I would like to debate with you, I really would, but your understanding of science is deeply biased and flawed.
The out come of what you are describing could be completely opposite depending on how it is taught. Our kids were taught by us about race and turned out quite well. Any influence on them to be racist came from outside our home, not from lack of teaching them of the many different views. I can say the same on how we raised them in our faith. Who do you trust to raise your kids better than yourself? Especially when teaching them the important things in life.
You forgot to add "in my opinion", which is your right to do, but I would completely disagree with your opinion.
True. Einstein was so far above me intellectually that I'm not able to properly interpret anything he said, but I do believe that his view or concept of religion is vastly different than what you think.
Id have to agree, world religions should be taught at religious schools. If you do truly believe in your faith, it should only affirm you faith. You can't shelter someone from opposite views and expect them to understand their religion. I think you learn more about your faith when defending it from people who are picking it apart, than by blindly following. Kind of like you learn more from defeats than victories.
I already posted, but I was kind of wondering what this thread topic has to do with ethics? May The Sheep Be With You
I.......I..Uh...........I ***Through clenched teeth*** 100% agree with Hooker here... I need a shower now ....
I have to present whether it is ethical to give equal time to religions view of the world and how we got today as we do science in public schools. It will be presented from the Deontological theory, the Act and Rule Utilitarian theory, and the Virtue theory.
Okay, I see your explanation but I still don't see a connection to ethics. You know, something to think about too, is that there are many fields to science. You have inorganic and organic chemistry, physics, biology, and that's just in high school. In college there is a multitude of subdivisions of those fields.
So from what I'm getting from this is you can't teach other cultures without putting a big emphasis on different religions?
I am biased from a decade of studying 2000+ years of western and near eastern history, theology, philosophy, and the development and evolution of science. If my understanding was limited to modern science, which is atheistic for the most part then I wouldn't involved myself in this thread. I understand the roots of science were in religion and philosophy ( a subset of religion) and took millennia to develop into what it is today. That is not a flawed view. It is an honest one based in a rational study of human history.
In eastern Asia, if you don't know Daoism, Buddhism and Confucianism, you won't understand how their society and culture operate fully. In Central Asia, if you don't know Hindi and Islam, you won't understand fully their culture and society. If you don't know the orthodox Christianity and Islamic beliefs prominent in the Caucasus region, you won't fully understand their culture and society. Different religions in different areas of the world are the foundation for the cultures of that region.
My apologies, but your view, no matter how much study went into it, is flawed. We only have to consider your comment that science is atheistic to know that you don't understand science. People who work in the various scientific fields are merely studying the natural world. It's not atheistic, polytheistic, monotheistic or any kind of theistic. It's no more atheistic than mathematics. Some researchers are atheists of course, and some are not. Some, like me, are very committed to religious faith. It doesn't matter though. Try to understand. We don't study the natural world from the view of any particular religious dogma. My particular field is embryology. It wouldn't matter if I were Hindu, Rastafarian, Catholic or Shinto. The biological principles are exactly the same. Okay? There may be some overlap between philosophy and religion, but it seems to me that philosophy has always been an attempt to understand the human condition separate from the constraints of religious dogma. I can accept that science might have roots in philosophy as a continuation of the quest for knowledge. But the conclusions arrived at in science, have to be arrived at through observation and/or experiment. I respect my ancestors and I speak with them, but they are no help in my research. May The Sheep Be With You
Really? this is the problem I've seen in science and scientists: a refusal to understand and admit the philosophical underpinnings of science and scientists. The statements are almost universal: "I have beliefs but I put them aside to be purely objective and use pure reason alone." That is the flawed view. It is impossible to put personal beliefs aside and be purely objective. Data is data but interpretation is subjective. The fact that scientists have to state that they use pure reason alone divorced from religious belief is one definition of atheism, ie theistic influence on interpretation of data is not allowed.
LOL... Same here... as far as the lines you quoted. I actually would like for my son to have a better understanding of other's religious views. If our faith view is solid... and I am certain it is... quite so... then he will be better prepared for challenges to his faith. He wants to be a marine biologist... Pretty sure his views will be challenged in college. He attends "LAMP high-school" which is the number 1 rated magnet school in the entire nation. He interacts with many students from ... you name the culture. And get this... his faith has not waivered at all. He has discovered that he can love people, even if they hold different beliefs than his, without being infected with "religious cooties." Science... is simply seeking explanations for the discoveries found in the world around us. For many, a religious view is the lens through which certain discoveries are explained, whether correctly or not. For others, the idea that a religious view can explain the things discovered is impossible to comprehend. But what is intolerable to me... as a bible thumper... as a preacher of the gospel...or whatever name someone chooses to call me... is that anyone would use either their religious views or their scientific views... to denigrate other... to silence others... to eradicate others... or practice any form of socialized bigotry toward others. There's no place for that in any society... yet it clearly exists in all cultures. The idea that religion can be taught without forcing anyone to accept anyone's religious view as "fact" is clearly do-able, yet it is frightening and potentially painful to many.
I agree with everything you said above and wanted to quote this portion as I have often wondered what people on both sides of this issue fear. Is it because you are not sure of your standpoint and are afraid that someone might make you realize what you have believed all your life might be wrong? To make an educated decision do you not need all views both supporting and opposing to be present for the best decision?
From Acts chapter 7. When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, And cast him out of the city, and stoned him I guess it is much easier to inflict pain to others than deal with one's own issues.
Last minutes to vote on this. Then, it goes into the slide show for the presentation this evening.........
