Bryspoon, Religion is based on believing it to be true without any scientific fact. Because scientific fact and religion does not exist. There is no proof or evidence for christ, or god... just stories in a book. The book has as much evidence and proof as the book on scientology has in it. We all know scientology is a load of BS... But both have the exact same amount of evidence. Which leads to faith. You MUST have faith in your religion or religion doesn't exist. If you claim to be religious, then you should rethink your stance. Since there is no evidence for religion... and obviously you prefer to have proof of something then to blindly "believe it to be true" as you put it.
While scientific fact and religious belief are not one in the same, I think that scientific fact can point toward a belief in God. As you stated, there is no proof for the existence of Christ, or God. However, there is evidence and evidence can be viewed in a number of different ways by a number of different people. While there is definitely no certitude in the belief in God (and I doubt that there ever will be), I surely believe that there is an extremely high degree of probability based on evidence.
While scientific fact and religious belief are not one in the same, I think that scientific fact can point toward a belief in God. As you stated, there is no proof for the existence of Christ, or God. However, there is evidence and evidence can be viewed in a number of different ways by a number of different people. While there is definitely no certitude in the belief in God (and I doubt that there ever will be), I surely believe that there is an extremely high degree of probability based on evidence.
msun: Knives scoop ice cream.
Highroller: No they don't, knives don't scoop. Spoons scoop.
msun: Well, knives SHOULD scoop icecream.
Highroller: We have spoons that do it. Moreover, the shape of a knife that would scoop ice cream would make it horrible for performing the functions of a knife.
msun: Highroller, you bring up spoons as though they were the utensil used for scooping ice cream.
While scientific fact and religious belief are not one in the same, I think that scientific fact can point toward a belief in God. As you stated, there is no proof for the existence of Christ, or God. However, there is evidence and evidence can be viewed in a number of different ways by a number of different people. While there is definitely no certitude in the belief in God (and I doubt that there ever will be), I surely believe that there is an extremely high degree of probability based on evidence.
Or it could be that people like connections and things that fit together. They would automatically attribute any type of miracle as "evidence" of God.
The thing is, we only hear about the prayers that work. The ones where you pray, and God answers and cures you of cancer. How many times have someone prayed and nobody answered and he or she died?
How many Moses's were there before the one that got lucky appeared?
I don't personally have a religion and consider myself agnostic and I don't personally have anything against any religion.
However, I disagree with you that science can prove the existence of God, as it seems to me, it probably has a high chance of doing the exact opposite.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[thread=52196][Alliance of Rogue Deckers!][/thread][My Cube List]
For instance, archaological evidence discovered from when Jesus was alive points toward the Bible being factually correct.
umm doesn't the evidence only points out that there was someone name Jesus?? that hardly explain that he IS the direct decedent of god, saying that a few archaeological evidence that the whole bible is true is stretching it a little here.
unless what you meant to say is that "evidence points out that part of what that is stated in the bible is true."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
cookie wizards of the the simic
Quote from !Chucklez! »
In summation: You are not inherintely superior for using a rogue deck.
Read what he said.
For instance, archaeological evidence discovered from when Jesus was alive points toward the Bible being factually correct.
In reputable science, when they find something that links back to a historical writing, it does lend credence to the story. Take Troy. For a very long time Troy was believed to have been simply made up by Homer. But, when a large city was found, about where he described it as being, well, it lent credence to his poems having historical basis.
However! In no shape or fashion does that mean that Apollo actually existed to send his plague to the Greeks, or that any of the other Greek gods mentioned existed either.
Now, take this to the Bible. Finding factual (read verifiable) evidence that there was a Jesus and that he was a guru/prophet or finding evidence of cities or other people mentioned in the Bible means just that. There would then be evidence that a man did live and that he did wander about preaching. There was such and such city and its ruler was so and so, and so on.
But, that does not lend any credence to the idea that Yahweh existed/exists and can not be construed to mean Jesus was the son of god. Various deities exist or don't exist apart from historical evidence. There is a reason it is called 'faith'.
There is no justifiable reason to teach a matter of faith in the same way that a matter of fact is taught. To even suggest such a thing is not the product of a logical mind. Having faith is a good thing, yes, but it is a personal matter and should be approached as such and not approached as a matter of public cannon.
Legacy/Vintage GWREnchanted Eve (building) ~ BPoxy Pox
Standard WUMeow-Go~BU Infection
Casual BWAngel Doom ~ GRWWarpride ~ WGUStoic Control (ARG)
EDH BRGWUScion of the Ur-Dragon ~ BSiezan, The Perverter of Truth ~ W 8.5 Tails (needs work) All my Decks.
I apologize, I thought you guys could read English. That God exists and Jesus was his son is a belief, and therefore would not be included when we're talking about facts, which can be proven or disproven.
Also, I don't believe those stories are as accurate as you make them out to be.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
The thing is, the Christian religion (as well as, to my knowledge, almost all others) is more than faith in some untestable propositions about the world. A believer is asked to have faith in propositions that are testable, too - for example, "Jesus rose from the dead". In principle, we could test this, whether through advanced archaeological techniques or more exotic methods; the information is there if we can interpret it, in the bones and dust of the Holy Land and racing away from Earth at the speed of light. Extremestan's Augustinian response to counterscientific naturalistic claims like creationism has some merit - but what is Christianity to do if science bumps heads with religion on such core naturalistic beliefs? What if it is discovered that the man we call Jesus rotted away in that tomb?
