Does anyone else find this appalling?

[Itinerant Academic]

I hope no one has posted this before, I screened through a lot of the threads and didn't find it so I assume not.

http://chfbs.org/high_school/high_sch_math.htm

Yeah, read it. I wish I could get a look at their curriculum, I can't even imagine how they plan to synthesize God and Mathematics.

Aren't we supposed to be out of the Medieval Age?

[mugaliens]

Sounds like someone is very interested in teaching a totally valid curricula but relating everything to God.

They still learn the math, so what's your beef?

[NEOWatcher]

Sounds like someone is very interested in teaching a totally valid curricula but relating everything to God.

They still learn the math, so what's your beef?

A babtist school relating things to God? For shame.

Yes; I'm agreeing with mug.

[Ronald Brak]

Personally I'm against lying.

[korjik]

Personally I'm against lying.

what are they lying about?

[Fazor]

Personally I'm against lying.
You are? It must be weird to sleep while standing up... ;)

If this is a private religious school like it sounds like (I didn't follow the link, and there's no information in the post), then who cares? If you don't agree with it then don't send your kids there. That's the nice thing about having the freedom to make personal choices.

edit: korjik and Ronad Brak, just some advice, you probably don't wanna go there, in this forum.

[CodeSlinger]

My first reaction was "oh no, what does their science curriculum look like?"

Science/History curriculum (http://chfbs.org/high_school/high_sch_science_history.htm)

It actually sounds pretty reasonable. Note the heavy emphasis on the use of the scientific method. I actually get the impression that some people worked very hard to design a curriculum that imparts a solid foundation in math and science, with just enough religious overtone to be accepted by this Baptist institution.

[Lurker]

Personally I'm against lying.
hmmmm... while I have great concerns about mixing religion with mathematics, I don't know that the simple mixing requires lying. If I'm wrong perhaps you could site a specific example...

I don't know... perhaps irrational numbers are an attempt by the gods to warning us against an over dependence on rationality...

on the other hand, they may just be messing with our heads... :razz:

[Tucson_Tim]

You are? It must be weird to sleep while standing up... ;)


Ok Gillian! :)

[NEOWatcher]

hmmmm... while I have great concerns about mixing religion with mathematics, I don't know that the simple mixing requires lying. If I'm wrong perhaps you could site a specific example...
I'm not sure exactly what they are getting at, but it sounds more like they are teaching math for what math is, but using the faith to describe why it works out so perfectly.

And, they probably have some interesting word problems... If 30% of the congregation sinned...

[Fazor]

Ok Gillian! :)
Firstly, you probably shouldn't insult Gillian by compairing her to me ;) (j/k)
Secondly, naw, there was no gramatical error (AFAIK), but the conjugated form of lie, lying, has multiple meanings for the same spelling. Its one of the word pairs that I find most confusing (Lie and lay conjucation), even after the thousands of "lie/lay" worksheets we did for homework thoughout school :-P

That, and trying to conjugate die and dye. ...in the words of the great Ralph Wiggum, "Me fail english? That's un-possible!"

[Lurker]

I'm not sure exactly what they are getting at, but it sounds more like they are teaching math for what math is, but using the faith to describe why it works out so perfectly.

And, they probably have some interesting word problems... If 30% of the congregation sinned...
Well... I will wait until I see the curriculum before I brand it as teaching lies...

[Tucson_Tim]

Firstly, you probably shouldn't insult Gillian by compairing her to me ;) (j/k)
Secondly, naw, there was no gramatical error (AFAIK), but the conjugated form of lie, lying, has multiple meanings for the same spelling. Its one of the word pairs that I find most confusing (Lie and lay conjucation), even after the thousands of "lie/lay" worksheets we did for homework thoughout school :-P

That, and trying to conjugate die and dye. ...in the words of the great Ralph Wiggum, "Me fail english? That's un-possible!"

I know! (in bold) :)

My wife has been drilling the use of lay/lie (among other grammar things) into my head for so long that I always pause before I use one of them. It makes speaking difficult sometimes. Oh well . . .

[Ronald Brak]

I appreciate Fazor giving me some advice earlier and as a result I thought I'd better stay out of this thread, but since it's also impolite of me to not explain myself after being asked what I meant, I'll just give a little explanation by anology and then leave this thread.

If you say, "I believe the Apollo photos are fake," then I have no problem with that, you can believe what you want. But if you say, "The Apollo photos are fake," then I'd expect you to be able to either produce reasonable evidence that they are fake or failing that, accept that you can't be certain they are fake. When a person demonstrates the ability to apply reason and analytical ability in their life but refuses to apply these abilities to certain matters so that they become dogma, I think it is a failure of integrity and is dishonest.

Note that this is just my opinion and I believe everyone is free to believe differently. If anyone wants to discuss this issue specifically, please start a new thread that has no mention of religion in it.

[Lurker]

If you say, "I believe the Apollo photos are fake," then I have no problem with that, you can believe what you want. But if you say, "The Apollo photos are fake," then I'd expect you to be able to either produce reasonable evidence that they are fake or failing that, accept that you can't be certain they are fake. When a person demonstrates the ability to apply reason and analytical ability in their life but refuses to apply these abilities to certain matters so that they become dogma, I think it is a failure of integrity and is dishonest.

Note that this is just my opinion and I believe everyone is free to believe differently.
I can understand this, however, I would personally suspend judgment until I see the curriculum. Certainly there are "Christian" schools and academies in this coungry that integrate religious belief with academics. I don't know that this in itself indicates that they are teaching lies...

[korjik]

I appreciate Fazor giving me some advice earlier and as a result I thought I'd better stay out of this thread, but since it's also impolite of me to not explain myself after being asked what I meant, I'll just give a little explanation by anology and then leave this thread.

If you say, "I believe the Apollo photos are fake," then I have no problem with that, you can believe what you want. But if you say, "The Apollo photos are fake," then I'd expect you to be able to either produce reasonable evidence that they are fake or failing that, accept that you can't be certain they are fake. When a person demonstrates the ability to apply reason and analytical ability in their life but refuses to apply these abilities to certain matters so that they become dogma, I think it is a failure of integrity and is dishonest.

Note that this is just my opinion and I believe everyone is free to believe differently. If anyone wants to discuss this issue specifically, please start a new thread that has no mention of religion in it.


What I have to say is quite similar to Lurker's comment. I would have to see what the actual course material is before I pass judgment. There is a fairly large population that believe everything comes from god. Add those who think that studing something is studing god because everything comes from god, and you would end up with what you see in the discriptions.

The way they put the descriptions is what they believe, so I think that calling it lying may be a bit strong.

May be a bit strong is the key here. If the actual curriculum is crummy, then you are right. I just dont think the jury is out quite yet

[Lurker]

There are some excellent scientists and mathematicians who are deeply religious; Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu. I don't think that holding a deep religious conviction necessarily interferes with one's ability to perform rigorous scientific investigation.


Edited to Add:

I would add that science and engineering are deeply indebted to the great work of Muslim mathematicians who believed that they were but empty vessels through which Allāh reveled his divine truths.

[LucasVB]

They're lying because God is inferior to mathematics. ;)

[Fazor]

I appreciate Fazor giving me some advice earlier and as a result I thought I'd better stay out of this thread, but since it's also impolite of me to not explain myself after being asked what I meant, I'll just give a little explanation by anology and then leave this thread.

