Science and Theology, the sequel

04/11/2008 02:06:16 PM · #476

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The point is you guys are merely saying, "teaching religion to kids is dumb because religion is false." If someone disagrees that religion is false then the whole premise fails.

No, I think the point is that teaching one, and only one religion is just indoctrination. Teaching comparitive religion and allowing them to make choices as they come to understand the differences would actually be teaching.

04/11/2008 02:07:18 PM · #477

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The point is you guys are merely saying, "teaching religion to kids is dumb because religion is false." If someone disagrees that religion is false then the whole premise fails.

No, I think the point is that teaching one, and only one religion is just indoctrination. Teaching comparitive religion and allowing them to make choices as they come to understand the differences would actually be teaching.

You don't think kids ask, "why is Jaren a Mormon?" at dinner? which is followed by "what is a Mormon?" and so on.

Message edited by author 2008-04-11 14:07:53.

04/11/2008 02:08:50 PM · #478

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Yep, he's got an ax to grind. But once stripped of the indelicate rhetoric, his description seems to be entirely valid and pretty accurate.

And would then also accurately describe any systematic teaching of children. So we should be wary of teaching in school? History before they can understand the bias of "history is written by the winner"? Spelling before they understand that languages evolve? Mathematics before they understand how to apply it to everyday life?

Obviously I'm hyperbolizing for effect. The point is you guys are merely saying, "teaching religion to kids is dumb because religion is false." If someone disagrees that religion is false then the whole premise fails.

If by "systematic teaching of children" you mean any education system that doesn't stress critical thinking skills and encourage inquiry, then yes, we should be very wary. Of course, children should be taught to walk before they are taught to ride a bicycle, but religious "education" (more accurately described as indoctrination in my opinion) most often amounts to the equivalent of teaching children that the thought of riding the bicycle is sinful and that the people who do ride bikes will all be run down in traffic.

04/11/2008 02:09:08 PM · #479

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The point is you guys are merely saying, "teaching religion to kids is dumb because religion is false." If someone disagrees that religion is false then the whole premise fails.

No, I think the point is that teaching one, and only one religion is just indoctrination. Teaching comparitive religion and allowing them to make choices as they come to understand the differences would actually be teaching.

You don't think kids ask, "why is Jaren a Mormon?" at dinner? which is followed by "what is a Mormon?" and so on.

In a household of the faithful, the answer is more telling than the question.

04/11/2008 02:10:55 PM · #480

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

And I trust you, Doc, to not respond with "Mormonism is a horrible cult and Jaren and his parents are going to hell." (or a less hyperbolized equivalent) But I would posit that you are the exception, not the norm.

04/11/2008 02:11:51 PM · #481

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It is patently obvious to me that nobody can live up to even their own standard of morality whatever it is, so what hope would one have to gain salvation? I also pointed out that my Christian lifestyle is considered to be "pious" by most world religions so in a sense I'm covered as well as anyone but the strictest adherents of each particular religion.

This is an interesting response. Followers of other religions where salvation is through works must believe that they can be saved, wouldn't you think? So either it's not so patently obvious that you can't do enough work, or they disagree with your thoughts on salvation through works. Why do you and they have such differing ideas about that? I contend that it's because of the environment that you and they have been brought up in.

04/11/2008 02:13:21 PM · #482

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You don't think kids ask, "why is Jaren a Mormon?" at dinner? which is followed by "what is a Mormon?" and so on.

In a household of the faithful, the answer is more telling than the question.

Agreed. And likewise with shutterpuppy's response.

04/11/2008 02:16:51 PM · #483

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It is patently obvious to me that nobody can live up to even their own standard of morality whatever it is, so what hope would one have to gain salvation? I also pointed out that my Christian lifestyle is considered to be "pious" by most world religions so in a sense I'm covered as well as anyone but the strictest adherents of each particular religion.

This is an interesting response. Followers of other religions where salvation is through works must believe that they can be saved, wouldn't you think? So either it's not so patently obvious that you can't do enough work, or they disagree with your thoughts on salvation through works. Why do you and they have such differing ideas about that? I contend that it's because of the environment that you and they have been brought up in.

I don't know. How many people do you think the average Buddhist feels gain Nirvana? I haven't met too many Buddhists but I don't get the sense that they have lots of conversations about Aunt Matilda who gained enlightenment last week. It seems to be the exception rather than the rule and that seems to be without much hope. Reincarnation seems like an endless treadmill and it doesn't speak to me.

04/11/2008 02:21:14 PM · #484

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...and it doesn't speak to me.

Which I interpret as you don't find comfort in it. That's fine and it's obviously a very personal thing, but it makes sense to me that what you take comfort in has an awful lot to do with how you were brought up. I imagine most Buddhists find comfort in their beliefs as well.

04/11/2008 02:38:50 PM · #485

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...and it doesn't speak to me.

Which I interpret as you don't find comfort in it. That's fine and it's obviously a very personal thing, but it makes sense to me that what you take comfort in has an awful lot to do with how you were brought up. I imagine most Buddhists find comfort in their beliefs as well.

Partly true, but it also means "it doesn't jive with how I see the world".

04/11/2008 02:40:43 PM · #486

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Partly true, but it also means "it doesn't jive with how I see the world".

Your view of the world is shaped by those around you.

04/11/2008 02:41:08 PM · #487

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Partly true, but it also means "it doesn't jive with how I see the world".

