Get them while young

[stangmx13]

I feel like some religious people don’t understand that science isn’t a religion. Anyone living a belief-based life may not realize that science doesn’t give a shit if you believe in it or not. Science isn’t validated by belief. Facts are facts. Supported theories are supported theories are pretty close to facts.

 

[littlebeast]

Yeah, I can see that argument.

But so much better if public schools just stick to real science and leave religion out. It should be practiced, or not, at home, church, temple, mosque, a park, etc. and not taught with taxpayer money.

tax payer money doesn’t figure into it one way or the other to me. i just think it’s more fundamental than that. a belief system is something that should be opted into, not foisted carte blanche by a controlling entity on a captive and vulnerable audience. especially where children are concerned. it amounts to indoctrination, and it has no place where young minds are learning critical thinking skills. and i say that as someone who has a strong belief in my faith - the subject definitely does not belong in schools. it is beyond my comprehension how anyone could think otherwise.

 

[bojangle]

tax payer money doesn’t figure into it one way or the other to me. i just think it’s more fundamental than that. a belief system is something that should be opted into, not foisted carte blanche by a controlling entity on a captive and vulnerable audience. especially where children are concerned. it amounts to indoctrination, and it has no place where young minds are learning critical thinking skills. and i say that as someone who has a strong belief in my faith - the subject definitely does not belong in schools. it is beyond my comprehension how anyone could think otherwise.

That's exactly right. It is indoctrination. I draw the line at public schools and tax payer money because, well, I still think parents have the right to put their child into a private religious based school if they want to. Kids in those schools are being indoctrinated. The emphasis they put into science probably varies.

Are you suggesting that parents shouldn't even be able to indoctrinate their children by sending them to private religious school?

 

[Climber]

That's exactly right. It is indoctrination. I draw the line at public schools and tax payer money because, well, I still think parents have the right to put their child into a private religious based school if they want to. Kids in those schools are being indoctrinated. The emphasis they put into science probably varies.

Are you suggesting that parents shouldn't even be able to indoctrinate their children by sending them to private religious school?

I agree.

I think that when a parent puts a child into a private religious school, they aren't trying to hide what they're doing and their child knows they are in a religious school that will be pushing it's own religion.

These charter schools, however, are something else, they are wolfs in sheepskins and taking taxpayer money to push the religious doctrine as if it is equally (possibly even more than equal, depending on who is teaching the course) valid as scientific proof.

 

[byke]

I feel like some religious people don’t understand that science isn’t a religion. Anyone living a belief-based life may not realize that science doesn’t give a shit if you believe in it or not. Science isn’t validated by belief. Facts are facts. Supported theories are supported theories are pretty close to facts.

As a philosophical aside, I wonder if you could consider science a religion? "Pretty close to facts" would be a generous concession from many religious people, otherwise their thing is just a fact. Proving scientific principles is real, but the benefits of not killing each other is real too. God, while being a very specific and singular "thing", could maybe be paralleled to figuring out some major unknown, both with their own processes and proven/unproven tests, both with their own little groups and systems of education. Some people wear jewish hats, some wear labcoats, some wear burqas, some wear pocket protectors...

 

[SFMCjohn]

love thinking about the “is science a religion/
is religion science?” stuff ... :thumbup

enjoyed this article:

Religion and Science
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 01/17/17

... “science” and “religion” are not eternally unchanging terms with unambiguous meanings. Indeed, they are terms that were coined recently, with meanings that vary across times and cultures. Before the nineteenth century, the term “religion” was rarely used. The term “religion” obtained its considerably broader current meaning through the works of early anthropologists, such as E.B. Tylor (1871), who systematically used the term for religions across the world.

The term “science” as it is currently used also became common only in the nineteenth century. Prior to this, what we call “science” was referred to as “natural philosophy” or “experimental philosophy” ...

wrt fears of indoctrination, kids seem pretty resistant/resilient to me ...

in fact most parents of teens I know
would pay almost anything for some guaranteed
indoctrination ... :dunno:laughing

 

[stangmx13]

As a philosophical aside, I wonder if you could consider science a religion? "Pretty close to facts" would be a generous concession from many religious people, otherwise their thing is just a fact. Proving scientific principles is real, but the benefits of not killing each other is real too. God, while being a very specific and singular "thing", could maybe be paralleled to figuring out some major unknown, both with their own processes and proven/unproven tests, both with their own little groups and systems of education. Some people wear jewish hats, some wear labcoats, some wear burqas, some wear pocket protectors...