Well, I in no way meant that you shouldn't participate in the thread, but I just thought we were close to a point where emotion might take over reason, and I hate to see one or more regulars end up on the wrong side of the rules and wind up suspended. The reason BAUT is such a great forum is in no small part due to the entertaining and insightfull minds of it's regular memebers, and it pains me to see them get suspended/banned. Unfortunately, it's enevadable that some discussion is going to be in danger of crossing the line.

[tbm]

I hope no one has posted this before, I screened through a lot of the threads and didn't find it so I assume not.

http://chfbs.org/high_school/high_sch_math.htm

Yeah, read it. I wish I could get a look at their curriculum, I can't even imagine how they plan to synthesize God and Mathematics.

Aren't we supposed to be out of the Medieval Age?


The only thing I can come up with after reading that is "HOO BOY!!"

tbm

[Ronald Brak]

I have gone through the trouble of removing religious refferences from the passage so we can discuss it in this forum:


MATHEMATICS

GEOMETRY
Students will examine the nature of a supernatural being as they progress in their understanding of mathematics. Students will understand the absolute consistency of mathematical principles and know that a supernatural being was the inventor of that consistency. They will see a supernatural being's nature revealed in the order and precision they review foundational concepts while being able to demonstrate geometric thinking and spatial reasoning. The study of the basics of geometry through making and testing conjectures regarding mathematical and real-world patterns will allow the students to understand the absolute consistency of a supernatural being as seen in the geometric principles it created. Students will demonstrate an awareness of the structure of a mathematical system, connecting definitions, postulates, logical reasoning, and theorems while exploring attributes of geometric figures. Students will make and verify conjectures about angles, lines, polygons, circles, and three-dimensional figures through coordinate and transformational approaches. Through the knowledge of conditional statements and their converses, constructing and justifying statements about geometric figures and their properties, students will begin understanding the concepts of constructing geometrical proofs. Students will be able to solve problems with the use of formulas for the areas and volumes of polygons and circles while applying them to real-world situations; in addition, they will develop and improve their spatial visualization and reasoning skills with three-dimensional figures. As they investigate properties of parallel lines, students will write deductive arguments to justify their conclusions and apply those properties to real situations. Students will apply their knowledge of triangles to develop properties of parallelograms, trapezoids, and kites as they continue developing their mathematical reasoning abilities and their algebraic skills by learning to write coordinate proofs. Right-triangle trigonometry will be introduced in the area of sine and cosine ratios and vectors. Finally, students will study circles from an algebraic point of view by writing equations of circles in the coordinate plane.



ALGEBRA II
Students will examine the nature of a supernatural being as they progress in their understanding of mathematics. Students will understand the absolute consistency of mathematical principles and know that a supernatural being was the inventor of that consistency. Mathematical study will result in a greater appreciation of a supernatural being and its works in creation. Students will extend their mathematical knowledge beyond Algebra 1 by continuing to develop an understanding and usage of advanced algebraic concepts including functions, polynomials, rational expressions, complex numbers, systems of equations and inequalities, and matrices. Students will develop calculator skills.


PRE-CALCULUS
Students will examine the nature of a supernatural being as they progress in their understanding of mathematics. Students will understand the absolute consistency of mathematical principles and know that a supernatural being was the inventor of that consistency. Mathematical study will result in a greater appreciation of this supernatural being and its works in creation. Students who have successfully completed Geometry and Algebra 2 will develop skills in advanced algebra, analytic geometry, and trigonometry. The students will focus on the mathematics concepts that connect the thoughts of the mind with the realities of the universe, experiencing the creative power and order of a supernatural being.



CALCULUS
Students will examine the nature of a supernatural being as they progress in their understanding of mathematics. Students will understand the absolute consistency of mathematical principles and know that a supernatural being was the inventor of that consistency. Mathematical study will result in a greater appreciation of a supernatural being and its works in creation. The students will understand the basic ideas of both differential and integral calculus and its importance and historical applications. The students will recognize that a supernatural being created our minds to be able to see that the universe can be calculated by mental methods.

[Delvo]

I have gone through the trouble of removing religious refferences from the passage so we can discuss it in this forum:No, you didn't.

[Michael Noonan]

If I could link both your posts together Lurker as they are very well thought out.




I can understand this, however, I would personally suspend judgment until I see the curriculum. Certainly there are "Christian" schools and academies in this country that integrate religious belief with academics. I don't know that this in itself indicates that they are teaching lies...

and this one:-


There are some excellent scientists and mathematicians who are deeply religious; Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu. I don't think that holding a deep religious conviction necessarily interferes with one's ability to perform rigorous scientific investigation.


Edited to Add:

I would add that science and engineering are deeply indebted to the great work of Muslim mathematicians who believed that they were but empty vessels through which Allāh reveled his divine truths.

Clearly this is a curriculum that is entered by the student with the knowledge that they want it taught this way. This in no way invalidates the mathematics which clearly would be taught for what it is ... math.

No problem. By selecting the right teaching institution for ones beliefs is a highly appropriate thing to do. Until the math is understood it is a process of logical and intuitive learning. As a member of any community it would be very important to know the belief that one practiced and its application to the mathematics being taught.

Mathematics in itself is a process of logic and deduction, measure and application, it is accuracy and having an influence not taught that corresponds with the community would be damaging to say the least. What if one was to be inspired and put their own interpretation to mathematics without understanding the values of their community.

In short it would be a recipe for social disaster. The mathematics would not be affected but certainly the student could be if not guided in the belief of their choice. Not wanting to be rude but is editing out all belief references a veiled method of promoting an atheistic model of mathematics?

The real question is secularism. Is teaching mathematics without consideration of the values of those being taught a clear plug and therefore showing an unbelievable religious bias to promote and encourage atheism?

Good teaching and careful consideration by both teacher and student should empower the student to be confident in the choices they make through learning high quality mathematical skills.

I can only offer one case in point, mine, where my plunge into a world of mathematical possibility which has changed my beliefs and so broadened my horizons that I am more totally comfortable with what I now believe than this time last year.

Isn't that sort of independent and fair approach viable? Teach the mathematics requested by the student and if the answers justify a change of belief in any direction then it was the value of the mathematics and not the cold hard limitations of ignorance that encouraged it.

I would rather live in a world where I could choose any model for learning mathematics and let the value of what is learned speak for itself!

[Ronald Brak]

No, you didn't.

I find that people can generally believe in the existance of supernatural beings such as leprechauns and fairies without having these beliefs described as religious, however, I do appreciate that you may think I have not sanitized it enough to make it suitable for this forum. I'll try again.