And what makes this a 'core belief', anyway? The Bible makes tons of naturalistic claims, and just a few centuries ago to deny any one of them would have been theologically risky. Of course the waters of Egypt once turned to blood; of course the sun once stood still for Joshua. Nowadays I think most educated mainstream Christians would not be terribly distraught if these claims were shown to be untrue, just as most Christian intellectuals have accepted evolution. But naturalistic claims about events in the life of the Messiah seem to be on a different sort of footing. Not all of them, to be sure; my own raised-in-contemporary-Christian-culture sensibilities tell me that the story of his turning water to wine could probably be abandoned at need. But the healing? The transfiguration? The resurrection and assumption? If modern Christians are asked, by the principles espoused by St. Augustine, to give belief in these propositions up, too, then what is left?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It's rather simple to prove that something like Jesus raising from the dead didn't happen. Find the tomb that contains his body. Invent a time machine or time viewer and watch the events unfold. Find the people that he healed and show that they were still sick. But I won't talk about Christian reactions to those events happening, because they're not going to happen.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
I would like to first clarify this point: I have not read all of the posts here. they are numerous, and my time is limited. So I apologize if I am just rehashing things already stated.
I would secondly like to clarify this point: I have no interest in creationism being taught in schools. I do not believe taking any religious text literally has positive results, and I do not believe that Creationism (the literal interpretation of the Bible's Book of Genesis), has any place in a thinking person's head. Note that my loathing of Creationism does not preclude any interest in Intelligent Design, provided that it's not used as a foot-in-the-door FOR Creationism.
Evolution is not bulletproof. Darwin himself was vexed by the flowering plant, and he knew that there would be no fossilized evidence of transitional stages of the developing flower, and it frustrated him to no end. The problem with an incredibly complex means of reproduction (a flower), is that it requires an immense amount of the plant's energy to operate. Darwin knew that if, in a transitional stage, a plant had a nonfunctioning reproductive apparatus, it would be horridly inefficient, and the plant would almost certainly die off because it would be unable to compete for resources with surrounding plants (survival of the fittest) as it was busy pumping enegry into opening and closing a useless, massive flap of tissue. The angiosperm (flowering plant) also lets another problem rear its ugly head: did the animals that pollinate the flowers come first, or did the pollen-bearing plants come first? There is a clear line in the fossil record where flowering plants started showing up. The early Cretaceous is where that line is drawn.
This is a site I stumbled across (Obviously a University of Florida site) in which the author, a professor writing notes for his class, lays out in painstaking detail, while still supporting evolution every step of the way, the FACT that WE HAVE NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL RECORD FOR PLANTS. None whatsoever. In fact, the fossil record is lacking in other areas, such as all of them. We have countless examples of "ancestors" of species, countless examples of modern "descendants", but little to no transitional examples.
The theory of Evolution was proposed in a time when scientists were battling to discredit any biblical interpretation of existence. Science needed Darwin, and it needed evolution. Without them, science, ALL branches of science, would not be the basis of rational thought today. Our world would be much different, and I don't think I'd much care for it. No theory is strong, however, unless all legitimate arguments made against it can be addressed, and the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' line that rigid supporters of evolution use when discussing the abysmal fossil record backing of their theory is getting tired. How long should we look? We've already spent over a hundred years meticulously collecting fossils. Why haven't the early almost-flowering plants shown up? We know where to look in the geological strata, and we've BEEN looking there, but there's nothing to be found.
A note: I'm not saying that evolution doesn't exist. I believe, however, that since (as almost anybody would agree) almost all mutations are either neutral or detrimental, it must play a SIGNIFICANTLY smaller role in the development of life rather than, you know, THE ENTIRE ROLE.
I really don't have time right now, but the new physics may be showing us a feasible form of intelligent design. It's the whole electron thing. Physicists call what electrons are capable of doing 'bilocation'. Literally, the electron can be in more than one place at any given time, and at times it can disappear entirely. Further, it can be studied as a waveform or as a particle. Most interestingly though, quantum theory has data verifying that it's not a particle until it's observed. Observation literally as the creation of 'reality'. Conciousness giving form to indefinite waves in space. This explains what has been called the 'anthropomorphic principle', the idea that conditions in the universe are just right for human life, for ANY life as we know it. I'm not just talking about our distance from the sun. I'm talking about everything. Gravity, for instance. There is no reason gravity is not 1/10000000 th of an order of magnitude stronger, which would result in its overcoming of the weak nuclear force and crashing our electrons into our nuclei. This is just one example, and I would urge anyone interested to seek further information. As I said before, though, I've got no time. Got to go to work
The thing is, the Christian religion (as well as, to my knowledge, almost all others) is more than faith in some untestable propositions about the world. A believer is asked to have faith in propositions that are testable, too - for example, "Jesus rose from the dead". In principle, we could test this, whether through advanced archaeological techniques or more exotic methods; the information is there if we can interpret it, in the bones and dust of the Holy Land and racing away from Earth at the speed of light. Extremestan's Augustinian response to counterscientific naturalistic claims like creationism has some merit - but what is Christianity to do if science bumps heads with religion on such core naturalistic beliefs? What if it is discovered that the man we call Jesus rotted away in that tomb?
