As part of my education, I had to study atheists, postmodernists, deconstructionists, humanists, scientific philosophers, buddhism, islam, etc. & not just church history and theology. Most people in those groups I mention do not do the same due diligence before passing judgment on those they disagree with, nor does the avg Christian. Why? It takes years of intellectual inquiry not just a general survey of different systems of belief. This culture is no longer capable of that level of thought in general b/c if it can't be condensed to a sound bite then it's too hard.
So, does that mean we don't fix the culture and accept it as it is? Or is it more ethical to address the problem and over time correct it?
Good luck with that. If cultures could be fixed then Greece, Rome, Europe, etc. wouldn't be footnotes in history. As long as people are educated in public schools that teach to the lowest common standard, there's no chance of changing this cultural trajectory. Teachers' unions won't allow higher standards. So tell me how to overcome those powerful lobbies and I might reconsider what history teaches me. To stay on point. Any religion class taught in public schools would most likely be skewed toward secular humanist philosophies since the boards of education responsible for curriculum development are influenced by that viewpoint. So it could not be an unbiased course to meet state imposed standards based on political, philosophical, and judicial considerations.
I was under the impression that this hypothetical class was just a history or class on how certain religions influenced the world. But I do agree that the average public school teacher is not smart enough to separate personal beliefs for such a class.
How do you overcome powerful lobbies? By not remaining silent. In cases like this, if the silent majority became the vocal majority, politicians would be too scared of not being able to keep their jobs if they bucked them.
The premise of a purely objective class is the flaw. It's impossible for anyone to completely remove personal beliefs from something. The only way someone could be purely objective would be if they lived completely removed from culture and society and just observed from a distance. Even then I don't think it's truly possible. Look at "journalism" if you don't believe me. Everyone has beliefs that shape their perspective and that leads to an agenda whether they are honest enough to admit it or mot.
Yeah, the silent majority is too busy working to pay the tax burden and take care of their families to try to stand up to politically connected and moneyed groups that are known to resort to tactics seen in most communist revolutions. Trust me I thought about these same things when I was the protégé of a communist professor. I'm now a libertarian, so I want to see the silent majority rise up and remind the gov't that we are their employers and it is our will that they do. The only way this class could work is if the will of people at the local level put people in place that could develop responsible curriculum to do it based on each individual community's standards, not communal standards of the state.
I voted "No." I think it would be a good thing, but I doubt that we could reliably find teachers who could do an unbiased presentation. Religion is obviously not appropriate in a science class. The creation story is not an alternative for the origins of the universe, life, and species differentiation.
Intelligent design is different than the creation story. There are actually many scientists that believe the currently accepted origin theory of billions upon billions of spontaneous, random accidents leading to advanced, complex living systems to be flawed. Most are cautious to speak up b/c they will be blacklisted, stripped of tenure, and lose grants. I have read some of their philosophies of science based on their own research in physics, biology, & chemistry. It needs to be clearly stated that science is the new approved religion for modern society and scientists are the new priesthood. Just as in the middle centuries when the church persecuted those who spoke against established orthodoxy, so to does the modern scientific establishment. The only difference is today people are ridiculed, marginalized, or careers are ruined instead of burning heretics at the stake. If one understands a basic law of science that the universe progresses from order to chaos then the glaring flaw of the theory of evolution becomes clear. Evolution states that the order seen in complex living systems arose out of chaos, which violates a basic scientific law. The definition of a miracle is something that occurs which violates the laws of nature (scientific laws). Therefore, the theory of evolution is based on a premise that must be seen as miraculous, which makes it a statement of faith, or a religious belief. So science when it comes to origin of life is in fact a religious belief based in faith. I have no illusions that scientists will admit this or that it would ever filter down to public schools. It would violate the agenda of secularizing the society and culture.
I would haveta agree with what someone said earlier, a child's beliefs should be something learned from their parents until they can make their own decisons on what and what not to believe in. Now if it was some sort of history type class that shows how religion has changed or effected different times throughout history, pretty sure I had somethimg like that in hs. Most of my decision comes from some cousins I have that are home schooled with religion being the big emphasis and they are the most out of touch kids I've ever met. I realize this is a little different situation but I'm not real convinced most public schools are capable of doin much better, the standards as is seem to be dropping anyway.
Thomas Kuhn, a renowned philosopher of science and physicist states that science modifies their beliefs on a constant basis. What is believed as solid, will tomorrow be proved as fallacy. The biggest difference is science has modified its scientific hypothesis on how we got here thousands of times while creationism and ID have remained basically the same.
I would agree except where it comes to the science of origins. Evolutionary theory has become sacred and any attempt to disprove it or offer alternative hypotheses is met with hostility, lawsuits, etc.
In regard to Kuhn, origin science has been in the normal, conservative science paradigm for a long time. Whereas, many other areas have been in the revisionary (revolutionary) paradigm for just as long because of the rate of discoveries. The conservative paradigm resists revision and stagnates until the flood of scientific inquiry forces it to adapt. That is Kuhn's main premise. Any religion class in a public school would have to discuss it's role in the development of scientific inquiry not just its impact on culture and government. I'm not sure public school teachers in today's society are intellectually capable of teaching that. Maybe 150+ years ago it could've been done, but not today.
As an elective, absolutely Hooker, but who would teach it? Hmmm? That's a wild thought. I am with Fitz on this in that choosing who teaches religion and how one is credentialed to do so is a tough question. How about offering classical studies that deal with the writings of men like Augustine and the history and issues dealt with in the early counsels using just the recorded facts and the issues raised in the early debates. Students can make up their own mind if they choose. As far as forcing a viewpoint, that's a bit dicey. As far as avoiding viewpoints in science class... when schools stop using "scientific" views (and in any other subject for that matter) to interfere with the free exercise of religious views, then the religion may genuinely be taught as a stand alone course. I am not for schools getting to use a class to tear religious views down while not allowing those with strong religious convictions to defend their views openly. It absolutely should be allowed but not forced on any who choose not to participate.
I voted yes but not in science. I think world religion should be a discussion type class. We need a wider view IMO
I responded yes in science class. The reason for this is because macro evolution, the change of one species into another is not science. Macro evolution also deals with the origin of species and the universe. The scientific formula deals with observing things in a controlled setting where you can re create a setting and observe what takes place. No one can re create the origin of the universe in a lab. In the science classroom macro evolution is taught as a fact, when the truth is it is not even science. It is rooted in naturalism and atheism but it is not science. It does not fit under the topic of true science but it does classify under another subject and that is philosophy. Since evolution is not going to be removed from science classrooms I believe intelligent design should be explained as just as possible and logical explanation as evolution. In addition, I agree with many others that a world religions class or history of Christianity class should be offered as an elective in public schools.