GEOMETRY
Students will examine the nature of a non-human intelligence as they progress in their understanding of mathematics. Students will understand the absolute consistency of mathematical principles and know that a non-human intelligence was the inventor of that consistency. They will see a non-human intelligence's nature revealed in the order and precision they review foundational concepts while being able to demonstrate geometric thinking and spatial reasoning. The study of the basics of geometry through making and testing conjectures regarding mathematical and real-world patterns will allow the students to understand the absolute consistency of a non-human intelligence as seen in the geometric principles it created. Students will demonstrate an awareness of the structure of a mathematical system, connecting definitions, postulates, logical reasoning, and theorems while exploring attributes of geometric figures. Students will make and verify conjectures about angles, lines, polygons, circles, and three-dimensional figures through coordinate and transformational approaches. Through the knowledge of conditional statements and their converses, constructing and justifying statements about geometric figures and their properties, students will begin understanding the concepts of constructing geometrical proofs. Students will be able to solve problems with the use of formulas for the areas and volumes of polygons and circles while applying them to real-world situations; in addition, they will develop and improve their spatial visualization and reasoning skills with three-dimensional figures. As they investigate properties of parallel lines, students will write deductive arguments to justify their conclusions and apply those properties to real situations. Students will apply their knowledge of triangles to develop properties of parallelograms, trapezoids, and kites as they continue developing their mathematical reasoning abilities and their algebraic skills by learning to write coordinate proofs. Right-triangle trigonometry will be introduced in the area of sine and cosine ratios and vectors. Finally, students will study circles from an algebraic point of view by writing equations of circles in the coordinate plane.



ALGEBRA II
Students will examine the nature of a non-human intelligence as they progress in their understanding of mathematics. Students will understand the absolute consistency of mathematical principles and know that a non-human intelligence was the inventor of that consistency. Mathematical study will result in a greater appreciation of a non-human intelligence and its works in the universe. Students will extend their mathematical knowledge beyond Algebra 1 by continuing to develop an understanding and usage of advanced algebraic concepts including functions, polynomials, rational expressions, complex numbers, systems of equations and inequalities, and matrices. Students will develop calculator skills.


PRE-CALCULUS
Students will examine the nature of a non-human intelligence as they progress in their understanding of mathematics. Students will understand the absolute consistency of mathematical principles and know that a non-human intelligence was the inventor of that consistency. Mathematical study will result in a greater appreciation of a non-human intelligence and its works in the universe. Students who have successfully completed Geometry and Algebra 2 will develop skills in advanced algebra, analytic geometry, and trigonometry. The students will focus on the mathematics concepts that connect the thoughts of the mind with the realities of the universe, experiencing the creative power and order of a non-human intelligence.


CALCULUS
Students will examine the nature of a non-human intelligence as they progress in their understanding of mathematics. Students will understand the absolute consistency of mathematical principles and know that a non-human intelligence was the inventor of that consistency. Mathematical study will result in a greater appreciation of a non-human intelligence and its works in the universe. The students will understand the basic ideas of both differential and integral calculus and its importance and historical applications. The students will recognize that a non-human intelligence created our minds to be able to see that the universe can be calculated by mental methods.




Hopefully now we can discuss ideas in the passage without bringing religion into it.

[Chuck]

It's more tedious than appalling. It's also pointless. If all of their textbooks irrelevantly mention God multiple times per paragraph the students will become used to it and will stop noticing that it's there. Or maybe they'll come to think of God as an annoying pest that's bothering them while they're trying to learn something.

[Delvo]

I find that people can generally believe in the existance of supernatural beings such as leprechauns and fairies without having these beliefs described as religiousIf that belief is weaseled into a math lesson, then it's made obnoxiously religious, especially when part of the math lesson is also that the supernatural beings created us.

Calling God by some other name doesn't make the concept unreligious. The only way to make a math lesson unreligious is by not infusing such a concept into it at all.

[Fazor]

If that belief is weaseled into a math lesson, then it's made obnoxiously religious, especially when part of the math lesson is also that the supernatural beings created us. It might be obnoxiously religions in your opinion, but like it or not that just an opinion. That's why you wouldn't attend said school. The people who choose to attend the school also choose to believe said beliefs. I doubt they'll find it obnoxious.

[Michael Noonan]

So essentially are you saying mathematics is incapable of being understood by someone who has a belief system?

Or is mathematics a concept that can be tainted by someones point of view and as such is weak and misleading?

[cudachaser]

Very simply....that is appalling to me. No more to add

[Ronald Brak]

I freely admit that substituting non religious terms in the passage is a far from perfect solution, but currently I have no better ideas on how to make the passage suitable for this forum. By discussing the altered passage If we look at the first sentence of the altered version.


Students will examine the nature of a non-human intelligence as they progress in their understanding of mathematics.

I really doubt that they will. I don't think they will examine the nature of non-human intelligence in their maths class. Therefore I don't think this sentence is true. The students might learn maths, but not the nature of a non-human intelligence. Therefore I think this statement is most likely a lie. In the same way that if I had told you I was going to teach you how to bake a cake but instead I taught you how to build a birdhouse, I would have lied.

[Fazor]

I freely admit that substituting non religious terms in the passage is a far from perfect solution, but currently I have no better ideas on how to make the passage suitable for this forum. By discussing the altered passage If we look at the first sentence of the altered version.
Well, just from experience in other threads, it's not a problem to discuss a topic that's related to religion here, solong as the religion isn't the focus of the discussion.

Anyway, from you're first cirriculum post:
Students will examine the nature of a supernatural being as they progress in their understanding of mathematics. Students will understand the absolute consistency of mathematical principles and know that a supernatural being was the inventor of that consistency.
I don't think this indicates that "bad math" will be taught. It just sounds like, when you get to the kid that asks, "Why do the angles of a triangle always equal 180-degrees?" instead of saying, "That's just how it works" they say "Because god made it that way". So what? You could change "god" to Michael Jackson, the overall statement might be false, but the angles do still always equal 180-degrees. Angels, on the other hand, rarely add up to 180-degrees, AFAIK ;)

Anyway my point is; I'm of the humble opinion that there's much worse things in life than someone getting a good education, but using a particular belief to fill in the un-answerable questions.

[Ronald Brak]

I'm not saying the kids are learning bad math, but saying "God made it that way," is a lie in the same way that if I said, "My cat made it that way," is a lie. Now for all I know my cat is responsible for the angles of a triangle always equalling 180 degrees, but if I state that as a fact without without having reasonable evidence to support it I have lied. Now if someone said, "My personal belief is that a supernatural being makes the angles of a triangle always equal 180 degrees but I have no rational reason for supporting this contention," that presumably would not be a lie.

[Delvo]

might be obnoxiously religions in your opinion, but like it or not that just an opinion.The "obnoxiously" part is, but the "religious" part is a fact. Talking about sprites and fairies in the sky and such as real entities by any name(s) is religious. There's no way out of or around that. So the only way to dereligify a text that talks that way is not to reword the same concept but to simply delete it.

[Fazor]

I'm not saying the kids are learning bad math, but saying "God made it that way," is a lie in the same way that if I said, "My cat made it that way," is a lie. Now for all I know my cat is responsible for the angles of a triangle always equalling 180 degrees, but if I state that as a fact without without having reasonable evidence to support it I have lied. Now if someone said, "My personal belief is that a supernatural being makes the angles of a triangle always equal 180 degrees but I have no rational reason for supporting this contention," that presumably would not be a lie.

I think it's assumed when talking about religion that it's a belief. I don't think it needs to be implicitly stated. But anyway, to me this story isn't "appalling", and I guess that's what the OP asked so I'll leave it at that.

