Who is responsable for an unbised introduction into religion

[Conflict_of_Interest]

*Originally posted by Apos *
**Depends on what we are talking about. If we are talking about science taught in science classes, done universities, and practiced the field, then evolution is as certain as most of the things we know about the world around us, and creationism is as objectively false as many other theories that simply don’t stand up to empirical evidence. In that sense, it is stupid to hold creationism up as an objective “theory” on the same level as evolution, and teach it as such in schools. They are both theories in that they are both bodies of explanation. But only one of them actually survives the process of evidence and criticism that we call science.

If you’re talking about something felt in the hearts of people, then creationism is “right” for many people’s worldviews, and that’s fine. It’s not stupid in that sense at all.

But to confuse the two senses is not a legitimate way to validate creationism objectively, nor invalidate it emotionally.

This is, unfortunately, a meaningless metaphor. While it’s true by definition that people unwilling to learn anything cannot learn anything, that doesn’t help us figure out what we have learned at the end of the day, and how we know we have learned it.

And when “an open mind” comes to mean “I remain equally skeptical of absolutely everything regardless of any evidence that can be presented” then we are simply dealing with yet another variation of a “closed mind.” **

What I was refering to was that saying man evolved strictly by evolution cannot and has not been proven. Niether has creationism. If you have proof that one or the other is correct please share it.

As far as what I meant by my last statement:

If you have a closed mind, meaning that you have already decided what you think even before you have all the facts, you will never learn anything. And an open mind to me is one that weighs the facts and then decides what they think. Obviously our definitions of open and closed minds differ.

[Blalron]

Me on the other hand (even in these younger years) never took any of their religious teachings more serious than some very amusing yet, far fetched, cool and interesting stories about the culture I was apart of.

Bible school was a optional part of my development unlike mandatory having to take a Science/Biology class almost every schoolday from grades 6-12 then, even more intensely in college were it’s anything but optional.

This is different than religion. Science and Biology deal with objective facts that can be supported with empirical evidence that allow for revision and falsification.

Religion does not allow for falsification. It is something believed purely on faith.

[dangermom]

You can learn about the impact of religion on human society in most well-taught world history and world culture classes. There’s nothing unconstitutional about it.

Sure, but the vast majority of elementary and secondary schools in the US avoid any mention of religion whatsoever. This leads to the big gaps I mentioned above. Then in college, it’s not only a bit late to be learning this stuff, but people have to actually sign up for the courses, which most do not–having already learned that religion is not important.

Think of a popular school topic–say, everyday life in a medieval castle. Kids learn about what a page’s job is, how to become a knight, what people might be eating, what jobs there are to do, and so on. They might learn about what girls would do (but more likely would read a fiction story about a girl who trains for knighthood…). But they would almost certainly never hear in school about the resident priest, who gives mass for everyone every morning, and who is one of the more important and respected people in the castle. They would not hear about how religion soaked into medieval life like water in a sponge, how it was simply everywhere. They would receive the inadvertent impression that religion was not really important in those days, and would probably assume–without even thinking about it–that people were as free to believe and to practice whatever they wanted back then as they are now.

Schools cannot, at this point in time, give an adequate education in religion. It simply doesn’t happen, and it’s up to parents to take up that particular job. Most don’t, and so we have a lot of people who don’t know anything about it, who don’t even realize that there is anything to know, and who have blind spots in their worldview and education. They can’t choose their own beliefs in an informed way, because they’ve never learned what others actually believe, and wind up rejecting ideas they don’t even know exist.

[Apos]

What I was refering to was that saying man evolved strictly by evolution cannot and has not been proven. Niether has creationism. If you have proof that one or the other is correct please share it.

If you’d like to debate the entire scientific enterprise regarding evolution, we have a number of excellent threads that discuss on this subject. If you are not convinced by the full weight of the evidence available in numerous sources, I doubt I can convince you by running through it all again. However, as laudable as skepticism is, I don’t think skepticism about evolution can really fairly claim the good-sounding part of the defense of having an “open mind.”

However, you already seem to be hedging your bets with this: “strictly.” If by that you mean that the possibility always exists that a god enouraged particular things to happen within the process of evolution, then of course that possibility is always open, as is any ad hoc possibility one can imagine. However, that’s hardly the same thing as saying that the evolution of man is decidely unproven, let alone unprovable (wrong) and some variant of sex-day creationist chronology is just as reasonable as a scientific theory on the evidence. It’s just not.

And an open mind to me is one that weighs the facts and then decides what they think. Obviously our definitions of open and closed minds differ.