Which is in turn partly a consequence of your place of origin. :-)

04/11/2008 02:43:32 PM · #488

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Partly true, but it also means "it doesn't jive with how I see the world".

Your view of the world is shaped by those around you.

And in turn so is yours...

Maybe I should be clearer. If people have been reincarnating for as long as people have been around, wouldn't there generally be an increase in people attaining Nirvana due to the longer time people have had to work out their sins? I don't see this happening. It doesn't jive.

I don't think atheism jives with how I see the world either. Certainly we've been through the argument that I feel people live life as if they understand an absolute good and evil. I don't think such absolutes exist in a godless world and thus don't think it jives (please though, we don't need to argue it again until we're bored).

These are rational conclusions not products of how I've been raised.

Message edited by author 2008-04-11 14:46:05.

04/11/2008 02:44:17 PM · #489

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Your view of the world is shaped by those around you.

And in turn so is yours...

Naturally... and not unlike the plants of Gordon's hypothetical garden. ;-)

Message edited by author 2008-04-11 14:46:02.

04/11/2008 02:46:06 PM · #490

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Partly true, but it also means "it doesn't jive with how I see the world".

Your view of the world is shaped by those around you.

And in turn so is yours...

I think that's the point, yes. I think the point is that, by the merest accident, one's outlook is partly determined by one's location. I don't think he or I or any of the others would deny that, were we to have been born in Saudi Arabia, we would be Muslims with a high likliehood of being offended at the merest hint of apostasy.

Message edited by author 2008-04-11 14:46:39.

04/11/2008 02:47:38 PM · #491

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

You don't think the average agnostic/atheist/I don't care person's response about religion is along the lines of "people who are after your money"?

04/11/2008 02:48:49 PM · #492

Originally posted by Louis:

Fair 'nuff. I answered in my questions how this fits with my worldview.

04/11/2008 02:50:22 PM · #493

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If people have been reincarnating for as long as people have been around, wouldn't there generally be an increase in people attaining Nirvana due to the longer time people have had to work out their sins? I don't see this happening. It doesn't jive.

Yep... if that were true. Likewise, if people rose into heaven just as Jesus did (per the Bible's claims), there should be a bunch of empty tombs, too.

04/11/2008 02:57:06 PM · #494

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If people have been reincarnating for as long as people have been around, wouldn't there generally be an increase in people attaining Nirvana due to the longer time people have had to work out their sins? I don't see this happening. It doesn't jive.

Yep... if that were true. Likewise, if people rose into heaven just as Jesus did (per the Bible's claims), there should be a bunch of empty tombs, too.

Likewise if life evolved almost immediately after the earth cooled enough we should understand the simple and straightforward process in which it happened.

04/11/2008 03:01:02 PM · #495

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
And I trust you, Doc, to not respond with "Mormonism is a horrible cult and Jaren and his parents are going to hell." (or a less hyperbolized equivalent) But I would posit that you are the exception, not the norm.

You don't think the average agnostic/atheist/I don't care person's response about religion is along the lines of "people who are after your money"?

Well, again - are we talking about the agnostic/atheists/I don't care-ers such as me, scalvert, louis, et. al.? If so, I would say no, I'm sure all of our answers would be much more nuanced, but likely tilted toward our particular world view -- similar to the answers I would expect you to give to your children. Are we the exception, rather than the rule? Perhaps, although my inclination would be that non-believers as a group would be somewhat more philosophically positioned to provide a more balanced description of competing religious viewpoints than an adherent to any particular religion. (A hypothesis, acknowledged to be without current data in support.)

In the end we all will likely couch our arguments so as to be persuasive toward our own world view and outlook. That is why the teaching of critical thinking skills -- sadly lacking in most educational systems, whether religious or otherwise -- is so important. I'm less interested in convincing kids that my personal viewpoint is right, than teaching them to understand how to objectively evaluate arguments and evidence themselves and to recognize their own biases and motivations that might affect the evaluation.

Why is these skills so frequently ignored or deliberately avoided in the education of children? I would posit at least three reasons: 1) It's difficult and expensive to teach such skills effectively. 2) It necessarily undermines authority to one extent or another. And 3) it often results in children making evaluations against the beliefs of their teachers/parents/etc.

04/11/2008 03:05:27 PM · #496

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Why is these skills so frequently ignored or deliberately avoided in the education of children? I would posit at least three reasons: 1) It's difficult and expensive to teach such skills effectively. 2) It necessarily undermines authority to one extent or another. And 3) it often results in children making evaluations against the beliefs of their teachers/parents/etc.

I like the way you are posting. Reasoned and thought out. I agree with most of it, although I'll add a 4th. 4) Some things are considered beyond children to be taught or the application is beyond children to apply. We don't teach kids how to pick locks and then let them make their own decisions about whether or not they should use that information. Kids do not have the moral development to be able to make those judgements. It's just a simple example off the top of my head and I'm sure it isn't a perfect analogy.

04/11/2008 03:06:04 PM · #497

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

if life evolved almost immediately after the earth cooled enough we should understand the simple and straightforward process in which it happened.

Why? It took us thousands or millions of years to understand that the earth orbits the sun, not to mention the simple and straightforward process that keeps Twinkies edible for months.

04/11/2008 03:07:44 PM · #498

Originally posted by scalvert:

. . . not to mention the simple and straightforward process that keeps Twinkies edible for months.

Ah - - a mystery for which there truly is no answer in science or philosophy.