[Lurker]

I'm not saying the kids are learning bad math, but saying "God made it that way," is a lie in the same way that if I said, "My cat made it that way," is a lie. Now for all I know my cat is responsible for the angles of a triangle always equalling 180 degrees, but if I state that as a fact without without having reasonable evidence to support it I have lied. Now if someone said, "My personal belief is that a supernatural being makes the angles of a triangle always equal 180 degrees but I have no rational reason for supporting this contention," that presumably would not be a lie.
Emphasis mine... You are welcome to this interpretation, but I also know that there are many Muslim mathematicians who believed just that... and yet they set forth the basis for much of the mathematics that serves us today... I really don't see the problem.

[Ronald Brak]

I think it's assumed when talking about religion that it's a belief. I don't think it needs to be implicitly stated.

It needs to be stated that it is a belief with no rational basis. If a person who is capable of reason insists a statement is true despite having no reasonable evidence to support it, then they are failing to be honest and are lying.

[Ronald Brak]

Emphasis mine... You are welcome to this interpretation, but I also know that there are many Muslim mathematicians who believed just that... and yet they set forth the basis for much of the mathematics that serves us today... I really don't see the problem.

Did they have reasonable evidence that shows that a supernatural being is responsible for the angle of a triangle that we would accept today in our enlighted modern age? No, they didn't. To suggest that such evidence exists is a lie. Personally I'm against lying. That's just my personal position.

[pilgrim]

Personally, I went to a nuns catholic secondary all girls school but never actually noticed any raligious problems with the stuff they taught, though I don't think they mentioned any explicit references to God in context of curriculum. It's also funny that while I was there I was an outspoken atheist but returned to catholicism at least partially since then - partially due to maths and science (not something I want to discuss in detail, since it's just my personal opinion and based on a, mostly, rational consideration of a very irrational period of my life). Personally, I think religious beliefs are not likely to crystalise into their final form in a classroom.
One way or another, I got a pretty good bit of scientific and mathematical education out of that school as well as having had an excellent maths teacher.
On a lighter note, I wonder, if God is part of the maths curriculum, what will their maths exam questions look like? And if you wanna go very literal, I think I missed the part of genesis when god created mathematics. Which day would that have been?

[Lurker]

Did they have reasonable evidence that shows that a supernatural being is responsible for the angle of a triangle that we would accept today in our enlighted modern age? No, they didn't. To suggest that such evidence exists is a lie. Personally I'm against lying. That's just my personal position.
And yet the Muslim mathematician's I am refering to produced some of the most magnificent, brilliant mathematical research the world has seen.

I would also point out that "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack". There is no evidence for the existance of a supreme being and as such the rigorous rules of science do not allow it to be accepted as true. However, this does not rule out the possibility that one exists. So... belief in one does not constitute a lie... it constitutes belief in a scientifically unfounded concept.

Personally, I would find science a very sterile discipline by which to live my life. In addition, it would appear that incorporating such beliefs into one's personal life does not necessarily have an adverse impact on one's ability to conduct first rate mathematics and science.

[pghnative]

And, they probably have some interesting word problems... If 30% of the congregation sinned......then the congregation would increase by an extra 5% per year.:lol:

[Ronald Brak]

And yet the Muslim mathematician's I am refering to produced some of the most magnificent, brilliant mathematical research the world has seen.

I fail to see what this has to do with anything. Einstien apparently believed we only used 10% of our brain for no good reason, but this doesn't mean he couldn't come up with relativity. And you might want to consider what would have happened to those muslim mathematicians if they said they didn't believe that a supernatural force was responsible. (Trust me, it wasn't good.)


I would also point out that "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack". There is no evidence for the existance of a supreme being and as such the rigorous rules of science do not allow it to be accepted as true. However, this does not rule out the possibility that one exists. So... belief in one does not constitute a lie... it constitutes belief in a scientifically unfounded concept.

Belief is not a lie. Stateing that a belief that is scientifically unfounded is true without pointing out that there is no reasonable evidence to support it is a a lie, a lie by omission. Otherwise my stateing that my cat is responsible for the sum of a triangle's angles equalling 180 degrees becomes truth and the world becomes a very strange and uncertain place indeed.

[Lurker]

I fail to see what this has to do with anything. Einstien apparently believed we only used 10% of our brain for no good reason, but this doesn't mean he couldn't come up with relativity. And you might want to consider what would have happened to those muslim mathematicians if they said they didn't believe that a supernatural force was responsible. (Trust me, it wasn't good.)

My emphasis... hmmm... I would suggest you read more deeply before you come to the conclusion that their belief was forced upon them. My point is that personal belief does not necessarily impede the ability to perform first-rate mathematics and science.





Belief is not a lie. Stateing that a belief that is scientifically unfounded is true without pointing out that this is an unfounded personal opinion is a lie.
Otherwise my stateing that my cat is responsible for the sum of a triangle's angles equalling 180 degrees becomes truth and the world becomes a very strange and uncertain place indeed.


by the standards of evidence we use in our country. Perhaps it's different where you are.
But the world is a very strange and uncertain place. Science is a very important and necessary way to to proceed when looking to build an airplane, a skyscraper, or launch a rocket. However, many of us find it far to sterile a discipline to live our personal lives by.

Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists all have their beliefs concerning the ultimate meaning and purpose of life. If you want to see these things as lies, it is up to you... if a brilliant scientific researcher wants to believe that all his research work is whispered in his ear by his cat, that's up to him.

As I said, I don't believe in living life by science... I am willing to let people believe in ghosts... brilliant, all-powerful cats... gods... I simply don't want them classified as science. That said... I don't think it is necessary for every personal belief to be preceded with a the caveat... "THIS IS SCIENTIFICALLY UNPROVEN", rather I believe that science should be preceded with the comment, "what follows is scientific"... that's just me...

may your way bring you that which you would wish in this life. *


*caveat: others have the right to pursue their path...

[Ronald Brak]

My emphasis... hmmm... I would suggest you read more deeply before you come to the conclusion that their belief was forced upon them. My point is that personal belief does not necessarily impede the ability to perform first-rate mathematics and science.

I didn't say it was forced upon them. Please reread my post.


Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists all have their beliefs concerning the ultimate meaning and purpose of life. If you want to see these things as lies, it is up to you...

I didn't say this either. Again, please reread my posts. You appear to have some reading comprehension difficulty. I suggest jotting down what you think my main point is before you respond. If you still have difficulty let me know and I'll give you further reading comprehension tips. (I used to be a teacher.)


As I said, I don't believe in living life by science... I am willing to let people believe in ghosts... brilliant, all-powerful cats... gods... I simply don't want them classified as science. That said... I don't think it is necessary for every personal belief to be preceded with a the caveat... "THIS IS SCIENTIFICALLY UNPROVEN", rather I believe that science should be preceded with the comment, "what follows is scientific"... that's just me...

I disagree. I believe that telling a student that the angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees because god did it without stateing that there is no evidence to support that conclusion is a lie. I believe that telling a student that the world is 6,000 years old without telling them that there is no reasonable evidence to support this idea is a lie. I believe that telling students that the moon landings were faked without telling them that there is no reasonable evidence to support this idea is a lie. I don't think teachers should free to state whatever they like as being fact if there is no reasonable evidence to support it.

[Lurker]

I didn't say it was forced upon them. Please reread my post.

