Religion: The Deuce

[Zcorp]

Yeah I agree. 2000 years to get to this point. Quick work.

Look what we've achieved in the last 2000 years...it is certainly not quick work but it is not easy work either. We have explored the entire world, on boats. Mapped it all out. Developed amazing writing systems, invented the printing press, increased literacy to 99% in much of the world. Greatly increased our understanding of biology and medicine, more than doubled the average life expectancy, greatly reduced the hardships of basic survival for a significant amount of humanity and we are working to do the same for the rest. laid millions of miles of railroad, then road, then invented a way to travel through the air allowing us to go half way across the world in half a day. Invented a means of communication that is instant anywhere in the world allowing cultures to talk to each and learn from each other anywhere and at anytime. We've been the moon and traveled in space and created weapons that can wipe out nearly all of life on earth.

Maybe instead of berating the duration it has taken to get humanity to where it is today you could try to contribute to furthering all of that progress.

My point was to highlight the idea that the conditions that you value so highly are a product of a abundance. Take away said abundance and what are you left with. Add to that growing political instability and you have a recipe for a completely different world.

The conditions that allow for abundance are created by what I value so highly. Those with abundance gain the opportunity to solve bigger problems than figuring out how to live until tomorrow, for not only themselves but for the rest of humanity. Which in turn adds further abundance and allows for more people to involve themselves in and try and solve the more abstract problems.

And yes there is always the potential for everything to come crashing down. What happens if the united states falls? it is a huge question with lots of possible negative consequences. Ones that many people are working toward finding solutions to and creating a good place for humanity to be in within the next 100+ years.

[infernovia]

Infernovia I agree that all things being equal Religion will wither. What I don't believe is that it can or should be attacked directly. It simply hardens positions that might otherwise fall apart on their own. The Germans didn't attack the Maginot Line, they drove around it, therefore making it irrelevant.

Sure, against the French, this tactic had worked. But what happened in the Soviet frontier? People drive around it all the time, whether by saying "it's my belief" or "it's for the sake of art" or "it's for the sake of science" or whatever. But when it comes down to it, you must be able to defend against or destroy your opposition, clever maneuvering can only do so much.

[morriswalters]

Infernovia, am not seeking to do anything. I don't need to. God is dying. Gutenberg won the battle around 1400 AD.(I'm too lazy to look up the exact date right now.) But he dangerous even in his death throes. If you choose to go fang to fang with him then have at it, but I'll pass.

But the thing that worries me most is the God we have chosen to replace him. The relentless push to see education and technology as the saving grace that they aren't saddens me. Technology is a tool. As is education. Education does many things, but there are limits. Just looking at the bell curve representing societies intelligence should make you thoughtful. There may be limits to how well we can educate people. The saving grace of the Bible, particularly after literacy gave people the tools to read it, was it limited claims. As has been pointed out several times the interpretation of the Bible has trended from the more conservative to the more liberal. Given that anybody can read it however they wish, you end up with a situation which has consistently caused the Faithful to schism into smaller and smaller groups. So the Faithful are always divided against each other.

The situation today could reverse that whole trend. As the technology becomes more advanced fewer people will be able to evaluate the decisions that they will be asked to make. In the worst case scenario the intellectual elite could become the Priests to the God of Knowledge. It's getting close to that point today. But Religion still has too much power.

Edit: Zcorp I have preached education almost my entire life and I've done what I can do as an individual to make the world a better place. Yes I understand that Science has given us powerful tools to make the world better. In the process they have given us an equally vexing set of problems, to which we may not find solutions to in time to deal with them. The thing about science is that it may not produce solutions of the type you need, when you need them. Let me ask you a question. Why was the printing press so late in moving out of Europe. Why wasn't it developed elsewhere? It was a very powerful tool.

[infernovia]

Infernovia, am not seeking to do anything. I don't need to. God is dying. Gutenberg won the battle around 1400 AD.(I'm too lazy to look up the exact date right now.) But he dangerous even in his death throes. If you choose to go fang to fang with him then have at it, but I'll pass.

I have already gone fang to fang with God, and succeeded. It is impossible to kill it all completely and sometimes I have my doubts, but this battle has finished for me. There is no going back.

But the thing that worries me most is the God we have chosen to replace him. The relentless push to see education and technology as the saving grace that they aren't saddens me. Technology is a tool. As is education. Education does many things, but there are limits. Just looking at the bell curve representing societies intelligence should make you thoughtful.

Yes, aristocracy is the fundamental rule of nature. It is impossible for education to eliminate this, as it is impossible to bring forth equality. And especially technology which is for the rich and the few. But I do not disparage such things, I welcome it.

[Zcorp]

The situation today could reverse that whole trend. As the technology becomes more advanced fewer people will be able to evaluate the decisions that they will be asked to make. In the worst case scenario the intellectual elite could become the Priests to the God of Knowledge. It's getting close to that point today. But Religion still has too much power.