On what basis do you weigh facts? How can I be sure that you’ve really weighed the facts, or what the nature of your decision really was?

It’s ultimately pretty silly to run around judging the “openess” of other people’s minds, let alone trumpeting the openess of one’s own. In practice, these are primarily prejorative utterances, not helpful ones.

That’s why liberal inquiry is not in the habit of judging people or their minds at all, but instead judges the worth of IDEAS by subjecting them to free, open, and diverse criticism. Even the views of dogmatic close-minded people who reject the principles of liberal inquiry are inadvertently helpful to the process: so their closemindedness is of no practical consequence. What they think is true and why is beside the point: it’s the quality of the entire guanlet of criticism that matters, not the individual trials offered by individual critics.

So if you want to attack the scientific respect given to evolution as a theory, and the lack of respect given to theories of creationism, you’ll need to do it by delivering your own line of criticism, not by coyly referencing your judgements about the particular dilation of anyone’s mind.

[Apos]

But they would almost certainly never hear in school about the resident priest, who gives mass for everyone every morning, and who is one of the more important and respected people in the castle. They would not hear about how religion soaked into medieval life like water in a sponge, how it was simply everywhere. They would receive the inadvertent impression that religion was not really important in those days, and would probably assume–without even thinking about it–that people were as free to believe and to practice whatever they wanted back then as they are now.

Can you give a cite to support this assertion about the teaching of history in schools? My textbooks, for instance, discussed events like the Great Awakening in detail. They discussed Martin Luther, Catholicism, the second estate, and all sorts of crucial events involving religious belief as an important player. In my classes on world cultures, we discussed all the major religions, their practices and major sects, and the impact they had on people’s lives.

In other words, I doubt your assertion that reasonably involved kids would go through school, let alone live in this culture today, without learning that religion plays a big role in history and culture. And regardless, that’s just not the same thing as learning theology. Theology is primarily arguments for a particular view, not a simple descriptive of religion.

The fact remains, however, that kids are capable of taking advantage of the resources that are out there in the world. Once given basic skills, they can seek out particular fields of knowledge in real detail if they want.

[Conflict_of_Interest]

Whoa, you are totally misreading what I say. I never said I didn’t believe in evolution. Nor did I say I believe in creationism.

What I asked was if you can show me a scientic proof that starts with the first life on earth and follows all the way up to humans? There is none as far as I know. And I don’t think there ever will be. So without proof, even though there are good arguments and data that can support it, it is still a theory. Creationism is faith based so you will never see scientific proof on that one either. So they are both theories. And totally discounting something because it is faith based is to me close minded. Not just discounting it, if you don’t want to accept it then you don’t have to, but calling it stupid. Are you saying that’s a statement made by someone who is open minded?

And you don’t like my definition of what an open and closed mind are, fine. I never said you needed to accept them.

**So if you want to attack the scientific respect given to evolution as a theory, and the lack of respect given to theories of creationism, you’ll need to do it by delivering your own line of criticism, not by coyly referencing your judgements about the particular dilation of anyone’s mind. **

I was not attacking anything. The only one attacking is you. And my question was directed at a statement made by Marley23. And can you direct me to a cite that shows this “lack of respect as a theory” for creationism and the “scientific respect” given to evolution? I think that could be an interesting read.

[pepperlandgirl]

Can you give a cite to support this assertion about the teaching of history in schools? My textbooks, for instance, discussed events like the Great Awakening in detail. They discussed Martin Luther, Catholicism, the second estate, and all sorts of crucial events involving religious belief as an important player. In my classes on world cultures, we discussed all the major religions, their practices and major sects, and the impact they had on people’s lives.

Mine too. Also, most Univeristies have general ed requirements that include philosophy or religious, sociology, history, and literature courses. I found (by taking all my GEs in the first year and 1/2) that there is a great deal of overlap, especially when it comes to religion. I don’t think children are missing out on “the importance” of religion.

What other sources? Where else will they get a theological eduaction if not from church/synagog/whatever? Maybe the parents but barring that I seriously doubt they will get a proper education from their friends/TV.

And of course children can learn about religion outside of school and church. Or was I the only child who knew where the library was and how to read? If children are curious, and parents made the effort to show them how to read and how to look for information, they’re curiosity will eventuallly be sated. I’ve also learned a great deal from TV—History channel, one of the several Discovery channels, A&E reports, documentaries. The information is out there, and if you are a careful viewer, you can find some good stuff.

[lekatt]

Adding a new dimension to this discussion.