No... you said:
you might want to consider what would have happened to those muslim mathematicians if they said they didn't believe that a supernatural force was responsible.
My inference was that you were suggesting that these Muslim mathematicians felt compelled to believe out of fear.





I didn't say this either. Again, please reread my posts. You appear to have some reading comprehension difficulty. I suggest jotting down what you think my main point is before you respond. If you still have difficulty let me know and I'll give you further reading comprehension tips. (I used to be a teacher.)

you said:
Otherwise my stateing that my cat is responsible for the sum of a triangle's angles equalling 180 degrees becomes truth and the world becomes a very strange and uncertain place indeed.
And I said the world is a strange place and if someone wants to believe that their cat is the responsible part for a mathematical concept such as this I don't see a problem as long as it is not presented as such in the specific realm of science. That said, I beliefe that personal life should be considered separate from personal life.





I disagree. I believe that telling a student that the angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees because god did it without stateing that there is no evidence to support that conclusion is a lie. I believe that telling a student that the world is 6,000 years old without telling them that there is no reasonable evidence to support this idea is a lie. I believe that telling students that the moon landings were faked without telling them that there is no reasonable evidence to support this idea is a lie. I don't think teachers should free to state whatever they like as being fact if there is no reasonable evidence to support it.
And yet for hundreds of years we have had Christian, Jewish, and Muslim academies doing just that. We in the sciences and engineering are deeply indebted to some of the researchers they have produced.

What you are objecting to is rather fundamental to many religious belief systems. I have no objection as long as it does not inhibit the scientist, mathematician, engineer from doing first-rate work. What history has taught is is that while it can interfere... it does not have to interfere...

As to "reasonable evidence", it is fundamental to scientific discipline, but for many scientific discipline is far too sterile a lifestyle by which to live. A teacher often teaches much more that math, science, physics... and academies exist to teach a much broader range of subjects... not all these subjects are subject to the same restrictions as the sciences. Literature, Art, Philosophy all teach ideas that to not meet the strict criterian of "reasonable evidence"...

[Ronald Brak]

So Lurker, is it okay for a teacher who thinks Shakespeare's plays were written by Bacon to tell her students that the plays were written by Bacon without telling them that most scholars disagree with her on this point?

[Torsten]

I doubt they deal with non-Euclidean Geometry.

I thought that geometry and math were human inventions that just happened to be very useful tools for understanding the physical world. Every now and then the tools are found to be inadequate as we explore the physical world ever deeper. Then another human mind invents the appropriate tools to help us understand. Or sometimes the tools were invented long ago, and their usefulness only becomes apparent in the light of new evidence or problems. For example, Murray Gell-Mann's (and independently, Yuvall Ne’eman) arrangement of particles into families using Sophus Lie's SU(3) Symmetry, thus predicting the existence of the omega minus particle.

So, getting back to geometry, would this school's teachers blithely teach (as mine did) that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is 180 degrees, or would they also consider, for example, a triangle placed on a suitably large area of the Earth's surface? How deep deep in their studies of geometry do they need to go before their students can appreciate the "nature of God"? (Hmmmm, and I thought that God was supernatural. . . . .)

[Lurker]

So Lurker, is it okay for a teacher who thinks Shakespeare's plays were written by Bacon to tell her students that the plays were written by Bacon without telling them that most scholars disagree with her on this point?
No... but I think its OK for a teacher to say that Shakespeare was a great playwright even though it is difficult to point to "reasonable evidence" in the form of invariant metrics that support this. As a result, I think it is equally valid for a teacher in an Arab academy to say, "It is obvious that shakespeare is an example of western filth". Who is right??

[Ronald Brak]

No... but I think its OK for a teacher to say that Shakespeare was a great playwright even though it is difficult to point to "reasonable evidence" in the form of invariant metrics that support this. As a result, I think it is equally valid for a teacher in an Arab academy to say, "It is obvious that shakespeare is an example of western filth". Who is right??

The fact that Shakespere is widely considered to be the greatest playwright in the English language is pretty good evidence that he was a great playwright. As far as I am aware there is not a lot of good evidence to support the second statement, "It is obvious that Shakespeare is an example of western filth." How is it obvious? To who is it obvious? What characteristics make it western filth? Has the teacher told the students that Shakespeare is not considered filth in the vast majority of countries in the world? If the teacher says that Shakespeare is filth without explaining that this is not an opinion held by the majority of people or countries in the world then it is a lie of omission and the teacher has failed in his or her duty to educate rather than indoctrinate.

[SeanF]

The fact that Shakespere is widely considered to be the greatest playwright in the English language is pretty good evidence that he was a great playwright
The fact that God is widely considered to exist is...?

[Lurker]

The fact that Shakespere is widely considered to be the greatest playwright in the English language is pretty good evidence that he was a great playwright. As far as I am aware there is not a lot of good evidence to support the second statement, "It is obvious that Shakespeare is an example of western filth."

Oh come on... Ron... opinion is not "reasonable evidence"... It was once widely accepted that the world was flat... that blacks were inferior to whites, that continental drift was foolishness... There is no science in the acceptance of Shakespere as great other than that many are moved by him...





How is it obvious? To who is it obvious? What characteristics make it western filth? Has the teacher told the students that Shakespeare is not considered filth in the vast majority of countries in the world?

That's my point... popular opinion does not make something truth. There are many who do not believe that evolution is true. Is it necessary to meantion this in a science class??




If the teacher says that Shakespeare is filth without explaining that this is not an opinion held by the majority of people or countries in the world then it is a lie of omission and the teacher has failed in his or her duty to educate rather than indoctrinate.
Once again... you don't seem to think that it is required to meantion the fact that many don't think evolution is true. Why?? Because it is a scientific fact. Now the question is, "Is Shakespeare a great writer?". A lot of people believe so... does that make it true?? If most people believed evolution was false would that make it false.

You want to teach "Truth" with a capital "T"... I don't believe that this exists outside the realm of science. PI is a irrational number... the angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees. These are facts... who makes these facts true is much less amenable to scientific investigation. Maybe your cat is responsible... maybe not... all science can tell us is that at this point the assertion is unproven. All science can tell us about the assertion, "Shakespeare is a great writer" is that is also unproven. Lots of people are moved by him... lots of people believe he is, but popular opinion does not prove an assertion scientifically.

So... as long as the scientific and mathematical reasoning remain pure... I don't care if this attributed to your cat, Allah or any of a thousand other gods... besides science is never going to contain a proof that your cat is not responsible for the sum of the angles of a triangle always equaling 180 degrees.

[Lurker]

The fact that Shakespere is widely considered to be the greatest playwright in the English language is pretty good evidence that he was a great playwright


The fact that God is widely considered to exist is...?
Hmmmmm... a compelling argument... :think:

;)

[Chuck]

There are also good logical and historical reasons to believe that God is a myth. There's nothing like that about the existence of Shakespeare.

I'm heading home from work shortly. Then I'll be back online to read the final few posts of a locked thread.

[Lurker]

There are also good logical and historical reasons to believe that God is a myth. There's nothing like that about the existence of Shakespeare.

I'm heading home from work shortly. Then I'll be back online to read the final few posts of a locked thread.
No one is suggesting the existence of Shakespeare is a myth... but that it cannot be scientifically proven that he was a great writer...