No the point of education is to give access to knowledge to the masses, and in a way that is easy to understand. Their movement now is to make it more engaging, using human compulsion to ease the process of learning. To 'gamify' it. There is much good and bad to be discussed about that specific technique, but the goal is quite specifically to break down Ivory Towers and give the opportunity to gain knowledge to everyone.

Let me ask you a question. Why was the printing press so late in moving out of Europe. Why wasn't it developed elsewhere? It was a very powerful tool.

It was, the Chinese built a printing press hundreds of years prior. Although due to the complexity of their written language abandoned the idea as it was not practical.

As for why no where else? I can only guess. Possibly due to those areas being some of the easiest areas to create abundance of survival needs? You would have to ask someone more familiar anthropology and historical geography than I.

[podbaydoor]

Actually, the Chinese printing press was continuously in use ever since it was invented. Gutenberg's breakthrough wasn't the concept of carving letters onto blocks, it was making the process more automated so only a few people were required to set it up. In any case, the reaction of churches and governments to the sudden spread of cheap and accessible literature is pretty telling - before that, it was absolutely in the church's best interest to concentrate knowledge and writing within their own ranks. If you control the books and control the interpretation, your flock can't argue with you or get their own ideas.

[morriswalters]

Given your interpretation it's a wonder the church didn't proscribe printing. Muslims did. Zcorp educate away, but I think, much like educators today, that you are going to hit limits. There exist points of view that we may be getting close to the limits of that process now. And I've seen no proof from anyone saying that we can do much better than we are doing. A question? How does the idea that we must destroy Christianity differ from the Christian intolerance of non Christians. Don't they both show intolerance?

[Zcorp]

Given your interpretation it's a wonder the church didn't proscribe printing. Muslims did. Zcorp educate away, but I think, much like educators today, that you are going to hit limits. There exist points of view that we may be getting close to the limits of that process now. And I've seen no proof from anyone saying that we can do much better than we are doing. A question? How does the idea that we must destroy Christianity differ from the Christian intolerance of non Christians. Don't they both show intolerance?

Much like society has generally become intolerant of theft, killing and rape society should become intolerant of indoctrination, false education and irrational thinking. Which is really what is being argued against, the problem with Christianity is its frequent use of all three of those things.

Zcorp educate away, but I think, much like educators today, that you are going to hit limits. There exist points of view that we may be getting close to the limits of that process now. And I've seen no proof from anyone saying that we can do much better than we are doing.

Yup, we've come no where close to hitting them yet. Because points of view exist doesn't make them accurate. And if you haven't seen you proof you obviously don't have much attention focused on the world of education.

[quantumcat42]

... society should become intolerant of indoctrination, false education and irrational thinking.

So, thoughtcrime?

[Zcorp]

... society should become intolerant of indoctrination, false education and irrational thinking.

So, thoughtcrime?

???
As in making thoughts illegal? No, we want to destroy cultures of silence and work toward freely discussing ideas. Which should be covered in the concept of education.

This however, hurts society, this is something everyone should be intolerance of.

I'm all for utilizing your faith if it assist you in your life. I'm not thrilled about the idea of you making your children reliant upon the same schemas to function in a healthy way as we have much power sophisticated thought tools that do not share the negative aspects. Or for that matter keeping children ignorant of sex. And I'm quite angry as the reality of the religious changing educational standards because reason threatens their faith.

[quantumcat42]

As in making thoughts illegal?

As in intolerance for the promotion of certain ideas (although you did include "irrational thinking" in your list, so yes, "making thoughts illegal"). You're not talking about freely discussing ideas, you're talking about suppressing ideas which don't meet certain criteria. Narrow options in terms of educational venue make it necessary to agree on one standard for a population of diverse views, but the solution here is to allow for more options rather than to embrace intolerance. Have some faith that the better ideas will win out.

[DSenette]

As in making thoughts illegal?

As in intolerance for the promotion of certain ideas (although you did include "irrational thinking" in your list, so yes, "making thoughts illegal"). You're not talking about freely discussing ideas, you're talking about suppressing ideas which don't meet certain criteria. Narrow options in terms of educational venue make it necessary to agree on one standard for a population of diverse views, but the solution here is to allow for more options rather than to embrace intolerance. Have some faith that the better ideas will win out.

so, teaching intelligent design along side of evolution? and then also teaching young earth creationism in the same class? and giving all of those options the same weight?

then in the physics class you can have an entire quarter devoted to perpetual motion machines "that totally work", and in your writing classes you can teach l33t sp33k alongside actual english. you know, give everyone equal voice

[quantumcat42]

DSennette, read what I wrote. The problem is the monolithic structure of education, which centralizes control of what is taught. A more diverse selection of schools would allow more freedom of ideas. I'm not remotely talking about requiring that Young Earth Creationism be given weight in science class.

I was homeschooled up until High School. Many things I learned in that time I no longer hold to (like the contents of a wonderfully amusing book called Dinosaurs by Design), but overall I came out with a much better, well rounded education than many of my public-schooled peers.</anecdote>

[Zcorp]

As in making thoughts illegal?