Spirituality Protects Against End-Of-Life Despair
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030509/hl_nm/spirituality_despair_dc

If I knew then what I know now I would have allowed my children to go to any church they wished. Then I would have explained the basics of spiritually to them so they wouldn’t get lost in the doctrine of one or more religions.

Remember that our society has a large number of suicides among teenagers and depression is a growing problem. People who grow up thinking evolution is real have no meaning or purpose to their lives other than what they make up. I have heard young people say “why live” the world is full of corruption and greed.

I don’t understand why Evolution and Creation can’t be taught in school as the theories they are. No one knows for sure, no one was there. We need to think about the future well being of our children. We need to teach the truth.

Yes, I would rather teach them God loves them, and they are safe and secure in Him, and be wrong, than to teach them life is meaningless and be right.

[pepperlandgirl]

Remember that our society has a large number of suicides among teenagers and depression is a growing problem. People who grow up thinking evolution is real have no meaning or purpose to their lives other than what they make up. I have heard young people say “why live” the world is full of corruption and greed.

Allow me to be the first to call bullshit on that assertation. Are you saying that only people with meaning in their lives are religious people? I’m sorry, but I’m not buying that at all.

[dangermom]

How old are you, Apos? I am 29, and we rarely if ever discussed religion aside from Greek myths–nice and safe in the ancient world. (Of course, we didn’t discuss Vietnam either. Maybe I just had a rotten education.) Now in California, 15 years or so later, all mention of religion is generally avoided for fear of accusations of partisanship. Probably that isn’t true in the South, but CA is very nervous about the whole subject.

No, I haven’t got a citation, but I do have my own experience working in elementary schools and my mother’s experience working in elementary, junior high, and high schools. My SIL, a teacher in Sacramento, tells me that in history classes, religion is touched upon as little as possible (you might have to mention Luther, but you certainly won’t dwell on him). Islam’s political angles are studied, but the actual beliefs are not discussed except to mention the 5 pillars. You might remember the hoo-ha over the teacher who had the kids choose Islamic names? That was too close to the bone. Yes, I realize that anecdotes are not evidence, but everything I’ve seen convinces me that very few kids learn anything in school about religion today. I can also offer the following story, which is what convinced me in the first place:

As a senior in college at UC Berkeley, I took a course in medieval literature. We were reading many different works, all of which had allusions to Bible stories, Catholic rituals, and various beliefs. One also contained references to Passover. A few weeks into the semester, we had to stop our schedule when the professor realized that not one person in the class of 30+ students, besides myself, had any idea of what was going on. Note that these were all English majors, at Berkeley, who had already studied Milton, Chaucer, Spenser, and Shakespeare at minimum, but none of them had any knowledge whatsoever of: Adam & Eve in Eden, the book of Genesis, the story of Moses, the Passover, and the Exodus, what is in the Gospels, what a mass is, what transubstantiation is, and what the holiday of Passover is. And a bunch of other stuff that I don’t even remember now. Consider: 30 intelligent, involved students, from all over the country, none of whom had ever learned anything at all about religion. Perhaps they could have enrolled in a religion class or studied on their own, but they didn’t even realize that there was any knowledge they were missing.

In addition, I happen to think that parents can’t simply leave education up to the schools. (My teacher SIL agrees.) They don’t do an adequate job anyway. It’s the parents’ job to make sure their kids learn what they need to know, and IMO religion is one of those things. Schools aren’t in a position to do it, and probably they shouldn’t anyway. But it should be done before college IMO, because as I said above, by college a student has often already learned that religion is irrelevant and unimportant.

Apos, you keep insisting on a particular definition of ‘theology,’ but that’s not really what I got out of the OP. Perhaps we should ask him to clarify. I am thinking of teaching kids, in pretty specific detail, about the beliefs (and whys and wherefores) of at least all major religions, and hopefully the various denominations within those broad categories as well. Plus visits every so often to church services differing from one’s own, plus the impact of religion on history and society, which can’t be done properly until we know what the religious beliefs in question actually are. It is not helpful to know that “religion plays a big role” if you don’t know what and why that role is.

[Apos]

What I asked was if you can show me a scientic proof that starts with the first life on earth and follows all the way up to humans? There is none as far as I know.

What would you consider proof, if you do not consider all the evidence and argument amassed so far as proof? Are you asking for some sort of mathematical absolute proof (which would be a nonsense request: NO empirical study promises absolute proof).

And I don’t think there ever will be.

That’s a shocker, considering that all the available evidence is, apparently, not good enough to matter already.