And what makes this a 'core belief', anyway? The Bible makes tons of naturalistic claims, and just a few centuries ago to deny any one of them would have been theologically risky. Of course the waters of Egypt once turned to blood; of course the sun once stood still for Joshua. Nowadays I think most educated mainstream Christians would not be terribly distraught if these claims were shown to be untrue, just as most Christian intellectuals have accepted evolution. But naturalistic claims about events in the life of the Messiah seem to be on a different sort of footing. Not all of them, to be sure; my own raised-in-contemporary-Christian-culture sensibilities tell me that the story of his turning water to wine could probably be abandoned at need. But the healing? The transfiguration? The resurrection and assumption? If modern Christians are asked, by the principles espoused by St. Augustine, to give belief in these propositions up, too, then what is left?
A core belief is a belief upon which the doctrinal "engine" relies on to operate. Actual, historical fulfillment of prophecy is a core belief. The historical reality of events surrounding that fulfillment (water into wine) could likewise be considered a core belief, else the actual historicity of the fulfillment might be in question. We regard things as "possibly figurative" only when their literal historicity is not required to sustain the engine. It's a happy coincidence, or perhaps something else, that science hasn't encroached on our core territory.
EDIT: With Jesus it's called the Ascension, not the Assumption (Mary was Assumed, not Jesus).
This is a site I stumbled across (Obviously a University of Florida site) in which the author, a professor writing notes for his class, lays out in painstaking detail, while still supporting evolution every step of the way, the FACT that WE HAVE NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL RECORD FOR PLANTS. None whatsoever.
We have some transitional plant fossil evidence. Look up cooksonia & runcaria. You're right that we don't yet have (nor might ever have) the complete record you're looking for.
A note: I'm not saying that evolution doesn't exist. I believe, however, that since (as almost anybody would agree) almost all mutations are either neutral or detrimental, it must play a SIGNIFICANTLY smaller role in the development of life rather than, you know, THE ENTIRE ROLE.
"Neutral or detrimental?" Do you realize that, with the way natural selection works, it's nonsense to use such terms in a circumstanceless sense?
That reminds me of a Creationist book I read that claimed a proposed gradual mutation from an animal having longer legs to shorter legs was invalid because shorter legs are "worse."
Conciousness giving form to indefinite waves in space. This explains what has been called the 'anthropomorphic principle', the idea that conditions in the universe are just right for human life, for ANY life as we know it.
Why was I one of the only people who voted "yes"? I mean, I'm not saying that we should teach solely creationism and I don't believe in God, but I believe if evolution is taught, creationism should have a fair shot too. It's not like we need to teach it in science class (because it's true that it is unscientific) but I believe kids should be exposed to some religion in English if they choose. Teaching only evolution is in a way attacking Christianity and the right to freedom of religion protects them from this.
A solution for this dilemma is that schools can make special "Christian" classes for elementary school kids so as to avoid teaching topics deemed offensive to their religion. This is especially critical at an early stage when kids are just finding their way in life. If Christianity is bashed at this stage, they may turn from the religion for the rest of their lives. The influence is probably much less later in the high school years in Biology class but children should definitely be shielded.
Furthermore, I believe Creationalism should be taught in high school English classes as it remains an integral part of the development of American literature. Many aspects of the classics may not be understood unless we have knowledge of the social backgrounds and etiquettes of the past and this may never be done without teaching Christianity. It would be absurd to ignore such a integral part of the frontier lifestyle. What my school does is that it takes a unattached perspective with a "Bible as Literature" course. My AP literature teacher will also make occasional references to creationalism. In this use, I find another reason why we shouldn't ban creationalism from schools.
I'm all for science but teaching Creationalism is no longer such an issue as it was back in the Scopes Monkey Trial. It's time for us to let creationalism to come back because both evolution and creationalism and coexist in the schools together. This is not only doing a favor to Christians but also Jews and Muslims as well. I say let the parents and students choose whether they want to be exposed to Creationalism, but barring it all together is a tragedy.
A solution for this dilemma is that schools can make special "Christian" classes for elementary school kids so as to avoid teaching topics deemed offensive to their religion. This is especially critical at an early stage when kids are just finding their way in life. If Christianity is bashed at this stage, they may turn from the religion for the rest of their lives. The influence is probably much less later in the high school years in Biology class but children should definitely be shielded.
Do you also intend for Elementary schools to run special "Muslim" classes, special "Hindu" classes, special "Wicca" classes, special "Norse Gods" classes, special "Greek Gods" classes, special "Aboroginal Faith" classes, special "Native American Faith" classes, special "Mayan" classes, special "Aztec" classes, special...?
The list goes on. If you run an officially sanctioned class for any religion that's being paid for with tax dollars, you'd have to officially sanction a class for every other religion in existence; otherwise, you're favoring Christianity in all public education.
Uh, we have those classes in school... It's called, "Mythology"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"There are times when the word **** is justified, for example, you are on a crowded underground train, and the gent behind you is gently caressing your buttocks, somehow "Excuse me interrupting what for you is clearly a pleasurable experience but could I ask you politely to desist" does not carry the same urgency as "**** off you pervert." - Bill Connolly
Uh, we have those classes in school... It's called, "Mythology"
So Islam, Wicca, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism are mythologies now?
Also, what if someone actually believes in the Norse Gods of old? They could reasonably claim that if you say it's just mythology and don't give it equal due, you're biased against them.