As in intolerance for the promotion of certain ideas (although you did include "irrational thinking" in your list, so yes, "making thoughts illegal"). You're not talking about freely discussing ideas, you're talking about suppressing ideas which don't meet certain criteria. Narrow options in terms of educational venue make it necessary to agree on one standard for a population of diverse views, but the solution here is to allow for more options rather than to embrace intolerance. Have some faith that the better ideas will win out.

Narrow options? No, I very much mean freely discussing ideas, I also very much mean dismissing poor ideas (or categorizing if you the semantics there bring about a unintended reaction). This includes educating people on how we have arrived at what a poor idea is and what poor ideas we have dismissed in the past. You know...education. Is the process and goal of education something that I need to explain. I can certainly do that, I assumed - maybe wrongly - that the concept was well understood.

[morriswalters]

I can certainly see making others incapable of interfering with your freedom as long as you offer them freedom within their own boundaries.

Narrow options? No, I very much mean freely discussing ideas, I also very much mean dismissing poor ideas (or categorizing if you the semantics there bring about a unintended reaction). This includes educating people on how we have arrived at what a poor idea is and what poor ideas we have dismissed in the past. You know...education. Is the process and goal of education something that I need to explain. I can certainly do that, I assumed - maybe wrongly - that the concept was well understood.

Education, whenever it's possible, should be agnostic. You should give them the tools, and leave them to make their own decisions about an idea. The danger, in my opinion, is when someone decides to label an idea good or bad out of the context of the free exchange of them. Certainly making available differing points of view, with the arguments both for and against, makes sense. But part of the price of freedom is accepting that the other person can make choices you don't like. This is one criticism of Christianity. The talk of rational, and reasoned, and well informed dialogs, is a smokescreen. You mean to say this idea is true and this is false.

[Zcorp]

You mean to say this idea is true and this is false.

Do you mean to say that nothing is true or false? Cause yes I do mean to say that somethings are true and others are false. Because quite simply somethings are true, others are false and there is a lot that we can not clearly put into either of those categories. Like the existence of superior-beings such as a God.

[DSenette]

DSennette, read what I wrote. The problem is the monolithic structure of education, which centralizes control of what is taught. A more diverse selection of schools would allow more freedom of ideas. I'm not remotely talking about requiring that Young Earth Creationism be given weight in science class.

I was homeschooled up until High School. Many things I learned in that time I no longer hold to (like the contents of a wonderfully amusing book called Dinosaurs by Design), but overall I came out with a much better, well rounded education than many of my public-schooled peers.</anecdote>

i did read what you wrote, and the fact that you were able to get over being taught from "Dinosaurs by Design" (lovely book btw) as a child doesn't mean anyone should have had the option of making that part of your formal education curriculum.

the "more diverse" selection cannot be meant to mean "teach things as fact that are not in any way fact". so yeah, in the context of education, suppression of ideas that are demonstrably false is a good thing.

[quantumcat42]

I disagree. The arbiter of truth is reality, not our best current notion of reality. This becomes quite clear if you look at things seen as "facts" over the years -- the body of human knowledge is constantly shifting and changing. Taken from a modern perspective, any previous slice of history had its share of demonstrably false beliefs, which people held to just as strongly as the ideas of today. Is there the expectation that current knowledge will look any different a few centuries, or even decades down the road?

So what if someone learns something wrong? People have been learning wrong things for as long as we've been learning, we're learning wrong things all the time, and human progress chugs along just fine. Right ideas can survive on their own, wrong ideas will eventually be cast aside on their own. A centralized educational system with a one-size-fits all curriculum can't teach every perspective -- but saying this is how it should be, that ideas this central system deems wrong should be actively suppressed? That only serves to limit the perspectives represented in society. Diversity of opinion is good in the same way that a diverse gene pool is good. Sure, it means some wrong ideas will be propagated, but a diverse society can deal with that better than an intellectually inbred one.

[RoberII]

I disagree. The arbiter of truth is reality, not our best current notion of reality. This becomes quite clear if you look at things seen as "facts" over the years -- the body of human knowledge is constantly shifting and changing. Taken from a modern perspective, any previous slice of history had its share of demonstrably false beliefs, which people held to just as strongly as the ideas of today. Is there the expectation that current knowledge will look any different a few centuries, or even decades down the road?

So what if someone learns something wrong? People have been learning wrong things for as long as we've been learning, we're learning wrong things all the time, and human progress chugs along just fine. Right ideas can survive on their own, wrong ideas will eventually be cast aside on their own. A centralized educational system with a one-size-fits all curriculum can't teach every perspective -- but saying this is how it should be, that ideas this central system deems wrong should be actively suppressed? That only serves to limit the perspectives represented in society. Diversity of opinion is good in the same way that a diverse gene pool is good. Sure, it means some wrong ideas will be propagated, but a diverse society can deal with that better than an intellectually inbred one.

