school or by other means.

​

In any case, the education provided must be efficient.

​

It must also be suitable to the child’s age, ability and aptitude.

​

Although s 1 of the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc. Act 2000 affirms the right of children to be provided with school education by education authorities, this has no bearing on the right to home education. The same Act (s 60 and Schedule 2, para 3(5)) amends the 1980 Act by the addition of s 30(2). This subsection explicitly states that the right to school education is without prejudice to the choice afforded a parent by s 30(1) of the 1980 Act.

​

The role of the education authority

​

Unless you are taking your child out of a state school (see below), you don’t have to tell the education authority you are educating ‘by other means’; but once they know about you they are entitled to investigate. Usually this should just be a matter of checking up informally on your arrangements.

​

Many people educate their children at home with the full cooperation of the education authority. But sometimes conflicts develop. The authority have a duty to take action if they are ‘not satisfied’ that you are educating your ‘school age’ child properly. The formal steps they should take are laid down in s 37 41 of the 1980 Act, summarised here for reference and also in the Statutory Guidance.

​

1. They serve you with a notice giving you at least a week to provide whatever information they ask for about your arrangements. You can choose whether to do this in person (with or without the child) or in writing.

​

2. If you fail to satisfy them either that you are educating properly or that you have ‘reasonable excuse’ for not doing, they must make an ‘attendance order’. But before they do this they must consider any views you have expressed about the school you want your child to go to.

​

3. They serve you with an attendance order requiring you to send your child to the school named in it.

​

4. Once the order is served, you have two weeks to appeal to the sheriff, who may confirm, vary or annul it.

​

5. You can ask the education authority to revoke the order
because you have made alternative arrangements (including arrangements for home education). (Alternatively you can ask them to amend it by substituting another school which has agreed to accept your child.)

​

6. If they won’t do this, or if they fail to decide within a month, you can appeal to the sheriff.

​

7. If you don’t comply with the order you can be taken to court, but you won’t be guilty if you can show that you have a ‘reasonable excuse’. (Under s 44(1), whether it convicts you or not, if the court finds that there was irregular attendance without reasonable excuse it can refer the case to the local authority Reporter. See below.) There is obviously a lot more to this, and the details do get complex when you look at the full literature, as all legal papers seem to do.But, in Scotland, a child is entitled by LAW to an efficient education, and teaching that 2 + 2 = 5 is not an efficient education.So, in Scotland, the person who teaches that 2 + 2 = 5 would be required to show that they have provided suitable arrangements for the child to have access to someone who knows that 2 + 2 = 4, if they fail to do this then the Law requires the authorities to arrange for the child to attend a school. This could even mean providing a taxi or other method of transport to take the child to and from school. If the parent refuses to send the child to school, there are many penalties available for the authority to dish out. This could lead to the child being taken in to care or at least having a supervision order, it can even ultimately lead to a jail sentence for the parent in extreme cases. I would point out that it is only my own opinion that this is psychological abuse and is not the view of any authority in the UK. To continue, the authorities here would be concerned about the quality of education and not really what it was that was being taught. If you were teaching that 2 + 2 = 5, you would need to justify that to your local education authority, if you cannot, then your child is forced to go to mainstream school, or you are forced to provide an efficient education for the child. Well this is the law here in Scotland because we know that this is a perverse teaching. I don’t think this is the same thing at all. We are talking about a fundy Christian school or home school education forcing kids to accept untruths as being true. Santa Claus is not an idea that is forced on kids with any vigour, it is a playful, traditional tale, we don’t go out of our way to provide evidence for Santa Claus, nor are any of us that upset if our children don’t accept Santa as real. Fine, no problem, however, can you justify deliberately misleading a child?I have no problem with teaching YEC, I have done it myself lots of times, but I have taught it for what it is, a religious belief. Indeed, but as Faith argued, if the education of someone children is no damn business of anyone’s but the parent, how would we know if a child is being taught to pop themselves when the next comet comes along?If the education authority doesn’t ensure a decent level of education, then children are open to all sorts of psychological abuse. You could argue that the parent would still teach that a child should kill itself when the next comet appears, but if the child also has access to a mainstream education, the child can make decisions about its future. If the child fears for its future because it believes that the comet idea is crazy, then there are services there to protect the child. If the child doesn’t have a mainstream education then the comet idea will not sound crazy at all. Not at all, the problem is with teaching metaphysical beliefs as being factual, when they are not. Who would be silly enough to claim that any metaphysical belief is a FACT? Certainly no one that I know, including some fundamentalist Christians!Some people BELIEVE that Jesus rose from the dead, they cannot prove it, it is not a fact.Some people BELIEVE everything about the Noah Flood myth, this is their belief, it is not a fact.Some people KNOW that there was no Flood as described in the Bible, this is a fact based on empirical evidence and can be examined.A metaphysical belief is exactly that, beyond the physical, beyond confirmation and examination. It is a belief, and to teach a belief as a FACT is perverse. I think you are getting the wrong end of the stick. In Scotland we teach at least five different religions in mainstream schools, so I do not see how your conclusions fit.What I am saying is not that you cannot teach a child about a god because gods are supposedly not real. I am all for teaching about all religions, one of the reasons why I teach Religious Studies ( ) , it is the teaching of these things as facts that I am opposed to. I am 110% happy to teach these as BELIEFS, because that is what they are. All religions are faiths, and they are called faiths for a reason, you need to have faith in them being true. It is all about providing a decent all-round education. My scenario consisted of the entire curriculum being taught from a fundy viewpoint. For example, a history lesson about the Exodus from Egypt would consist of the Book of Exodus because there is nothing else to support it. In real history, the Exodus simply didn’t happen, the evidence against the Exodus is so over-whelming that teaching the Bible version as fact is the same as teaching 2 + 2 = 5, it is a lie. Yes, but there is no need to put up with this possibility if it can easily be avoided, or if we can cut down the odds of it happening. In Scotland we are now putting a lot of traffic calming measures in place in areas seen as accident black spots’. Now, we are all exposed to the possibility of being knocked down by a speeding car, however, the odds of this happening can be altered by preventative procedures. Yep, but the Laws of that society (in UK at least) state that the child MUST have an efficient education, this is the Law, and you can be sent to jail if you do not allow your child access to a decent level of education.Education is a basic right of everyone, parents do not own their children, they aren’t piece of property. I didn’t say to make it illegal, I said that it should be illegal to teach it as a fact when it clearly isn’t. By all means teach YEC as a belief, I have no problem whatsoever about that.I do think that there is a big difference between how residents of the UK and the USA view what they think is tolerable in a free society, maybe this is an example of an issue that we will never agree on because our stances are based on different backgrounds.I don’t know the education laws in America, maybe someone here knows if a parent is required to provide an efficient education for their children.Brian.This message has been edited by Brian, 06-24-2005 11:13 AM