It's rather simple to prove that something like Jesus raising from the dead didn't happen. Find the tomb that contains his body. Invent a time machine or time viewer and watch the events unfold. Find the people that he healed and show that they were still sick. But I won't talk about Christian reactions to those events happening, because they're not going to happen.
Perhaps. One of the points I was trying to establish at the outset - and I realize I do have a tendency to ramble - is that religion and science aren't exactly playing on different fields, at least not all the time. On this we appear to agree. And if such is the case, empirical evidence can have something to say about religion.
A core belief is a belief upon which the doctrinal "engine" relies on to operate. Actual, historical fulfillment of prophecy is a core belief. The historical reality of events surrounding that fulfillment (water into wine) could likewise be considered a core belief, else the actual historicity of the fulfillment might be in question. We regard things as "possibly figurative" only when their literal historicity is not required to sustain the engine.
Would, then, scientific falsification of a core belief constitute a disproof of Christianity? It would seem to create a dilemma, between abandoning a proposition necessary for the "doctrinal engine", and "talking nonsense on [scientific] topics".
It's a happy coincidence, or perhaps something else, that science hasn't encroached on our core territory.
Given the extreme unlikelihood of the relevant information about the natural world being accessible to us, I think "coincidence" is a bit too strong a word. It implies that a certain amount of incredulity at the situation is in order. But if science hasn't encroached on core Christian beliefs, neither has it encroached on any number of other historical beliefs, whether wild (the Roman Empire was an elaborate hoax masterminded by Charlemagne) or mundane (Marco Polo had a lisp). This just isn't the sort of thing that science regularly does, even though, as these are beliefs about facts of the natural world, it could.
So Islam, Wicca, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism are mythologies now?
Also, what if someone actually believes in the Norse Gods of old? They could reasonably claim that if you say it's just mythology and don't give it equal due, you're biased against them.
All religion is mythology...
Your the one being biased giving more credit to the abrahamic religions and claiming the norse/greek/roman gods as mythology. (Everyone knows they are mythology)
So instead of seperating them into two classes which pretty much accept the same type of criteria, I lumped them into one called, "mythology".. only makes sense since all religion is 'MYTHOLOGY'... Those who claim it's the truth have no proof of that claim so how can they believe something is the truth when they can't even prove it to themselves? They may believe in it, but thats mythology for you... A system of beliefs.
Buddhism isnt a mythology or a religion. It is a series of philisophical teachings.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"There are times when the word **** is justified, for example, you are on a crowded underground train, and the gent behind you is gently caressing your buttocks, somehow "Excuse me interrupting what for you is clearly a pleasurable experience but could I ask you politely to desist" does not carry the same urgency as "**** off you pervert." - Bill Connolly
Teaching only evolution is in a way attacking Christianity and the right to freedom of religion protects them from this.
I have to ask, can you bend any further backwards to defend religion in school?
All those three little clauses on religion say is that,
a. the state cannot associate/promote one (or multiple) religions over another/others
b. you have the ability to choose to worship (or not worship) as you wish, and thanks to the other clauses in this article, with who and were you wish.
c. the state cannot unnecessarily impede on your ability to practice your religion.
Evolution is not necessarily contrary to Christianity. It could be, but not presenting religious views in a classroom is not hindering anyones ability to practice their religion, especially evolutionary theory.
Most science classrooms, in the true vein of scientific discourse, do not demand you agree with them, but rather demand that you understand the material.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Cochese »
Do threads in this forum ever not get hijacked by the magical invisible hand of the market guys?
The list goes on. If you run an officially sanctioned class for any religion that's being paid for with tax dollars, you'd have to officially sanction a class for every other religion in existence; otherwise, you're favoring Christianity in all public education.
A solution to this is to have a mass survey on religions and state there must be enough religious demographic in a school district to prompt its own "special" class. This way, people won't feel as though they're prejudiced against. Of course, I'm not even suggesting classes have to be religious. That means the school isn't teaching religion. I'm just saying that those special classes would walk around general scientific theories (i.e. evolution) that religions (specifically Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) disagree with. No need of the mention of "God" is necessary.
As for Buddhism and Norse Gods and the Native Americans, I'm not famaliar with what exactly is that they disagree with in our school teaching system. If they believe in creationalism too they can be grouped with th Christian kids who won't hear anything about evolution. Otherwise, a class will be made for them only if they make up a notable portion of the student population and there are enough parents who want them to be in a special class.
All those three little clauses on religion say is that,
a. the state cannot associate/promote one (or multiple) religions over another/others
b. you have the ability to choose to worship (or not worship) as you wish, and thanks to the other clauses in this article, with who and were you wish.
c. the state cannot unnecessarily impede on your ability to practice your religion.
Evolution is not necessarily contrary to Christianity. It could be, but not presenting religious views in a classroom is not hindering anyones ability to practice their religion, especially evolutionary theory.
Most science classrooms, in the true vein of scientific discourse, do not demand you agree with them, but rather demand that you understand the material.
Consider this... you go to a school and the first person you talk to believes contrary to your beliefs... then a second... then a third... This will clearly make you want to conform and abandon your obscure and (to the people of the school) radical practices. We all know for a fact that peers and teachers and others close to you have an impact on your life. This clearly forces you to turn from religion if everyone believe opposite of what you do.