We are getting closer and closer to the truth, though, and children should be taught that. Pretending that teaching Bohr's model of the atom is the same as teaching the aether theory is one of the favourite hobbies of creationists, etc, of course... Who then point to a piece of fiction as "the ultimate arbiter of truth". There is such a thing as degrees of wrongness. And schools should teach the least wrong notions that are currently available.

[DSenette]

I disagree. The arbiter of truth is reality, not our best current notion of reality. This becomes quite clear if you look at things seen as "facts" over the years -- the body of human knowledge is constantly shifting and changing. Taken from a modern perspective, any previous slice of history had its share of demonstrably false beliefs, which people held to just as strongly as the ideas of today. Is there the expectation that current knowledge will look any different a few centuries, or even decades down the road?

So what if someone learns something wrong? People have been learning wrong things for as long as we've been learning, we're learning wrong things all the time, and human progress chugs along just fine. Right ideas can survive on their own, wrong ideas will eventually be cast aside on their own. A centralized educational system with a one-size-fits all curriculum can't teach every perspective -- but saying this is how it should be, that ideas this central system deems wrong should be actively suppressed? That only serves to limit the perspectives represented in society. Diversity of opinion is good in the same way that a diverse gene pool is good. Sure, it means some wrong ideas will be propagated, but a diverse society can deal with that better than an intellectually inbred one.

because there is a difference between learning things that we know to be true and accurate based on our current observations and abilities, learning things as truth that have absolutely no basis in observations or evidence (but that we can't outright say are false), and learning something that we know to be false based on our current observations and abilities as if it wasn't false.

such as creationism, intelligent design, basically anything about religion outside of a comparative religion class where you're actually studying the religions themselves not the content of the religions.
in short, opinion should never be taught as fact.

[morriswalters]

What children are taught is the responsibility of the parents. Which is why, although education is mandatory, public education is not. You can't educate out Religion. To do so you would have to transfer control of the children to some other authority. I won't hand my children to some other authority. How far are you prepared to go to teach your point of view? Bluntly, this has been tried, and the outcome was pretty much as you might imagine.

What is taught in public schools is a political decision reflecting the public point of view. While I accept push back in that forum, stay out of my home. It would probably serve us better if we reserved certain topics until those critical reasoning skills are actually well formed and prepared to deal with questions that are difficult because of their context. Are you blind to the possibilities inherent in what you wish to do?

[guenther]

i did read what you wrote, and the fact that you were able to get over being taught from "Dinosaurs by Design" (lovely book btw) as a child doesn't mean anyone should have had the option of making that part of your formal education curriculum.

the "more diverse" selection cannot be meant to mean "teach things as fact that are not in any way fact". so yeah, in the context of education, suppression of ideas that are demonstrably false is a good thing.

What would this good suppression look like such that parents don't have the option of making that book and ones like it part of the formal education?

We are getting closer and closer to the truth, though, and children should be taught that. Pretending that teaching Bohr's model of the atom is the same as teaching the aether theory is one of the favourite hobbies of creationists, etc, of course... Who then point to a piece of fiction as "the ultimate arbiter of truth". There is such a thing as degrees of wrongness. And schools should teach the least wrong notions that are currently available.

Deciding what should be in the public education curriculum is different than creating legal restrictions on what children can be taught outside of the public system. I'll let quantumcat42 speak for himself, but I read his comments as a defense of freedom, not a defense of teaching intelligent design or creationism. And I too favor that freedom. I don't think we will get to a better place by stripping people of their religious freedoms. And in fact, I think we do better by breeding respect even when we disagree.

[podbaydoor]

"Breeding respect even when we disagree" is not an inherent feature of religion; in fact by some religious logic, it's perfectly justified to put unbelievers to the sword, and it's perfectly within their religion to do so. If respect happens, it happens when people value it despite, or irrespective of, religion.

[DSenette]

What children are taught is the responsibility of the parents. Which is why, although education is mandatory, public education is not. You can't educate out Religion. To do so you would have to transfer control of the children to some other authority. I won't hand my children to some other authority. How far are you prepared to go to teach your point of view? Bluntly, this has been tried, and the outcome was pretty much as you might imagine.

What is taught in public schools is a political decision reflecting the public point of view. While I accept push back in that forum, stay out of my home. It would probably serve us better if we reserved certain topics until those critical reasoning skills are actually well formed and prepared to deal with questions that are difficult because of their context. Are you blind to the possibilities inherent in what you wish to do?

what you teach your children in your home is your business. and very few people in this thread would come anywhere near suggesting that anyone take that right away from you (yes, i know there's at least one or two people who would say the opposite). but when the word "education" is concerned, i'm pretty sure people here are talking about formal education systems.

you can TOTALLY educate out the bullshit that comes with religion. it doesn't take much learning about how reason and logic works to make 90% of the harmful teachings of most religions to no longer make sense. if a child ends up being educated enough to see the bullshit and garbage that comes with religion (all religion has parts of it that is bullshit and garbage) as bullshit and garbage, but still chooses the retain faith in whatever god being they want, then that's cool. it's when the bullshit and garbage is the stuff that's being taught as truth, the stuff that results in people being religious dick faces that blow people up, beat the shit out of someone different than them, or attempt to legislate the rights away from someone else because their god told them to, that religious education is a problem.

i still have no idea why you underestimate the ability of children to learn reasoning skills. it's really amazing how quickly kids can learn this stuff when they're actually taught it.

i did read what you wrote, and the fact that you were able to get over being taught from "Dinosaurs by Design" (lovely book btw) as a child doesn't mean anyone should have had the option of making that part of your formal education curriculum.

the "more diverse" selection cannot be meant to mean "teach things as fact that are not in any way fact". so yeah, in the context of education, suppression of ideas that are demonstrably false is a good thing.