[Ronald Brak]

I am dumbfounded. The question of whether or not Shakespeare is a great playwrite or not is one of popularity. If you ask me who is the greatest playwrite and most people say Shakespeare is the greatest playwrite then Shakespeare is the greatest. The answer to the question, "What is the most popular?" is whatever the most people believe is the most popular. It is this way by definition. And just because the correct answer to a "What is the Most Popular?" question is whatever what most people think is most popular, it does not mean that the answer to all questions are what most people think. If most people in the world think that green cheese is their favorite cheese then green cheese is the world's most favorite cheese. But if most people think the moon is made of green cheese it does not mean that the moon is made of green cheese although you can certainly say that most people believe the moon is made of green cheese.

[Lurker]

I am dumbfounded. The question of whether or not Shakespeare is a great playwrite or not is one of popularity. If you ask me who is the greatest playwrite and most people say Shakespeare is the greatest playwrite then Shakespeare is the greatest.

But that is popularity... where are the scientific metrics... what if everyone changes their minds? As SeanF points out, most people think god exists, that doesn't make it true.




The answer to the question, "What is the most popular?" is whatever the most people believe is the most popular. It is this way by definition. And just because the correct answer to a "What is the Most Popular?" question is whatever what most people think is most popular does not mean that the answer to all questions are what most people think. If most people in the world think that green cheese is their favorite cheese then green cheese is the world's most favorite cheese. But if most people think the moon is made of green cheese it does not mean the moon is made of green cheese.
This is true... the moon is not made of green cheeze not even if everyone thinks it is. So... show me how Shakespeare is great playwright independent of what people thing. Afterall if it is true, it should be true even if most people think his works suck.

[Ronald Brak]

This is true... the moon is not made of green cheeze not even if everyone thinks it is. So... show me how Shakespeare is great playwright independent of what people thing. Afterall if it is true, it should be true even if most people think his works suck.

I can't tell if English is your second language or if we are having problems because it's my second language. I have no idea how Shakespeare could be a great playwrite independant of what people think. Do you know how?

[Lurker]

I can't tell if English is your second language or if we are having problems because it's my second language. I have no idea how Shakespeare could be a great playwrite independant of what people think. Do you know how?
Then it is not a scientific fact is it...

And that was the point I was attempting to make... not all fields of study are amenable to scientific analysis...

[Ronald Brak]

Then it is not a scientific fact is it...

And that was the point I was attempting to make... not all fields of study are amenable to scientific analysis...

And my point is that teachers shouldn't lie to students.

[Lurker]

And my point is that teachers shouldn't lie to students.
And my point is that there are somethings that are neither known to be True or False"... if they were then they would be true regardless of what people thought. Shakespeare's writing falls into this latter category... and so does the question of who is responsible for the sum of the angles of a triangle being equal to 180 degrees.

If your cat is not responsible for this sum, lets see a scientific proof... one that is true regardless of what people think...

[Ronald Brak]

And my point is that there are somethings that are neither known to be True or False"...

Then teachers should not lie by saying that they are certainly true or lie by saying that they are certainly false.

[Lurker]

Then teachers should not lie by saying that they are certainly true or lie by saying that they are certainly false.
Ahhhhh but outside science the rules of science no longer apply... There are things that I believe are certainly true that cannot be proved scientifically. I don't force others to believe them, but I have no doubt that they are in fact true.

[Chuck]

Whether it's science or not, teachers are claiming knowledge that they don't actually have. Even if their claims are true and God did create the laws of mathematics, the teachers don't know that. No one does. They're misleading their students.

[Ronald Brak]

Ahhhhh but outside science the rules of science no longer apply... There are things that I believe are certainly true that cannot be proved scientifically. I don't force others to believe them, but I have no doubt that they are in fact true.

Nothing can be proved scientifically. Proof is the province of mathematics, not science. And I don't really care what people believe is certainly true but I care whether or not teachers are claiming knowledge that they don't actually have as Chuck explains above.

[Lurker]

Whether it's science or not, teachers are claiming knowledge that they don't actually have. Even if their claims are true and God did create the laws of mathematics, the teachers don't know that. No one does. They're misleading their students.
Well... few people put such caveats on the idea that Shakespeare is a great writer even though it cannot be scientifically proven... much of what society goes about believing does not have such rigor applied to it...

[Chuck]

First you need a definition of what makes a writer great. If a writer is great because a large number of people enjoy his work then it can be proven that Shakespeare is a great writer just by asking people.

[Maksutov]

Schools are quite like manufacturing facilities.

They turn out certain products.

The best schools turn out well-informed freethinkers.

The one in question appears to be designed to turn out graduates who will march in lockstep.

[pilgrim]

The one in question appears to be designed to turn out graduates who will march in lockstep.


I'm inclined to say quite the contrary as far as my experience of 'religious' schools goes. Think about it, most people are in their teens in secondary school, which is also the time you are most inclined to disagree with everything being suggested to you. As far as my experience went, the fact my classmates and I went to a catholic school resulted in us having some of the most thought out, expansive and detailed discussions on the subject of religion I've ever had in my life. As a matter of fact, after having numerous debates on the subject of abortions, euthanasia, and divorces with my religion teacher where we fundamentally disagreed with each other, we both walked away with a genuine respect for each other and a more openminded (freethinking) view based on the fact we were both forced to see each other's side of the argument, even if we didn't agree with it. It might actually be a good freethinking exercise to keep a bit openminded and admit that since our scientific knowledge is indisputably incomplete, there might be stuff we don't know. That is not to say that earth is 6000 years old (which I reckon to be rubbish) but then again, religious knowledge may be incomplete, too, whether its proponents admit it or not. However, I think we should be a bit more tollerant of faith as such, so long as it doesn't corrupt the science, and I can't see it doing so in this case.

I agree with lurker that science in the form we know it (which is really the only form we can apply to the natural world without rendering science meaningless) is too sterile to live one's life by. Take for instance being in love with someone. Scientifically I can say it's just chemicals going off in my brain but is that really how I want to live my life??

[Maksutov]

I'm inclined to say quite the contrary as far as my experience of 'religious' schools goes. Think about it, most people are in their teens in secondary school, which is also the time you are most inclined to disagree with everything being suggested to you. As far as my experience went, the fact my classmates and I went to a catholic school resulted in us having some of the most thought out, expansive and detailed discussions on the subject of religion I've ever had in my life.Yes, but did the stance of your instructors ever change?
As a matter of fact, after having numerous debates on the subject of abortions, euthanasia, and divorces with my religion teacher where we fundamentally disagreed with each other, we both walked away with a genuine respect for each other and a more openminded (freethinking) view based on the fact we were both forced to see each other's side of the argument, even if we didn't agree with it.But did the stance of your instructors ever change?
It might actually be a good freethinking exercise to keep a bit openminded and admit that since our scientific knowledge is indisputably incomplete, there might be stuff we don't know. You definitely need to learn more about science, since it's the process of finding out about things we don't know.
That is not to say that earth is 6000 years old (which I reckon to be rubbish) but then again, religious knowledge may be incomplete, too, whether its proponents admit it or not.Religious knowledge is a contradiction in terms, since it's based something called "faith" as opposed to verifiable objective evidence.
However, I think we should be a bit more tollerant of faith as such, so long as it doesn't corrupt the science, and I can't see it doing so in this case.Check out the life of Giordano Bruno.