Teaching solely evolutionary theory is acknowledging only a single truth. A single "chosen" theory must have special privilege toward it and this is undeniable. There are many truths out in the world but choosing only to teach one of them is the same as acknowledging its truthfulness and in this process is discrediting others in conflict with it.
It is true that science classes do not demand your belief in their theories but, unfortunately, any contact with them may prove to have a negative impact on your child's religious health. Maybe if the science class had a disclaimer before teaching evolution in regards to what you have said about not forcing on beliefs it would do less harm. Unfortunately, this disclaimer does not exist.
I believe this situation fits into your (c). It is impeding the practice of religion on the grounds that teaching evolution persistently discredits it. A way of practicing your religion is simply to be void of everyday fingers pointing that say "You're wrong!"
At the high school level I believe it will be impossible to avoid "evolution" in a biology class, but I believe the teaching of evolution will not deprive much to children before at the elementary school level, in which their development of their morals is most crucial anyways. Also, an elective religious offering at a high school would be an acknowledgement of more than one truth. It is also important to teach religion, as I've stated before, in teaching classic literature. Essentially, using religion in an English class is doing both Christians and teachers a favor.
Your the one being biased giving more credit to the abrahamic religions and claiming the norse/greek/roman gods as mythology. (Everyone knows they are mythology)
So instead of seperating them into two classes which pretty much accept the same type of criteria, I lumped them into one called, "mythology".. only makes sense since all religion is 'MYTHOLOGY'... Those who claim it's the truth have no proof of that claim so how can they believe something is the truth when they can't even prove it to themselves? They may believe in it, but thats mythology for you... A system of beliefs.
Buddhism isnt a mythology or a religion. It is a series of philisophical teachings.
I guess I could rightfully say that everything you just said is your own mythology, seeing as you have no absolute proof to your claim even though you believe it to be the truth when you can't prove it by yourself?
Your the one being biased giving more credit to the abrahamic religions and claiming the norse/greek/roman gods as mythology. (Everyone knows they are mythology)
So instead of seperating them into two classes which pretty much accept the same type of criteria, I lumped them into one called, "mythology".. only makes sense since all religion is 'MYTHOLOGY'... Those who claim it's the truth have no proof of that claim so how can they believe something is the truth when they can't even prove it to themselves? They may believe in it, but thats mythology for you... A system of beliefs.
Buddhism isnt a mythology or a religion. It is a series of philisophical teachings.
VerzenChaos, while I too tend to favor Buddhism more, keep in mine that some of it is 'mythology', aka 'cannot be proven'. For me, reincarnation is the point where Buddhism crosses into the twilight zone.
As for the other faiths, every religion is built upon philosophy and mythology. The latter attracts people to the faith, kinda like a teaser for a movie or the back cover of a novel, but it's the philosophy that keeps the religion spinning. While it is true that many in the west are biased in favor of the abrahamic religions, it doesn't outright make them false. Christ's teachings are actually quite similar to the Buddhas, hence the reason many scholars devote time to comparing and contrasting the two figures.
@ sentimentGX4: Buddhism doesn't really care about any Gods, why or how the world started, etc. It's generally quite accepting of science and evolution.
I don't think anyone teaches evolution at the elementary school level, in the California Bay Area anyway, it's generally taught beginning at the 7th grade middle school level. As to teaching religion outside of science, I believe that's perfectly alright as long as the teacher isn't overtly biased and it's connected to the material at hand. My Lit teacher spent a lecture on Russian Christianity while we studied Crime and Punishment and nobody complained. As to teaching religion as a separate course, sadly schools are having trouble as it is teaching math and reading let alone how to interpret the Bible or the Koran. I've taken a fairly good course on religion in college though, so that's a good source if the children graduate and want to learn more after.
As to religion in biology...well the tricky part that creationists almost never address is that high school biology only has so much time. High school priority right now is to get kids into college and college priority is to get students into careers. Most careers in biology use evolution. Genetics, stem cell research, even digging up dino bones in an old field requires evolutionary biology. Believing that a God created everything on earth is just something a person does in his or her spare time; it won't hinder one's chances of getting into a job in Biotech, but it probably won't help much either. Between what's useful and what's popular, schools will generally lean towards the former.
Buddhism is not a religion. In order for it to be a religion, you must believe in a higher being, such as a god. Thats why buddhism is a series of philisophical teachings.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"There are times when the word **** is justified, for example, you are on a crowded underground train, and the gent behind you is gently caressing your buttocks, somehow "Excuse me interrupting what for you is clearly a pleasurable experience but could I ask you politely to desist" does not carry the same urgency as "**** off you pervert." - Bill Connolly
VC, theism and religion are not the same. A set of beliefs can be religious without involving any gods or spirits.
Quote from Random House Abridged Dictionary »
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
While "a superhuman agency or agencies" is a common factor in many religions, it is by no means definitive of religion as a whole.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While scientific fact and religious belief are not one in the same, I think that scientific fact can point toward a belief in God. As you stated, there is no proof for the existence of Christ, or God. However, there is evidence and evidence can be viewed in a number of different ways by a number of different people. While there is definitely no certitude in the belief in God (and I doubt that there ever will be), I surely believe that there is an extremely high degree of probability based on evidence.
Please elaborate on the sentiments in bold.
Or it could be that people like connections and things that fit together. They would automatically attribute any type of miracle as "evidence" of God.
The thing is, we only hear about the prayers that work. The ones where you pray, and God answers and cures you of cancer. How many times have someone prayed and nobody answered and he or she died?