So without proof, even though there are good arguments and data that can support it, it is still a theory.

You know what a “theory” is, right? Because it gets tiresome having to repeat this over and over. When used to describe a scientific endeavor, “theory” is not the same as “unsubstantiated hypothesis” or “speculation.” “Good arguments and data that support it” is exactly the BEST that objective certainty has to offer.

Creationism is faith based so you will never see scientific proof on that one either. So they are both theories.

Yes. But one is supported by, and was developed from, all the evidence, while the other (depending on what aspect of creationism we’re talking about) is either disproven by the evidence or is simply unsupported conjecture without even explanation.

And totally discounting something because it is faith based is to me close minded.

As I said, it depends on in what way you are discounting it. As a rational argument for an objective truth, one has every right to discount faith as any sort of evidence for an objective truth.

Not just discounting it, if you don’t want to accept it then you don’t have to, but calling it stupid. Are you saying that’s a statement made by someone who is open minded?

As I said, it depends on what usage is being called stupid. There’s nothing stupid about faith on its own terms: there’s everything stupid about presenting an article of faith as checked and survived knowledge on par with a well-established scientific theory.

And can you direct me to a cite that shows this “lack of respect as a theory” for creationism and the “scientific respect” given to evolution? I think that could be an interesting read.

Good grief: if after living in this world for however many years you deny that evolution is well-accepted and respected science, or assert that creationism is well respected science, I have no idea what cite could possibly convince you otherwise. How about you try “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins for a layman’s argument, or peruse any scientific journal of any merit for a technical perspective. And there is always http://www.talkorigins.org/ for starters.

[Apos]

Consider: 30 intelligent, involved students, from all over the country, none of whom had ever learned anything at all about religion. Perhaps they could have enrolled in a religion class or studied on their own, but they didn’t even realize that there was any knowledge they were missing.

Medieval literature is not necessarily the prime interests of your average high school graduate either.

But the point is not that kids shouldn’t be encouraged to learn this stuff, but rather that there’s LOTS of stuff kids should learn. You could tell a similar story about high-school graduates absolutely pathetic grasp of world geography. It’s terrible, but compared to what?

I agree that parents shouldn’t leave kids education up to schools. There’s nothing wrong, and everything right, about your proposal to educate kids by taking them to various religious places.
But not every parent shares the same interests in what’s important, and I don’t think you’ve convinced me that a more in-depth knowledge of religion is MORE important than all the other things one might choose to get a more in-depth look at (most kids never get much of an indepth look at anything). For instance, I was woefully educated in the ins and outs of watching baseball: a neglect that has, frankly, affected my life and my education far more radically than my minimal exposure to religion.

[ready29003]

Children are exposed to attempts at indocrtrination in every classroom they enter. There is no such thing as objective learning. If nothing else, the very fact that a class exists is a declaration “this subject is important.”

If you want your children to know about things you don’t believe, then teach them what you know, but make sure they know you don’t believe it. Teach your children what the greatest questions in life are, warn them that lots of people parade around lots of answers, and it is there responsibility to choose what they believe. I would also teach them that it is OK not to pick an answer…that is to be agnostic.

[Blalron]

]*Originally posted by lekatt *
**

Remember that our society has a large number of suicides among teenagers and depression is a growing problem. People who grow up thinking evolution is real have no meaning or purpose to their lives other than what they make up. I have heard young people say “why live” the world is full of corruption and greed.

You are arguing that people should believe in made up fairy tales just to make themselves feel better.

I don’t understand why Evolution and Creation can’t be taught in school as the theories they are.

The First Amendment to the Constitution. The government can’t establish religion.

Evolution is a scientific theory. A method of explanation based upon evidence. It is not a religious doctrine.

Creationism is a religious belief not supported by the evidence. To teach it would be to establish religion.

No one knows for sure, no one was there. We need to think about the future well being of our children. We need to teach the truth.

How do you know that Creationism is the truth?

Yes, I would rather teach them God loves them, and they are safe and secure in Him, and be wrong, than to teach them life is meaningless and be right.

Why is life meaningless without God? Why do we need an invisible father figure that loves us in order for our lives to have any meaning? Why can’t we just love ourselves? Why isn’t that enough?

[dangermom]

But not every parent shares the same interests in what’s important, and I don’t think you’ve convinced me that a more in-depth knowledge of religion is MORE important than all the other things one might choose to get a more in-depth look at (most kids never get much of an indepth look at anything).

