I took world religion in college. It opened my eyes. Before that my religious knowledge was that of a 1st grader. Please don't laugh when I say this......before that college class I did not know that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believed in the same God.
Virginia, I believe the same. However, you will find many people of those same faiths who will say that it is NOT the same God. It's really a matter of opinion.
I think we can agree that there may be a couple of problems with teaching religion in a science class. The difficulty with finding a teacher qualified and objective enough to teach it in a non-science class has already been covered. Imagine the difficulty in finding someone qualified to teach science who is actually willing to teach religion in a science class. I'm working on a Ph.D. in biology. I'm doing supervised teaching right now and will, of course, teach as a professor when I get the degree. I can't imagine how I could introduce religion into the subject matter. There is no place for it. Yes I know there are those who want to introduce the concept of Intelligent Design as an alternative to natural selection. But then you have the concept of an Intelligent Designer. That's a problem right there, because if there were an Intelligent Designer, many will argue that the I.D. was not very competent. Look at disease, deformed births, not to mention the many extinctions of species that just didn't work out. What happened with the Neanderthals? They were intelligent. They believed in an afterlife apparently. And they even shared genetic material with our ancestors. But they're gone. And of course, you have the problem that there is no evidence of an Intelligent Designer. And you have to have evidence in science. No, this is a concept for discussion in religion or philosophy classes. Then we come to the biggest hurdle for those who promote teaching religion in science class. Which religion? Yup, there's more than one. Some, like the Christians, Muslims, and Jews have the same God. No, sorry, they all believe in the same God. All three of those faiths teach that there is only one God. If so, then they all believe in the same One. Different names, same God. I was raised Shinto. We call the creator amenominakanushi no kami. But there is only one. We know that the creator kami is responsible for all the universe and all life. There are no details as to how it was done, so we just accept that. There is an aspect of the creator kami in all of us and in every creature, rock, tree, etc. This is certainly compatible with the Christian teaching that God is everywhere, I think. But then there are religions with a number of gods. And then there is Buddhism. The Buddha is not exactly a god, but is certainly connected to a divine existence. What about that? You see the problems? There are no beliefs in science itself. Some scientists may have religious beliefs. I have strong spiritual beliefs. I believe that I can speak to my ancestors and that they will guide me. I believe that when my husband passes on, his spirit will stay with me and guide me. But those are beliefs. I have no evidence for them. Scientists have opinions but not beliefs. A belief is something that you hold even though you cannot prove it. An opinion, or as scientists call them, an hypothesis, can be proven right or wrong. One large and interesting question, to some, is the evolution of birds. Obviously, there is no question that they evolved, but the process is not really understood right now. Most think that humans began to evolve in Africa. There is a small minority that suggest an origin in Asia. I'm rooting for Asia, but the Africa guys are probably right. The evidence shows that we humans did evolve at three different points. My morphology is different in several characteristics, from most you reading this. Anyway, I could go on and on. My husband will tell you that I talk constantly. He doesn't seem to mind, but I have to get on with what I need to do today.
Faith is something that needs to be instilled in the home. Religion is a slippery slope because of the vast assortment of them. The world has many religions and I wouldn't want my children "taught" each one. Believe it or not Jesus was not about "religion". It was "religious" men that persecuted and eventually killed him on the cross. Jesus was about leading followers to his Father through himself. So to answer the question "no".
Having been stationed all over the world, I have studied the basics of many languages and cultural aspects of the citizens of those countries. Although I am no expert, I can discuss many of them without biases towards those beliefs. It is what it is and even though it does not line up with my beliefs, I can respect theirs. So, could someone teach this effectively? I would say yes.
I have had kids in several different school systems over the years. I can't say I'd trust any one of the administrations to pick a teacher that is qualified to teach my kids anything about religion. Far too often teachers are chosen for reasons other than their qualifications to teach certain subjects. Nepotism, connections, convenience, and coaching abilities have seemed to be far more important in many cases I have witnessed. Don't get me wrong, we have seen the majority of teachers we've had teach our kids be very good teachers well suited for their positions. That said, religion is far too important in my life to trust it to chance. I think I am the best teacher when it comes to the subject of religion. Keep it out of school.
There is a difference in teaching and passing on to your child an in depth education on your religion and teaching children the basic concepts of each religion. Knowing the major religions will afford children the building blocks of accepting cultural and religious ideas that are not their own. By denying this education, the polarization between people of different faiths will continue to divide the nation.
There is a difference between teaching religion, and teaching ABOUT the various religions that exist through out the world. I think this is where the debate is getting very skewed. To me this would belong in a history/cultures class setting. To teach that people in other parts of the world believe in different gods and have different rituals doesn't fall into science to me.
Nor does it fall into science for me, but I believe to fully develop social skills and critical thinking, it needs to be taught.
The problem is that religion all over the world birthed science. So we can teach about its impact on history, culture, government, but not on science, education, etc. This is proof that it can't be done without bias b/c if science is off limits then the image of religion's impact on human civilization is skewed and incomplete. And science is based in belief and faith. Most scientists aren't intellectually honest enough to admit their underlying philosophies influence their interpretation of data. Objectivity is a myth or an outright lie.
I dont think your logic of religion birthed science really has any good correlation between eachother. And I agree, there is bias to everything, but, I think by objectivity they mean as objective as possible without trying to proselytize or put their own beliefs into what they are teaching.
Even Albert Einstein saw the correlation between science and religion and said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
But what about Stephen Hawking? He had a higher IQ and can understand string theory, however, he is an atheist. We shouldn't use people and their views as evidence or proof.
I don't disagree with what you are saying. I just don't believe it can be done objectively on a consistent basis in a public school.
I spent hundreds of hours studying this very topic. I have nothing against science. I'm a former academic in the field of religion who is now in healthcare for heaven's sake. If a class on religion should be taught in school then do it comprehensively. My whole reason for doing this has been to show that it can't be done b/c people will refuse to allow the new religion of science and its priesthood to be included in the curriculum. Why is that? Because scientists BELIEVE they are above it all as keepers of the sacred truth that answers all the most fundamental questions of human existence in the universe, a position once taken (and still is) by religions. Refusal to include science in a discussion of religions in a class is an inherent statement of faith that science is superior and should not be sullied by such trivialities.
Yes, I do. He is stating that science can show some things but cannot explain all. If you'd like a direct quote from Einstein himself: "science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be." Whereas religion teaches the objectivity of Truth, Beauty and Goodness. Together they can show the greatness of our existence. However, if you only at one or the other, your understanding will be limited to a very biased view.
Agreed. I went through 12 years of Catholic school and one of the better classes was World Religions. It was a required class. I'm sure there was some bias coming from the teacher as to why the Catholic religion is better, but I didn't pay much attention to him and only to the content. It was that class that made me realize that there is much more out there and the "brainwashing" ceased. Not teaching our kids about all the major religions is a huge mistake, especially for those who raise their kids to a particular faith. Its akin to raising your kids as a racist and not teaching them that there are many views out there.