How many Moses's were there before the one that got lucky appeared?
I don't personally have a religion and consider myself agnostic and I don't personally have anything against any religion.
However, I disagree with you that science can prove the existence of God, as it seems to me, it probably has a high chance of doing the exact opposite.
"Scientific fact can point toward a belief in God." != "science can prove the existence of God."
For instance, archaological evidence discovered from when Jesus was alive points toward the Bible being factually correct.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
umm doesn't the evidence only points out that there was someone name Jesus?? that hardly explain that he IS the direct decedent of god, saying that a few archaeological evidence that the whole bible is true is stretching it a little here.
unless what you meant to say is that "evidence points out that part of what that is stated in the bible is true."
cookie wizards of the the simic
The extendo siggy thingy currently dead
In reputable science, when they find something that links back to a historical writing, it does lend credence to the story. Take Troy. For a very long time Troy was believed to have been simply made up by Homer. But, when a large city was found, about where he described it as being, well, it lent credence to his poems having historical basis.
However! In no shape or fashion does that mean that Apollo actually existed to send his plague to the Greeks, or that any of the other Greek gods mentioned existed either.
Now, take this to the Bible. Finding factual (read verifiable) evidence that there was a Jesus and that he was a guru/prophet or finding evidence of cities or other people mentioned in the Bible means just that. There would then be evidence that a man did live and that he did wander about preaching. There was such and such city and its ruler was so and so, and so on.
But, that does not lend any credence to the idea that Yahweh existed/exists and can not be construed to mean Jesus was the son of god. Various deities exist or don't exist apart from historical evidence. There is a reason it is called 'faith'.
There is no justifiable reason to teach a matter of faith in the same way that a matter of fact is taught. To even suggest such a thing is not the product of a logical mind. Having faith is a good thing, yes, but it is a personal matter and should be approached as such and not approached as a matter of public cannon.
Flavour-Deckbuilder of the Flittering Clique
The [Pack] My Trade List
Cardshark IS AWESOME!
Trade me Crusaders?
GWREnchanted Eve (building) ~ BPoxy Pox
Standard
WUMeow-Go~BU Infection
Casual
BWAngel Doom ~ GRWWarpride ~ WGUStoic Control (ARG)
EDH
BRGWUScion of the Ur-Dragon ~ BSiezan, The Perverter of Truth ~ W 8.5 Tails (needs work)
All my Decks.
Also, I don't believe those stories are as accurate as you make them out to be.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
And what makes this a 'core belief', anyway? The Bible makes tons of naturalistic claims, and just a few centuries ago to deny any one of them would have been theologically risky. Of course the waters of Egypt once turned to blood; of course the sun once stood still for Joshua. Nowadays I think most educated mainstream Christians would not be terribly distraught if these claims were shown to be untrue, just as most Christian intellectuals have accepted evolution. But naturalistic claims about events in the life of the Messiah seem to be on a different sort of footing. Not all of them, to be sure; my own raised-in-contemporary-Christian-culture sensibilities tell me that the story of his turning water to wine could probably be abandoned at need. But the healing? The transfiguration? The resurrection and assumption? If modern Christians are asked, by the principles espoused by St. Augustine, to give belief in these propositions up, too, then what is left?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Of course you don't. But what are the criteria by which one establishes, definitively, whether a thing could or could not happen?
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
I would secondly like to clarify this point: I have no interest in creationism being taught in schools. I do not believe taking any religious text literally has positive results, and I do not believe that Creationism (the literal interpretation of the Bible's Book of Genesis), has any place in a thinking person's head. Note that my loathing of Creationism does not preclude any interest in Intelligent Design, provided that it's not used as a foot-in-the-door FOR Creationism.
Evolution is not bulletproof. Darwin himself was vexed by the flowering plant, and he knew that there would be no fossilized evidence of transitional stages of the developing flower, and it frustrated him to no end. The problem with an incredibly complex means of reproduction (a flower), is that it requires an immense amount of the plant's energy to operate. Darwin knew that if, in a transitional stage, a plant had a nonfunctioning reproductive apparatus, it would be horridly inefficient, and the plant would almost certainly die off because it would be unable to compete for resources with surrounding plants (survival of the fittest) as it was busy pumping enegry into opening and closing a useless, massive flap of tissue. The angiosperm (flowering plant) also lets another problem rear its ugly head: did the animals that pollinate the flowers come first, or did the pollen-bearing plants come first? There is a clear line in the fossil record where flowering plants started showing up. The early Cretaceous is where that line is drawn.
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/pciesiel/gly3150/plant.html
This is a site I stumbled across (Obviously a University of Florida site) in which the author, a professor writing notes for his class, lays out in painstaking detail, while still supporting evolution every step of the way, the FACT that WE HAVE NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL RECORD FOR PLANTS. None whatsoever. In fact, the fossil record is lacking in other areas, such as all of them. We have countless examples of "ancestors" of species, countless examples of modern "descendants", but little to no transitional examples.
The theory of Evolution was proposed in a time when scientists were battling to discredit any biblical interpretation of existence. Science needed Darwin, and it needed evolution. Without them, science, ALL branches of science, would not be the basis of rational thought today. Our world would be much different, and I don't think I'd much care for it. No theory is strong, however, unless all legitimate arguments made against it can be addressed, and the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' line that rigid supporters of evolution use when discussing the abysmal fossil record backing of their theory is getting tired. How long should we look? We've already spent over a hundred years meticulously collecting fossils. Why haven't the early almost-flowering plants shown up? We know where to look in the geological strata, and we've BEEN looking there, but there's nothing to be found.