[pilgrim]

Yes, but did the stance of your instructors ever change? But did the stance of your instructors ever change? You definitely need to learn more about science, since it's the process of finding out about things we don't know.Religious knowledge is a contradiction in terms, since it's based something called "faith" as opposed to verifiable objective evidence. Check out the life of Giordano Bruno.

As for the first two comments, another valid question is whether my stance ever changed either? And no, it did not change in either case, but at least we went away with a better understanding of the other side's arguments which I think works a lot better at reconciling the two sides than a purely atttacking stance and preventing the "us against them" idea which seems to contribute to the whole creationist/intelligent design agressive corruption of science. So at the end of the day I was no different, just coming from a different point of view. Which personally I consider a lot more important, the different point of view thing. What's the point of being agreed with all the time, particularly on topics as complex as faith. I'd never learn anything!
As for learning more about science, I agree with you, that's why I'm studying it (and I'm not as bad at it as you have implied :lol:)! The point of what I was trying to say is, that since our knowledge is incomplete (which it deffinitely is), there's always the leeway for our opinion, whether we are scientists or religious proponents, to be wrong, particularly when dealing with religion, since that is based on faith.
On the statement religious knowledge is a contradiction, that's a bit harsh. Religious knowledge can contain anything from history of religion to scripture studies (of any kind of religious writing), through the founding principles of a specific religion, and going into studies of the social climate of the societies at the time. It deffinitely takes some accademic effort for theology students (and a good friend of mine was one) to study latin, greek and hebrew to be capable of understanding the original text of scriptures, not to mention philosophical works of thinkers such as Kierkergaard (and as brilliant as he is, 90% of what he wrote about in Fear and Trembling flew over my head on the first read). As for objectivity, on your classification of the unreliability of scriptures (and they are unreliable) you could dismiss most of ancient history (e.g Herodotus) as unworthy of serious study for sake of knowledge! What the tone of your reply implied is to dismiss a considerable chunk of perfectly valid accademic course based on calling it purely guesswork made up on the spot.

[Michael Noonan]

Originally Posted by pilgrim
I'm inclined to say quite the contrary as far as my experience of 'religious' schools goes. Think about it, most people are in their teens in secondary school, which is also the time you are most inclined to disagree with everything being suggested to you. As far as my experience went, the fact my classmates and I went to a catholic school resulted in us having some of the most thought out, expansive and detailed discussions on the subject of religion I've ever had in my life.

Yes, but did the stance of your instructors ever change?

I am less inclined to worry about the instructor and more about the value of learning the mathematics. Does it inform the student enough to look beyond the beliefs of the instructor, even the students own beliefs.

That is "Is mathematics truly independent", I say yes. Simple reason I knew what faith my parents teachers and I were supposed to follow. Then being the unruly spirit I used math on one of the declarations :

"I have sinned in my thoughts and in my words; in what I have done and what I have failed to do."

This is a very important text meaning an admission of guilt. I however chose to take it to mean that I needed to sin in my thoughts and my words; in what I have done and what I failed to do at least once each on a weekly basis so that on Sunday's I would not lie to God.

I have mathematics and the teaching of logic to thank for that. Not that I was such a bad child altogether, I preferred that logic as a deal so I didn't tell lies on Sundays.

I would argue mathematics is a good enough platform to stand independently.

[Michael Noonan]

I have mathematics and the teaching of logic to thank for that. Not that I was such a bad child altogether, I preferred that logic as a deal so I didn't tell lies on Sundays.

I would argue mathematics is a good enough platform to stand independently.

I was just rereading this and it is not that I want to treat one of the most important parts of what I was taught with disrespect but as a child I was resolving an impossible situation.

I was somewhere in the ages of seven to ten when this idea hit and I kept it to myself. One I knew it was not verbatim what I had been taught and I knew it was not meant to be taught that way.

Unreasonable child perhaps, but yes I believe in God and that I have a God given sense of humour. But when adults gave me a child an impossible task to resolve I found an unusual way to resolve it.

Basically one 'bad' thing said of varying degree didn't make me much different to many of my friends at the time, it did cover saying which is also a doing of a thing, thinking and failing not to think of a thing.

By logic I deduced God also has a sense of humour as I had to get mine from somewhere.

[SeanF]

Then being the unruly spirit I used math on one of the declarations :

"I have sinned in my thoughts and in my words; in what I have done and what I have failed to do."

This is a very important text meaning an admission of guilt. I however chose to take it to mean that I needed to sin in my thoughts and my words; in what I have done and what I failed to do at least once each on a weekly basis so that on Sunday's I would not lie to God.
Bad logic, Michael. If you've sinned once, the referenced statement will be true forever after. You don't need to keep sinning for the statement "I have sinned" to keep being true. :)

[Lurker]

First you need a definition of what makes a writer great. If a writer is great because a large number of people enjoy his work then it can be proven that Shakespeare is a great writer just by asking people.
If this is true, then you also have to define what makes a god exist... Some honestly believe that a god exists because many believe...

In the case of Shakespeare... then there is no unchanging "Truth" since he would not be a great writer if everyone thought differently. This is different from the proposition that 1 != 2... even for very large values of 1... This truth exists separately from what people think.

This is my point... there are concepts outside the sciences that are dependent of what people think and are not immutable.

[Chuck]

If what people think makes Shakespeare a great writer then he can't be great writer independently of what people think. It's their thoughts that determine his greatness. Some day he might not be a great writer. Opinions change.

If you want to say that God exists just because some people believe in him then that's fine with me. God's existence is all their minds, just like Shakespeare's greatness.

[Chuck]

This does not mean that there is no God, of course. It's just that his existence is still an unsupported belief and should not be taught to students as fact. If he's mentioned at all, it should be mentioned along with it that there is no supporting evidence, sort of like with a new scientific theory that hasn't been tested fully. In cases like that, the evidence is cited so that the reader will know that it's not yet fully accepted.

[Five Easy Pieces]

I don't know... perhaps irrational numbers are an attempt by the gods to warning us against an over dependence on rationality...

There's nothing irrational about irrational numbers! :)

But, I would take issue with the idea that a deity can modify the laws of logic, and created the consistency of mathematics.

[Lurker]

If what people think makes Shakespeare a great writer then he can't be great writer independently of what people think. It's their thoughts that determine his greatness. Some day he might not be a great writer. Opinions change.

If you want to say that God exists just because some people believe in him then that's fine with me. God's existence is all their minds, just like Shakespeare's greatness.
But this is exactly the distinction that I was attempting to explain to Ronald Brak. Outside science there are few hard and fast truths... I am not saying I agree with this concept of the existence of a god, but as you say, it is acceptable. Ronald seems to be suggesting that saying god exists because people believe constitutes a lie... I am simply saying it gets a bit more grey, some might say rich, beyond the sterile strictures of science.