Just wanted to welcome youu to EvC and hope that you'll return often.At the bottom of this post you will find links to several threads that might make your stay here more enjoyable. In particular, may I suggest that you spend some time looking over the Post of the Month forum. There you will find many examples of well done posts through the last few years.

---

This is possibly true, though I would hope discourse would tend to bring people together for the "right" position.History has shown that treating the govt as some sort of super authority on parenting and/or education is a mistake, that includes democracies. Just because what you believe in is currently thought of as "efficient" does not mean that it will always be. Arguing now that a govt has a right to specify what a child must be taught... by the way I love how indoctrination of children has been passed off as a right of children... could very well become a liability later.Having most people start homeschooling creo material is definitely a nightmare scenario for me. The thing to note is that most people believing this creo nonsense were not. They had "efficient" public education and are still moving the wrong way. Thus it is something more than just homeschooling which is the issue, and enforcing public standards on them is not necessarily going to do anything.If the trend continues they could very well be in a position (as they are in some states) to define creo as equal to evo as "efficient" education. They could even return us to outright creo only education as was the case less than 100 years ago.Then where would YOU be?It is better to keep the possibility of enforced errancy limited in scope. That is done by allowing parents to make the errors with their own children and not society with everyone's children.

---

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

HI Bobbins,Now that you have 'broken the ice' so to speak, I hope you continue to be a regular contributor at EvC.I appreciate your post because it does emphasise the different views of the public in the two countries.The way things are going up here right now I can only see the gov taking more interest in what is being taught at schools. The social inclusion policy is getting out of hand.Parents are placing more and more responsibility on to teachers nowadays, I even have colleagues who have to phone certain pupils to get them out of bed! Can you believe that? A parent will phone up the school because the child wont get out of bed, and a teacher has to go on the phone to tell the child to get up! Goodness knows where it will end.But, as parents expect more and more from the schools, especially these community schools, the gov will automatically have more responsibility about what is being taught, and how it is taught.Anyway, before I go off on one again, welcome to EvC and I look forward to many chats with you.Brian.

Hi Holmes,I have pasted your earlier reply into Word and I have just started a reply, but I have a function to attend this evening so I will need to finish the reply tomorrow, if the hangover isn't too bad But, you make a lot of good points, and maybe I have answered some in my reply to Jazz.I need to get ready now, so just to let you know that I intend to reply to your earlier message.Take care.Brian.

Good question. It does seem to me that this is the old "Is the glass half full or half empty argument". We keep hearing about the sorrow in the world but it seems to me that there is far more joy than sorrow or we wouldn't be working so hard to see how we can extend our lives. This message has been edited by GDR, 06-24-2005 08:30 AM