A note: I'm not saying that evolution doesn't exist. I believe, however, that since (as almost anybody would agree) almost all mutations are either neutral or detrimental, it must play a SIGNIFICANTLY smaller role in the development of life rather than, you know, THE ENTIRE ROLE.
I really don't have time right now, but the new physics may be showing us a feasible form of intelligent design. It's the whole electron thing. Physicists call what electrons are capable of doing 'bilocation'. Literally, the electron can be in more than one place at any given time, and at times it can disappear entirely. Further, it can be studied as a waveform or as a particle. Most interestingly though, quantum theory has data verifying that it's not a particle until it's observed. Observation literally as the creation of 'reality'. Conciousness giving form to indefinite waves in space. This explains what has been called the 'anthropomorphic principle', the idea that conditions in the universe are just right for human life, for ANY life as we know it. I'm not just talking about our distance from the sun. I'm talking about everything. Gravity, for instance. There is no reason gravity is not 1/10000000 th of an order of magnitude stronger, which would result in its overcoming of the weak nuclear force and crashing our electrons into our nuclei. This is just one example, and I would urge anyone interested to seek further information. As I said before, though, I've got no time. Got to go to work
A core belief is a belief upon which the doctrinal "engine" relies on to operate. Actual, historical fulfillment of prophecy is a core belief. The historical reality of events surrounding that fulfillment (water into wine) could likewise be considered a core belief, else the actual historicity of the fulfillment might be in question. We regard things as "possibly figurative" only when their literal historicity is not required to sustain the engine. It's a happy coincidence, or perhaps something else, that science hasn't encroached on our core territory.
EDIT: With Jesus it's called the Ascension, not the Assumption (Mary was Assumed, not Jesus).
We have some transitional plant fossil evidence. Look up cooksonia & runcaria. You're right that we don't yet have (nor might ever have) the complete record you're looking for.
"Neutral or detrimental?" Do you realize that, with the way natural selection works, it's nonsense to use such terms in a circumstanceless sense?
That reminds me of a Creationist book I read that claimed a proposed gradual mutation from an animal having longer legs to shorter legs was invalid because shorter legs are "worse."
Anthropic principle.
A solution for this dilemma is that schools can make special "Christian" classes for elementary school kids so as to avoid teaching topics deemed offensive to their religion. This is especially critical at an early stage when kids are just finding their way in life. If Christianity is bashed at this stage, they may turn from the religion for the rest of their lives. The influence is probably much less later in the high school years in Biology class but children should definitely be shielded.
Furthermore, I believe Creationalism should be taught in high school English classes as it remains an integral part of the development of American literature. Many aspects of the classics may not be understood unless we have knowledge of the social backgrounds and etiquettes of the past and this may never be done without teaching Christianity. It would be absurd to ignore such a integral part of the frontier lifestyle. What my school does is that it takes a unattached perspective with a "Bible as Literature" course. My AP literature teacher will also make occasional references to creationalism. In this use, I find another reason why we shouldn't ban creationalism from schools.
I'm all for science but teaching Creationalism is no longer such an issue as it was back in the Scopes Monkey Trial. It's time for us to let creationalism to come back because both evolution and creationalism and coexist in the schools together. This is not only doing a favor to Christians but also Jews and Muslims as well. I say let the parents and students choose whether they want to be exposed to Creationalism, but barring it all together is a tragedy.
Do you also intend for Elementary schools to run special "Muslim" classes, special "Hindu" classes, special "Wicca" classes, special "Norse Gods" classes, special "Greek Gods" classes, special "Aboroginal Faith" classes, special "Native American Faith" classes, special "Mayan" classes, special "Aztec" classes, special...?
The list goes on. If you run an officially sanctioned class for any religion that's being paid for with tax dollars, you'd have to officially sanction a class for every other religion in existence; otherwise, you're favoring Christianity in all public education.
So Islam, Wicca, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism are mythologies now?
Also, what if someone actually believes in the Norse Gods of old? They could reasonably claim that if you say it's just mythology and don't give it equal due, you're biased against them.
Perhaps. One of the points I was trying to establish at the outset - and I realize I do have a tendency to ramble - is that religion and science aren't exactly playing on different fields, at least not all the time. On this we appear to agree. And if such is the case, empirical evidence can have something to say about religion.
Would, then, scientific falsification of a core belief constitute a disproof of Christianity? It would seem to create a dilemma, between abandoning a proposition necessary for the "doctrinal engine", and "talking nonsense on [scientific] topics".
Given the extreme unlikelihood of the relevant information about the natural world being accessible to us, I think "coincidence" is a bit too strong a word. It implies that a certain amount of incredulity at the situation is in order. But if science hasn't encroached on core Christian beliefs, neither has it encroached on any number of other historical beliefs, whether wild (the Roman Empire was an elaborate hoax masterminded by Charlemagne) or mundane (Marco Polo had a lisp). This just isn't the sort of thing that science regularly does, even though, as these are beliefs about facts of the natural world, it could.
Got it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
All religion is mythology...