What would this good suppression look like such that parents don't have the option of making that book and ones like it part of the formal education?

the same as the suppression of holocaust denial as a part of the education system?

does the parent want to read that book to their kid as a bed time story? that's fine, but when the kid wakes up and goes to a school, and that kid takes a science class, then that science class should be teaching science. even if that school is home school. reality should be a requirement for accreditation when it comes to education.

even private religious schools are required by law to teach certain items in the curriculum.

We are getting closer and closer to the truth, though, and children should be taught that. Pretending that teaching Bohr's model of the atom is the same as teaching the aether theory is one of the favourite hobbies of creationists, etc, of course... Who then point to a piece of fiction as "the ultimate arbiter of truth". There is such a thing as degrees of wrongness. And schools should teach the least wrong notions that are currently available.

Deciding what should be in the public education curriculum is different than creating legal restrictions on what children can be taught outside of the public system. I'll let quantumcat42 speak for himself, but I read his comments as a defense of freedom, not a defense of teaching intelligent design or creationism. And I too favor that freedom. I don't think we will get to a better place by stripping people of their religious freedoms. And in fact, I think we do better by breeding respect even when we disagree.

diversity of opinion is good. diversity in education about facts is bad.

religion is not ever fact, it is always opinion

[guenther]

"Breeding respect even when we disagree" is not an inherent feature of religion; in fact by some religious logic, it's perfectly justified to put unbelievers to the sword, and it's perfectly within their religion to do so. If respect happens, it happens when people value it despite, or irrespective of, religion.

First of all, breeding respect for those we disagree with is not an inherent feature of humanity. But that's doesn't mean it doesn't happen or that we shouldn't encourage it.

Second, you are making a very broad claim about the hugely diverse world of religion. And it's complete garbage. Many people are taught to respect those they disagree with as part of their religious upbringing.

Third, "hey they're doing bad..." is a really crappy bar to use for acceptable behavior.

even private religious schools are required by law to teach certain items in the curriculum.

I don't know the specifics of what is required at private religious schools, but the example given was home schooling. How are you going to suppress this with homeschooling?

diversity of opinion is good. diversity in education about facts is bad.

religion is not ever fact, it is always opinion

I understand what you want to be taught. But making that an enforceable reality is very different than merely professing it as a good thing. That's the distinction I'm trying to make.

[DSenette]

even private religious schools are required by law to teach certain items in the curriculum.

I don't know the specifics of what is required at private religious schools, but the example given was home schooling. How are you going to suppress this with homeschooling?

AFAIK: home schooling has specific curriculum requirements assuming you want your home schooled child to be able to go to a college, or be allowed to get a highschool diploma (via homeschooling) which requires SPECIFIC items to be taught based on the curriculum of that state. as a home schooling teacher you can teach whatever extra drivel you like, but the core curriculum must be accepted by the governing body of the schools in the area.

so, this is about not supplanting the accepted teaching items that are accepted as fact (i.e. science) with items that are not accepted as fact (i.e. religion). if you want to teach the other stuff as extra curricular items (which is what religion classes in private schools count as....they are part of the scheduled curriculum, but as far as course credits are concerned, they're extra curricular) that's fine, but you have to teach the other items to the accepted level of the governing body.

diversity of opinion is good. diversity in education about facts is bad.

religion is not ever fact, it is always opinion

I understand what you want to be taught. But making that an enforceable reality is very different than merely professing it as a good thing. That's the distinction I'm trying to make.

by enforcing the teaching of the things that are known to be fact, and by teaching the children the tools of reason and logic. any person who has a good grasp of the tools of reason and logic will make reasonably less dangerous decisions about religious information that they're given.

[guenther]

AFAIK: home schooling has specific curriculum requirements assuming you want your home schooled child to be able to go to a college, or be allowed to get a highschool diploma (via homeschooling) which requires SPECIFIC items to be taught based on the curriculum of that state. as a home schooling teacher you can teach whatever extra drivel you like, but the core curriculum must be accepted by the governing body of the schools in the area.

Science is required (at least in the states that I've looked at), but does that mean you have to teach evolution as more a credible theory than either intelligent design or creationism? It doesn't. Parents do have the legal right to make books like "Dinosaurs by Design" a part of their formal curriculum. To enact the suppression you are endorsing, the laws would have to be rewritten. And I'm curious what sort of legal restrictions are a part of what you consider a good suppression?

any person who has a good grasp of the tools of reason and logic will make reasonably less dangerous decisions about religious information that they're given.