I don’t understand what u mean by that.

 

[byke]

Just from their perspective. If you find one that says, "I think, but I don't really know", you've pretty much found the one raving mad hippie that doesn't belong. Otherwise, most of them "know" there's a god. I was just paralleling the perception of things that are pretty close to a fact between religion and science.

 

[bojangle]

Just from their perspective. If you find one that says, "I think, but I don't really know", you've pretty much found the one raving mad hippie that doesn't belong. Otherwise, most of them "know" there's a god. I was just paralleling the perception of things that are pretty close to a fact between religion and science.

Scientific theories can be tested, and replicated. Religious beliefs cannot.

 

[byke]

Not entirely true. "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't need a whole lot of testing to prove that it's a good rule for keeping people around. You could try to test the theory out if you reeeaaally wanted to, but I don't think it'd work out very well. And there are other "rules" like that which are generally accepted as being true. You could argue those generally accepted beliefs are parallels to scientific theories.

 

[bojangle]

Not entirely true. "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't need a whole lot of testing to prove that it's a good rule for keeping people around. You could try to test the theory out if you reeeaaally wanted to, but I don't think it'd work out very well. And there are other "rules" like that which are generally accepted as being true. You could argue those generally accepted beliefs are parallels to scientific theories.

Not killing others isn't only a religious belief, and it's not science. It's a general consensus among people that killing other people is a bad thing to do, with a number of exceptions. Governments have secular laws against killing that have nothing to do with God or religion.

I see it like this. Early religions served as a means to control people. They were a form of early government. Early religions also attempted to explain how we came to be when we lacked any scientific answers.

When one wanted to control a band of wandering people, and set some "laws" up to control behavior, without an organized government and army to enforce those laws, what better way to create 10 "laws" for all to follow than to convince people that an all knowing, powerful, and vengeful God created them? Don't listen to me. Listen to God.

 

[UDRider]

Not entirely true. "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't need a whole lot of testing to prove that it's a good rule for keeping people around. You could try to test the theory out if you reeeaaally wanted to, but I don't think it'd work out very well. And there are other "rules" like that which are generally accepted as being true. You could argue those generally accepted beliefs are parallels to scientific theories.

Not even fucking close. Let's take "Thou shalt not kill" Putting a side that it deals with social norms and moral values and not in any particular scientific principle, and a better comparison of it would be to Humanist values. It's a commandment. There is no why, there is no analysis, it's just don't fucking do it. Why? Because I (God) said so. There is no change, or improvement, it is static. In religion everything ends one way: God. You hear the same thing over and over "Oh he has the divine plan.", "God knows best.", etc.

On the other hand science deals with why, at its core it is fluid and if evidence no longer supports a theory it will be changed. It strives to improve.

 

[byke]

Not killing others isn't only a religious belief, and it's not science. It's a general consensus among people that killing other people is a bad thing to do, with a number of exceptions. Governments have secular laws against killing that have nothing to do with God or religion.

I see it like this. Early religions served as a means to control people. They were a form of early government. Early religions also attempted to explain how we came to be when we lacked any scientific answers.

When one wanted to control a band of wandering people, and set some "laws" up to control behavior, without an organized government and army to enforce those laws, what better way to create 10 "laws" for all to follow than to convince people that an all knowing, powerful, and vengeful God created them? Don't listen to me. Listen to God.

It's not singular, so I'm not saying it's science, I'm saying that if you had a theory that murder was harmful to society and you asked a scientist to test it, they could. A scientific principle can be applied to almost anything and you can't really say those secular law2s have nothing to do with religion, just look at what came first. Like....waaaaaaaaaay first. And I totally agree about one of the main reasons why it was invented, as a way of gaining order. There was virtually zero measures of external control, so internal control was the only practical method. Doesn't pertain to the religion/science parallels, but it's fun to think about regardless.