In intellectual discourse, there are a variety of methods of communication, but two of the more dominant methods are dialogue and debate. These two may seem quite similar -- in both dialogue and debate, you will see individuals arguing their cases, and at the same time, finding holes in opposing points of view. But there are significant differences.Debate is essentially competitive. Each side is attempting to show that it holds "the right view," and will often continue to do so at the price of logic and truth -- too much is at stake, especially in terms of the self-esteem and self-images of the participants. If shown to be mistaken, a given participant is likely to begin defending the indefensible, and thus be driven into further illogic, afterwhich, "The least deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold." Debate, of course, can be quite enlightening for the audience, but it does not really permit the participants the freedom to change their minds.Dialogue, on the otherhand, is essentially cooperative. While debating the cases for various points of view, the object is not to end where one began, that is, with a point of view which has remained unchanged by its contact with other ideas, but to explore the possibilities, their implications, and to do in persuit of the truth. As long as everyone is interested in the same goal -- the persuit of the truth -- in the final analysis, there are no real sides in a dialogue. If dialogue is successful, then everyone wins. As in economics, there exists a harmony of interests among rational men.However, it is far easier to debate than to engage in genuine dialogue. You don't have to doubt any of your premises. You can get emotional, attempt to smear your "opponent," you don't have to be civil, or to recognize any value in opposing views, you can argue strawmen, misrepresenting your opponent's views, and then debate against arguments which haven't been put forward. Genuine dialogue and genuine communication are far more difficult to sustain. But the difficulty which exists in creating and sustaining a genuine dialogue is matched only by its value and the joy of discovery which it can create.I have seen it in action at St. Johns College. Oftentimes, all we managed to do was debate one-another's opinions, with no genuine communication taking place. But there were other, far rarer occasions when a given work would open up, come alive, and each individual who participated contributed to a kind of chain-reaction, which once started seemed like it would never stop. It was as if all you had to do was turn up the power on a laser until the incoherence of its weak light was replaced by a high-intensity stream of coherent energy. People who ordinarily didn't seem that intelligent were swept up, and seemed capable of the profoundest thoughts. When you left the classroom, long after the class should have let out, it was like you were walking ten feet off the ground. It felt like there wasn't a single question which wasn't yours to answer. Such moments of intellectual ecstasy were so precious that I will cherish them for a lifetime.But a dialogue is not a lecture. It does not simply give people the answers -- it invites questions, it permits them to entertain doubts--and in the process of entertaining doubts, it permits them to seek answers, to look for the connections, and to integrate knowledge for themselves. It encourages the active mind which places nothing above its own judgment except reality itself.AfterwardIt may be the case that in a given dialogue, there is very little to be gained from the discussion itself. It may be the case that people will simply have to agree to disagree. But nevertheless, it is in just such situations that you personally can best hone your communication skills for those times when more can be gained from the exercise of dialogue.

Actually, that was more an expression of a personal feeling at a personal moment. Probably should have been handled via email.But I have been a bit disappointed with the direction of the world for the past few years -- even before 9/11 -- although things seemed to take a real turn for the worse not much after that.I guess it was more an expression of an emotion -- a kind of reaction to a certain incomprehensibility of human affairs. Particularly with respect to unnecessary conflict, although not limited to this.Anyway, it looks like -- one way or another -- we are more than half-way through. I need to turn my attention to work, but I have some hope that we might see something more productive this weekend -- or perhaps even sooner. Looks like civility has returned, albeit Deux Ex Machina.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-24-2005 01:18 PM

Well, I'm impressed with the Buddha's teachings. Suffering, feeling somehow out of place or time is the life of the ego. It is what being an ego, a separate self concerned with gratification is. It's not the world that is wrong but we are. It is in understanding ourselves deeply, seeing deeply into what it is we are that allows us to go beyond the separate self and it's suffering.lfen

I read all through the first part of the Book of Buddha which is the part that gives the teachings of the original Buddha. To be honest it was very affirming for my Christianity to find the continuity of teaching what I found there and the teachings of Christ. It was all there, right down to loving your enemy.I would certainly be open to the suggestion that he was a prophet of God in the same way that Moses was. I'd even suggest that Christ is the completion of the teachings of Buddha in a somewhat similar way that He was to the teachings of Moses. Just speculation on my part but it does seem to fit.

Yes -- undoubtedly there are a good number of similarities between different religions -- once you get beneath the surface. In one form or another, they have arrived at the golden rule, for example, although it may be expressed in either a positive or negative form. Each tends to have certain individuals who in some way represent represent or embody the moral ideal. And each, of course, has to deal with certain fundamental issues of human nature, such as the fear of death -- and sometimes at least appear to offer strikingly different answers to the fundmental issues and problems of human existence.For example, nirvana is at least traditionally viewed (from the West) as escape from the cycle of death and rebirth, whereas heaven is the place of eternal life. But then, from what I understand, there are some who might argue that we are misinterpretting the concept of nirvana -- although at this point, I am simply going by memory. I could try and look it up, if someone wanted. But regardless of whether heaven/nirvana is eternal life or the escape from the cycle of death and rebirth, illusion, or pain and suffering, both are goals of sorts, one's proper final destination, in a manner of speaking -- what one should seek -- and it is not of this realm.One interesting parallel which I have run across is between the patient/agent causal analysis of Aristotle (this was one of several ways in which he analyzed causality) and the yin/yang of Taoism. In both systems, there is essentially a passive element and an active element. Likewise, in both philosophies, there is an emphasis the achievement of balance -- which both viewed as being essential to human excellence.Unfortunately, though, I would probably be a bit of a novice when it comes to comparative religion. For my own purposes, I know as much as I have needed to know, but certainly could know more -- and would like to -- if at some point I have the time.