Dangerous? It's dangerous to believe in intelligent design over evolution?

[morriswalters]

I don't underestimate children's reasoning skills, but reasoning requires context. Children don't have it. They are neither mature emotionally or physically. Brain development is incomplete. In other words they are children, which is why they don't have the same rights as adults. Your very argument provides my best evidence. You insist that they are capable, but then in the next voice you insist we need to protect them. Also do you think that all formal schooling is done in public schools. Religious schools and private schools were the source of public schools, and while they are mandated to teach certain things they can teach anything.(well I'm certain there are some limits, but none in Religion) Again you want to enforce the teaching of "fact". Then limit teachers to the "facts". Don't teach any "theories".

[LaserGuy]

I don't underestimate children's reasoning skills, but reasoning requires context. Children don't have it. They are neither mature emotionally or physically. Brain development is incomplete. In other words they are children, which is why they don't have the same rights as adults. Your very argument provides my best evidence. You insist that they are capable, but then in the next voice you insist we need to protect them. Also do you think that all formal schooling is done in public schools. Religious schools and private schools were the source of public schools, and while they are mandated to teach certain things they can teach anything.(well I'm certain there are some limits, but none in Religion) Again you want to enforce the teaching of "fact". Then limit teachers to the "facts". Don't teach any "theories".

...

You do realise that the word "theory" means a very different thing in science than it does in everyday language, right?

[DSenette]

I don't underestimate children's reasoning skills, but reasoning requires context. Children don't have it. They are neither mature emotionally or physically. Brain development is incomplete. In other words they are children, which is why they don't have the same rights as adults. Your very argument provides my best evidence. You insist that they are capable, but then in the next voice you insist we need to protect them. Also do you think that all formal schooling is done in public schools. Religious schools and private schools were the source of public schools, and while they are mandated to teach certain things they can teach anything.(well I'm certain there are some limits, but none in Religion) Again you want to enforce the teaching of "fact". Then limit teachers to the "facts". Don't teach any "theories".

i insist that they're protected from being force fed anything. the only way to do that is to teach them the tools of reason and logic. which, contrary to EVERYTHING you ever say on the subject, is perfectly doable and actually not that difficult. reason and logic aren't these massive abstract concepts, the tools are there, and they're very easy to come by. the tools of observation, rationalization, questioning things, etc... it's not that hard.

i know quite well how religious schools work. i only went to religious schools until i graduated highschool.

they are mandated to teach actual reliable science and certified curriculum, if they DON'T teach these things, then the diploma you get from the school isn't worth the paper its printed on when you go to apply for a college. the same applies to home schooling. you have to show a certain level of proficiency in the core actual curriculum, otherwise the diploma is trash. anything else that's taught outside of that is ancillary and doesn't matter. as long as the actual core stuff is taught, and the core stuff is always reality.


i think you may want to read the actual definition the word theory for your last sentence

AFAIK: home schooling has specific curriculum requirements assuming you want your home schooled child to be able to go to a college, or be allowed to get a highschool diploma (via homeschooling) which requires SPECIFIC items to be taught based on the curriculum of that state. as a home schooling teacher you can teach whatever extra drivel you like, but the core curriculum must be accepted by the governing body of the schools in the area.

Science is required (at least in the states that I've looked at), but does that mean you have to teach evolution as more a credible theory than either intelligent design or creationism? It doesn't. Parents do have the legal right to make books like "Dinosaurs by Design" a part of their formal curriculum. To enact the suppression you are endorsing, the laws would have to be rewritten. And I'm curious what sort of legal restrictions are a part of what you consider a good suppression?

any person who has a good grasp of the tools of reason and logic will make reasonably less dangerous decisions about religious information that they're given.

Dangerous? It's dangerous to believe in intelligent design over evolution?

no, you don't have to teach one as more credible than the other....that's accurate. but you cannot NOT teach evolution adequately and still pass muster on the curriculum. so at the very least the base knowledge has to be there.

it can be dangerous to believe in intelligent design over evolution. it's no where near as dangerous as believing in creationism though

[guenther]

no, you don't have to teach one as more credible than the other....that's accurate. but you cannot NOT teach evolution adequately and still pass muster on the curriculum. so at the very least the base knowledge has to be there.

Maybe that's true (we've hit the limit of what I know about homeschooling), but that certainly doesn't meet the standards you set earlier where you questioned if anyone should have the option of making creationism-friendly books a part of the curriculum and then said that that sort of suppression was a good thing.

it can be dangerous to believe in intelligent design over evolution. it's no where near as dangerous as believing in creationism though

Why is believing in either dangerous?

[morriswalters]

From the Wikipedia

scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method.