Not even fucking close. Let's take "Thou shalt not kill" Putting a side that it deals with social norms and moral values and not in any particular scientific principle, and a better comparison of it would be to Humanist values. It's a commandment. There is no why, there is no analysis, it's just don't fucking do it. Why? Because I (God) said so. There is no change, or improvement, it is static. In religion everything ends one way: God. You hear the same thing over and over "Oh he has the divine plan.", "God knows best.", etc.

On the other hand science deals with why, at its core it is fluid and if evidence no longer supports a theory it will be changed. It strives to improve.

You're saying that god (hypothetically) made a rule of not killing people just because he said so and there was no benefit behind it and if there were a benefit, it could not be formulated by any sort of scientific principle? I'd have to disagree.

 

[UDRider]

You're saying that god (hypothetically) made a rule of not killing people just because he said so and there was no benefit behind it and if there were a benefit, it could not be formulated by any sort of scientific principle? I'd have to disagree.

That's not even close to what I am saying.
It can be formulated in "scientific" principle, and that's what humanists try to do. That's not what happening with religion. On religious side is just commandments and no formulation of why, or digging more in to it. Every question has the same answer: God. There is no discussion of why it might be good and beneficial, or various nuisances, there is just "God said so.".

 

[byke]

Okay, I agree that's probably the way much of it goes because you've got to shut that annoying kid up that keeps asking "why" every step of the way, but if you imagine any sort of reasonable religious person (oxymoron not intended) trying to compare science to religion, don't you think they'd dive into it a bit beyond "because god said so"? And just because they may not discuss these things normally, would that invalidate any parallels if they did decide to engage in more of a philosophical sense?

 

[UDRider]

Okay, I agree that's probably the way much of it goes because you've got to shut that annoying kid up that keeps asking "why" every step of the way, but if you imagine any sort of reasonable religious person (oxymoron not intended) trying to compare science to religion, don't you think they'd dive into it a bit beyond "because god said so"? And just because they may not discuss these things normally, would that invalidate any parallels if they did decide to engage in more of a philosophical sense?

Nope. Go and look any debate on morality between atheists and apologists. There is no depth to it besides bible says so and bible is word fo God. Although good chunk of them devolve in to a circle jerk about God existence, and better Christian apologists obfuscate better. So there is that.

I get you started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EigYzeXngq4
Been a while since I watched it, but if I remember correctly it's one of the better ones.
There is another one with pre-suppositionist that is just bat shit crazy stuff, or at least less obfuscation on apologists part.

 

[byke]

Two hours? You dick.

I'll have a beer and check it out tonight.

 

[UDRider]

Two hours? You dick.

I'll have a beer and check it out tonight.

Yeah, most of them are at least hour and a half. Mostly it's bullshit, but it gives you the idea of latest and greatest epistemology from professional apologists. The average Christian, or religious, person? Judging by people who call in to various atheists show to argue their points don't really think too hard past "God exists, bible says so."

 

[SFMCjohn]

Not killing others isn't only a religious belief, and it's not science. It's a general consensus among people that killing other people is a bad thing to do, with a number of exceptions. Governments have secular laws against killing that have nothing to do with God or religion.

I see it like this. Early religions served as a means to control people. They were a form of early government. Early religions also attempted to explain how we came to be when we lacked any scientific answers.

When one wanted to control a band of wandering people, and set some "laws" up to control behavior, without an organized government and army to enforce those laws, what better way to create 10 "laws" for all to follow than to convince people that an all knowing, powerful, and vengeful God created them? Don't listen to me. Listen to God.

agree with all that, especially the part about our curiosity and need for answers—any answer—until our curiosity inevitably leads us to better answers ...

wrt religious beliefs that have scientific explanations think of cleanliness, dietary restrictions and taboos against incest ...

agree that we won’t ever have scientific proof that angels have wings or that god sports a beard, and we’ll always live in a world with religious fundamentalists ... and in the meantime we’ll have the replication crisis and other scientific theories that can’t be proved because we simply haven’t thought of the right experiment yet ...

what I love about human beings is that the monks with their peas, or Galileo or Newton all probably had an education that was as dogmatic as the one in the OP, but that curiosity overcame whatever was accepted at the time in order to produce real paradigm shifts in understanding ...

anyway, fun to think about ... arty