True, but the question was on religion. I happen to think that it’s one of the more important subjects out there–should one of the religions be more or less correct (as I think is so), I want to know about it; I think it may have a slightly permanent impact on my personal life than baseball. Religion attempts to deal with some of the more fundamental questions of life, and, in the end, with what reality truly is. However, I also think that parents should do this kind of thing for several different subjects that they deem important–geography would be good.

No one but the parent and eventually, the kid, is going to take final responsibility for an education, so in the bottom line, you can’t really depend on the schools to take care of things.

[lekatt]

*Originally posted by Blalron *
**You are arguing that people should believe in made up fairy tales just to make themselves feel better.

The First Amendment to the Constitution. The government can’t establish religion.

Evolution is a scientific theory. A method of explanation based upon evidence. It is not a religious doctrine.

Creationism is a religious belief not supported by the evidence. To teach it would be to establish religion.

How do you know that Creationism is the truth?

Why is life meaningless without God? Why do we need an invisible father figure that loves us in order for our lives to have any meaning? Why can’t we just love ourselves? Why isn’t that enough? **

I did not say evolution was false or creation was truth. Both are theories. Let me repeat that: both are theories. And yes, we can teach the theory of creation by a higher intelligence in school and will at some point in time because it is appropriate to do so.

Now, if life is completely over at death, nothing after death, then it is meaningless no matter what we say about it. Everything is in vain.

But if we continue to live after death in spirit form, and I believe we do, then life has some meaning. It is a preparation for more things to come.

Please read the link I provided. It is very true. Perhaps you have been fortunate enough not to face death or other seemingly insurmountable situations. Those that do face these situations need something more than science will ever be able to give them.

I say again: If you don’t know for sure, and we don’t, it is far better to teach God’s love than to teach accidental nothingness.

Love
Leroy

[Optihut]

Now, if life is completely over at death, nothing after death, then it is meaningless no matter what we say about it. Everything is in vain.
But if we continue to live after death in spirit form, and I believe we do, then life has some meaning. It is a preparation for more things to come.

The way I see life, it is exactly the other way around: If we continue to live after death in spirit form, then life itself loses a portion of its value as it doesn’t have an expiration date.

On the other hand, if life does end with death, then every life is precious and unique. Everything we do will be important, because we only get this one chance to do it, instead of having the solace of “Why bother, there’s all eternity to remedy past mistakes.”

[Apos]

Religion attempts to deal with some of the more fundamental questions of life, and, in the end, with what reality truly is.

But religion isn’t unique in this quest, and I’d say philosophy deals with the subject much more rigorously.

[lekatt]

*Originally posted by Optihut *
**The way I see life, it is exactly the other way around: If we continue to live after death in spirit form, then life itself loses a portion of its value as it doesn’t have an expiration date.

On the other hand, if life does end with death, then every life is precious and unique. Everything we do will be important, because we only get this one chance to do it, instead of having the solace of “Why bother, there’s all eternity to remedy past mistakes.” **

How hard would you work to achieve a goal. Would you do school work under great stress to get a degree so you could help others knowing it wouldn’t matter at all in 50 years or sooner? Some might through obsession achieve great heights, but the most of us would just slide by in school or rebel altogether as is happening now among many teenagers. “Without a vision our people perish.”

Then there is the problem of morals, why be honest and poor when you can be rich and crooked, really doesn’t matter if life ends all. If you can avoid being caught by police or other authorities then anything goes. Do what you want, no one will hold you accountable after death, live it up, even at others expense. I think many believe that now.

I know the spirit world has laws the same as the physical. The most important one is “you will reap what you sow.” Near death experiencers go through “life reviews.” They are exposed to the pain and suffering their actions caused others, they can see this law clearly in operation. Once people understand they will never be able to escape accountablility for their actions and words, the lessons of the physical will be learned. Discipline will come from within, and police will no longer be needed. That is the goal of the earth school, and it will eventually over many centuries be carried out.

Love
Leroy

[Blalron]

*Originally posted by lekatt *
**How hard would you work to achieve a goal. Would you do school work under great stress to get a degree so you could help others knowing it wouldn’t matter at all in 50 years or sooner?

Sure, why not? Why not do the best with what we have, here and now, on Earth, instead of waiting for an afterlife that might not come?

Then there is the problem of morals, why be honest and poor when you can be rich and crooked, really doesn’t matter if life ends all. If you can avoid being caught by police or other authorities then anything goes. Do what you want, no one will hold you accountable after death, live it up, even at others expense. I think many believe that now.

It’s sad that you believe most humans would steal and kill as long as they don’t get punished for it. I don’t believe that.