However, since, as I've said over and over again, those supposedly easy skills are not so easy to teach, you should see the problem. Most people don't make this connection. They use the language they understand. Not the reasoned word you would have them use. When you expect reason to work you damn well better not be ambiguous. DSenette, by now it is fairly obvious that you have no children, if you did you would know that children can use reason to come to conclusions that are patently absurd. Of course this is true of adults also. But children are in the process of ingesting a significant amount of context and data, in addition they are being pounded by hormonal changes, peer pressure, and a thousand other pieces of minutia, a process goes on well into the teens and beyond. This is why the pablum you are fed in school in school prior to college doesn't much resemble the world you will find in college. And it's also the reason why college is the place where all the things you want, start to happen.

they are mandated to teach actual reliable science and certified curriculum, if they DON'T teach these things, then the diploma you get from the school isn't worth the paper its printed on when you go to apply for a college. the same applies to home schooling. you have to show a certain level of proficiency in the core actual curriculum, otherwise the diploma is trash. anything else that's taught outside of that is ancillary and doesn't matter. as long as the actual core stuff is taught, and the core stuff is always reality.

The first statement is wrong. There may or may not be a mandated curriculum which includes advanced science topics. See this. And not everyone is going to college.

[Falling]

they are mandated to teach actual reliable science and certified curriculum, if they DON'T teach these things, then the diploma you get from the school isn't worth the paper its printed on when you go to apply for a college. the same applies to home schooling. you have to show a certain level of proficiency in the core actual curriculum, otherwise the diploma is trash. anything else that's taught outside of that is ancillary and doesn't matter. as long as the actual core stuff is taught, and the core stuff is always reality.

The first statement is wrong. There may or may not be a mandated curriculum which includes advanced science topics. See this. And not everyone is going to college.

When DSenette says they have to teach science, I think it goes without saying that it has to be real science. Teaching science for 3 years means... ya know actual science... for 3 years. If it's not science, but you teach is as such... still not science.

[morriswalters]

In South Dakota, the curriculum instructions from the state department of education is limited to mandating two topics: language arts and mathematics, and only the “basic skills” skills of these. In other states, such as Pennsylvania or New York, you’ll find a good deal more detail. But knowing the subject areas that are to be covered is not enough information that you can teach from it. Moreover, in most cases, if we’re talking about the high school level, it isn’t even enough information to give your child the education they will need if they wish to attend college.

It don't even say science, anywhere, honest injun.

[Falling]

In South Dakota, the curriculum instructions from the state department of education is limited to mandating two topics: language arts and mathematics, and only the “basic skills” skills of these. In other states, such as Pennsylvania or New York, you’ll find a good deal more detail. But knowing the subject areas that are to be covered is not enough information that you can teach from it. Moreover, in most cases, if we’re talking about the high school level, it isn’t even enough information to give your child the education they will need if they wish to attend college.

It don't even say science, anywhere, honest injun.

That may be true, but even in South Dakota, standardized tests are given 4 times between 2nd and 11th grade. If a student doesn't do "satisfactorily," they may be disallowed from being home schooled. Are there any standardized tests that don't include a science component?

[morriswalters]

The response was to the statement that

they are mandated to teach actual reliable science and certified curriculum, if they DON'T teach these things, then the diploma you get from the school isn't worth the paper its printed on when you go to apply for a college

No more no less. They may well test for it, but in the example I cited there is no mandate. The point, if there ever was one, was the what is mandated and what is taught may be two separate things. I can teach intelligent design or that the moon is made of cheese. All the while giving the student enough stock biology to pass any test. Some others would not seem to mind if you were unable to do that. However the point of debate between us turns on a magical ability called critical reasoning. I believe some people do this well, some people less well, and some not at all. He believes differently.

[guenther]

That may be true, but even in South Dakota, standardized tests are given 4 times between 2nd and 11th grade. If a student doesn't do "satisfactorily," they may be disallowed from being home schooled. Are there any standardized tests that don't include a science component?

The science thing is really a red herring. The vast majority of science courses are not under any sort of controversy with the conservative religious community. You could easily fill three years of science without touching on evolution. Though it seems that more often evolution is covered, just with a stacked deck.

[DSenette]

no, you don't have to teach one as more credible than the other....that's accurate. but you cannot NOT teach evolution adequately and still pass muster on the curriculum. so at the very least the base knowledge has to be there.

Maybe that's true (we've hit the limit of what I know about homeschooling), but that certainly doesn't meet the standards you set earlier where you questioned if anyone should have the option of making creationism-friendly books a part of the curriculum and then said that that sort of suppression was a good thing.

in my brain i'm imagining schools that are replacing the actual science curriculum with the not actual science curriculum and still trying to claim that they've adequately taught their children the science curriculum. like texas.

so, yeah, that book AS the science curriculum = shouldn't happen
that book as a bed time story after the kid had a real science class = i don't like it but whatever.

it can be dangerous to believe in intelligent design over evolution. it's no where near as dangerous as believing in creationism though

Why is believing in either dangerous?

believing in creationism is extremely dangerous because there is only one way to do that. and it's to ignore reality. you cannot have any kind of functional understanding of science and reality and believe in strict creationism.

intelligent design at least acknowledges reality and tries to cope with it by working in a possible framework where god could have had his lightning fingers in the mix. but it's still woefully incorrect and omits a lot of information from the ACTUAL process of how evolution works.

either results in children who are less educated, and less in touch with reality.