Your the one being biased giving more credit to the abrahamic religions and claiming the norse/greek/roman gods as mythology. (Everyone knows they are mythology)
So instead of seperating them into two classes which pretty much accept the same type of criteria, I lumped them into one called, "mythology".. only makes sense since all religion is 'MYTHOLOGY'... Those who claim it's the truth have no proof of that claim so how can they believe something is the truth when they can't even prove it to themselves? They may believe in it, but thats mythology for you... A system of beliefs.
Buddhism isnt a mythology or a religion. It is a series of philisophical teachings.
I have to ask, can you bend any further backwards to defend religion in school?
All those three little clauses on religion say is that,
a. the state cannot associate/promote one (or multiple) religions over another/others
b. you have the ability to choose to worship (or not worship) as you wish, and thanks to the other clauses in this article, with who and were you wish.
c. the state cannot unnecessarily impede on your ability to practice your religion.
Evolution is not necessarily contrary to Christianity. It could be, but not presenting religious views in a classroom is not hindering anyones ability to practice their religion, especially evolutionary theory.
Most science classrooms, in the true vein of scientific discourse, do not demand you agree with them, but rather demand that you understand the material.
A solution to this is to have a mass survey on religions and state there must be enough religious demographic in a school district to prompt its own "special" class. This way, people won't feel as though they're prejudiced against. Of course, I'm not even suggesting classes have to be religious. That means the school isn't teaching religion. I'm just saying that those special classes would walk around general scientific theories (i.e. evolution) that religions (specifically Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) disagree with. No need of the mention of "God" is necessary.
As for Buddhism and Norse Gods and the Native Americans, I'm not famaliar with what exactly is that they disagree with in our school teaching system. If they believe in creationalism too they can be grouped with th Christian kids who won't hear anything about evolution. Otherwise, a class will be made for them only if they make up a notable portion of the student population and there are enough parents who want them to be in a special class.
Consider this... you go to a school and the first person you talk to believes contrary to your beliefs... then a second... then a third... This will clearly make you want to conform and abandon your obscure and (to the people of the school) radical practices. We all know for a fact that peers and teachers and others close to you have an impact on your life. This clearly forces you to turn from religion if everyone believe opposite of what you do.
Teaching solely evolutionary theory is acknowledging only a single truth. A single "chosen" theory must have special privilege toward it and this is undeniable. There are many truths out in the world but choosing only to teach one of them is the same as acknowledging its truthfulness and in this process is discrediting others in conflict with it.
It is true that science classes do not demand your belief in their theories but, unfortunately, any contact with them may prove to have a negative impact on your child's religious health. Maybe if the science class had a disclaimer before teaching evolution in regards to what you have said about not forcing on beliefs it would do less harm. Unfortunately, this disclaimer does not exist.
I believe this situation fits into your (c). It is impeding the practice of religion on the grounds that teaching evolution persistently discredits it. A way of practicing your religion is simply to be void of everyday fingers pointing that say "You're wrong!"
At the high school level I believe it will be impossible to avoid "evolution" in a biology class, but I believe the teaching of evolution will not deprive much to children before at the elementary school level, in which their development of their morals is most crucial anyways. Also, an elective religious offering at a high school would be an acknowledgement of more than one truth. It is also important to teach religion, as I've stated before, in teaching classic literature. Essentially, using religion in an English class is doing both Christians and teachers a favor.
I guess I could rightfully say that everything you just said is your own mythology, seeing as you have no absolute proof to your claim even though you believe it to be the truth when you can't prove it by yourself?
VerzenChaos, while I too tend to favor Buddhism more, keep in mine that some of it is 'mythology', aka 'cannot be proven'. For me, reincarnation is the point where Buddhism crosses into the twilight zone.
As for the other faiths, every religion is built upon philosophy and mythology. The latter attracts people to the faith, kinda like a teaser for a movie or the back cover of a novel, but it's the philosophy that keeps the religion spinning. While it is true that many in the west are biased in favor of the abrahamic religions, it doesn't outright make them false. Christ's teachings are actually quite similar to the Buddhas, hence the reason many scholars devote time to comparing and contrasting the two figures.
@ sentimentGX4: Buddhism doesn't really care about any Gods, why or how the world started, etc. It's generally quite accepting of science and evolution.
I don't think anyone teaches evolution at the elementary school level, in the California Bay Area anyway, it's generally taught beginning at the 7th grade middle school level. As to teaching religion outside of science, I believe that's perfectly alright as long as the teacher isn't overtly biased and it's connected to the material at hand. My Lit teacher spent a lecture on Russian Christianity while we studied Crime and Punishment and nobody complained. As to teaching religion as a separate course, sadly schools are having trouble as it is teaching math and reading let alone how to interpret the Bible or the Koran. I've taken a fairly good course on religion in college though, so that's a good source if the children graduate and want to learn more after.
As to religion in biology...well the tricky part that creationists almost never address is that high school biology only has so much time. High school priority right now is to get kids into college and college priority is to get students into careers. Most careers in biology use evolution. Genetics, stem cell research, even digging up dino bones in an old field requires evolutionary biology. Believing that a God created everything on earth is just something a person does in his or her spare time; it won't hinder one's chances of getting into a job in Biotech, but it probably won't help much either. Between what's useful and what's popular, schools will generally lean towards the former.
While "a superhuman agency or agencies" is a common factor in many religions, it is by no means definitive of religion as a whole.