From the Wikipedia

scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method.

However, since, as I've said over and over again, those supposedly easy skills are not so easy to teach, you should see the problem. Most people don't make this connection. They use the language they understand. Not the reasoned word you would have them use. When you expect reason to work you damn well better not be ambiguous. DSenette, by now it is fairly obvious that you have no children, if you did you would know that children can use reason to come to conclusions that are patently absurd. Of course this is true of adults also. But children are in the process of ingesting a significant amount of context and data, in addition they are being pounded by hormonal changes, peer pressure, and a thousand other pieces of minutia, a process goes on well into the teens and beyond. This is why the pablum you are fed in school in school prior to college doesn't much resemble the world you will find in college. And it's also the reason why college is the place where all the things you want, start to happen.

the more we interact, the more i'm certain you're trolling me.

you seem to be under the impression that when i say "teach your kids the tools of reason, logic, and free thinking" that i mean "walk up to your child on their third birthday and place your hands upon their head. in a loud voice proclaim 'reason, logic, and free thinking. shamalamadingdong' and within three days they will receive their mensa card and from that day forward will never make a bad decision or come up with a stupid idea". which is simply stupid.

you also seem to believe the exact opposite would still work perfectly fine. do you walk up to your kids on their third birthday and say "these are the rules, this is all of the knowledge, go forth and multiply" and then expect them to never break the rules, not know something, or do some simply stupid shit? do you actually think NOT giving kids the tools required to be rational, logical, free thinking human beings makes them MORE likely to not do stupid shit as children?

you want someone to build a house, so you give them some tools. if you just give them a hammer they can't build a house. so you give them a hammer, and some saws, nail guns, etc... all the tools you could possibly need to build a house. still can't build a house without stuff to build it out of. so you give them the tools and then all the supplies. they still can't do it. so you teach them how to use the tools and give them a design for the house. now they can build a house.

however, if you only give them YOUR plans for YOUR house, and only teach them how to build THAT house and use the tools in the way you do it ONLY. then the only thing they'll ever be able to build is your house. if you give them the tools, the supplies, and the ability to design their own house, then they can do pretty much anything. does that mean that every house they make will be the best house on the planet? no, they'll probably fuck up sometimes. but so what, they've got the tools and the knowledge to realize they've fucked up and they'll be better equipped to fix the fuck up and not fuck up again

they are mandated to teach actual reliable science and certified curriculum, if they DON'T teach these things, then the diploma you get from the school isn't worth the paper its printed on when you go to apply for a college. the same applies to home schooling. you have to show a certain level of proficiency in the core actual curriculum, otherwise the diploma is trash. anything else that's taught outside of that is ancillary and doesn't matter. as long as the actual core stuff is taught, and the core stuff is always reality.

The first statement is wrong. There may or may not be a mandated curriculum which includes advanced science topics. See this. And not everyone is going to college.

evolution isn't exactly advanced science.

and yes, there are states like south dakota that have ridiculously stupid requirements (or lack of requirements), but if we based the things we do on the way south dakota does it, then we'd all be fucked quite frequently.

[guenther]

in my brain i'm imagining schools that are replacing the actual science curriculum with the not actual science curriculum and still trying to claim that they've adequately taught their children the science curriculum. like texas.

I haven't followed the Texas story much, but are they actually replacing physics and chemistry with things that aren't actually physics and chemistry? Science covers a lot of fields, and most of it is not under fire from the conservative religious community. Even if they have language in their books taking a soft stance on evolution, it does not mean that their whole science curriculum is not actual science.

believing in creationism is extremely dangerous because there is only one way to do that. and it's to ignore reality. you cannot have any kind of functional understanding of science and reality and believe in strict creationism.

Extremely dangerous? That's ridiculous. You make it seem like people that believe in creationism are so divorced from reality that they don't know cars can hurt them when they cross the road. Creationism is not exposing anyone to peril or putting them in any kind of unsafe situation. Calling it extremely dangerous is just using hyperbolic and wrong language.

For most people, their understanding of the origin of man is not critical in any way to how they live their lives. People can believe in creationism and have a great grasp on reality. And further, as I said above, science is huge. This means that a creationist could actually have an excellent grasp on much of science and the scientific process. By way of anecdote, I know someone who designs medical imaging equipment and believes in creationism. And he is quite good at what he does and has a strong technical understanding of electronics, physics, and the human body. He is not imperiled by his beliefs. Nor is he impaired in any way.

[podbaydoor]

I've also met creationists who still claim that god created women to be naturally inferior and submissive (because she's part of Adam). In the past, this was a commonly held position back when creationism was the norm. The fact that it's not a commonly held position anymore is because society progressed that way and religious folk modified their beliefs to adapt.