[Lurker]

There's nothing irrational about irrational numbers! :)

But, I would take issue with the idea that a deity can modify the laws of logic, and created the consistency of mathematics.
Ahhh... no one suggested that a deity has the ability to modify the consistency or that a deity created the consistency... just that a deity is responsible for the consistency...

small point, but it allows someone to believe that credit while not suggesting that the end result can be tampered with... If you think this is irrational, welcome to the human mind. Not everyone wants to live by complete, total rationality... some like a bit of the irrational to flavor the stew... :)

Hey, wasn't it Star Trek where they said, "the more complex the mind the greater the need for play"?? See... you gunna argue with the Esteemed Mr. Roddenberry?? :mad:

;-)

[Chuck]

But this is exactly the distinction that I was attempting to explain to Ronald Brak. Outside science there are few hard and fast truths... I am not saying I agree with this concept of the existence of a god, but as you say, it is acceptable. Ronald seems to be suggesting that saying god exists because people believe constitutes a lie... I am simply saying it gets a bit more grey, some might say rich, beyond the sterile strictures of science.
Teachers aren't leaving God outside of science. They're crediting him with having done things that have effects within the realm of science, such as making the sum of the angles of a triangle 180° and creating the universe 6000 years ago. If they're going to make scientific claims about him then they should provide scientific evidence or at least state that they have none and that other opinions may vary.

[Lurker]

Teachers aren't leaving God outside of science. They're crediting him with having done things that have effects within the realm of science, such as making the sum of the angles of a triangle 180° and creating the universe 6000 years ago. If they're going to make scientific claims about him then they should provide scientific evidence or at least state that they have none and that other opinions may vary.
I agree, that creating the universe 6000 years ago goes into the realm of science. The case with math is much less intrusive.

In many cases however, someone believes that a god is responsible, but they're not suggesting that the god can modify the laws. They are saying simplythat the the god is responsible. Such beliefs do not interfere with the practice of science since the belief is that science is the tool given humans to understand the god's glory.

Not my cup of tea, but it has been demonstrated through out history that such beliefs do not necessarily hinder scientific investigation. I do not ask anyone to live life by the sterile, rational rules of science. It should be enough that they keep their work in the sciences pure.

[Chuck]

Whether it hinders science or not, if something is going to be taught to students they should be told whether or not there is supporting evidence. A popular belief should be presented as a popular belief, not as a fact.

[Lurker]

Whether it hinders science or not, if something is going to be taught to students they should be told whether or not there is supporting evidence. A popular belief should be presented as a popular belief, not as a fact.
And how does one distinguish fact beyond the realm of science. There are millions the world over who believe that the Christian faith is absolute fact... there are just as many millions who believe that Islam is absolute fact. Do you require that such faiths teach their beliefs as "popular belief , not as a fact"? At many colleges and universities in the United States, you can get degrees in religion.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduate_programs_in_religion):


Some of the programs which are consistently ranked near the top are Harvard, Yale, Chicago, Notre Dame, Duke University, Emory, Vanderbilt, Claremont School of Theology, Princeton University, Princeton Theological Seminary, Fuller Theological Seminary, and Union Theological Seminary in New York. Several public schools such as the University of Virginia also have well regarded programs, though these programs focus more on the academic study of religion rather than in practical theology.

[Chuck]

If something being taught is from beyond the realm of science then the teacher should say so. Teaching religion in religion class is fine, as is teaching Greek mythology in Greek mythology class. If something being mentioned in a science class is from religion or mythology then the students should be told about it.

[Lurker]

If something being taught is from beyond the realm of science then the teacher should say so. Teaching religion in religion class is fine, as is teaching Greek mythology in Greek mythology class. If something being mentioned in a science class is from religion or mythology then the students should be told about it.
But suppose one is taught in a science class that which is science and taught in other classes that a god is responsible for all of the beauty found in the sciences. If one is in a religious academy how does one divide one's consciousness. Science says that PI is a transcendental number that represents the the the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. Science does not speak to the question as why it is that way. If someone wants to attribute to the glory of god or allah, I don't really see the issue. This is not the province of science.

I'm really surprised at the controversy this has been going on in religious academies for hundreds of years and more. We are indebted to scientists from these institutions, with their beliefs in their gods, for many of the concepts and theories that modern science is built upon. It is an established tradition... it can cause trouble, but it has also produced great scientists. Science seems to have survived...

[Chuck]

It's fine with me if students in a religion class are taught that God created all of the beauty of science. Since it's being taught in a religion class, the students would know that it's the opinion of the religion being taught at that school and can properly evaluate the information.

[Lurker]

It's fine with me if students in a religion class are taught that God created all of the beauty of science. Since it's being taught in a religion class, the students would know that it's the opinion of the religion being taught at that school and can properly evaluate the information.
Yeah... but you fail to address the rest of my post. You may see it as opinion, but those who believe don't. Science is a tool, not necessarily a way to live one's life. This is in the realm of personal life and how one brings meaning to one's life. Not everyone wishes to use science and logic in the pursuit of this. My love for my lost lady is not logical, it cannot be measured by science, it cannot be quantified numerically.

You may want religion to be taught as opinion and divorced from science, but it has been taught as fact in and in conjunction with science in religious academies for hundreds of years. Some of the graduates of these academies have believed in their gods and yet been among the finest scientists and engineers produced. I don't see any difficulty in this. If you do, you are welcome to attempt to halt the practice...

[Chuck]

If someone needs religion or anything else to give his life meaning then there's no reason why he shouldn't go for it. If he wants to teach it to students he should teach it as religion. Putting the material into a science lesson as though it were an established scientific fact is being deceptive, not educational. Even if he's 100% certain that everything he believes is true, as an educated man he'd also know the difference between religion and science. He'd be deliberately misleading his students, not teaching them. The fact that a religious person can still be a good scientist doesn't excuse this behavior.

There's no real urgency to put a stop to it. It's now well known that this goes on and the students will find out about it eventually. Then they can make a choice. An attempt to stop something this popular would be worse for the students as their parents tried to circumvent the law. If anything's worse than too much religion it's too much government. It would not go well. It will probably die out on its own. Kids get a lot more information now than they did in the past and will get even more in the future. They'll be finding out about these things earlier in life.

[Lurker]

If someone needs religion or anything else to give his life meaning then there's no reason why he shouldn't go for it. If he wants to teach it to students he should teach it as religion. Putting the material into a science lesson as though it were an established scientific fact is being deceptive, not educational. Even if he's 100% certain that everything he believes is true, as an educated man he'd also know the difference between religion and science. He'd be deliberately misleading his students, not teaching them. The fact that a religious person can still be a good scientist doesn't excuse this behavior.

It is not put into science... science is only a tool. It is embraced by the individual as fact. I doubt that you are the one to lecture me or other indiviiduals on such subjects. Science is a tool, it is not necessarily a way to live one's life. One, scientist or teacher, does not mislead students by telling them that there is more to life than that which can be understood through science. If someone wishes to live their life that way, that is their choice. There are others who do not. The belief in gods is pervasive... many fine scientists are certain that a deity of some kind or another exists... You are welcome to your way, but I doubt you are one to call down judgment on others...



There's no real urgency to put a stop to it. It's now well known that this goes on and the students will find out about it eventually. Then they can make a choice. An attempt to stop something this popular would be worse for the students as their parents tried to circumvent the law. If anything's worse than too much religion it's too much government. It would not go well. It will probably die out on its own. Kids get a lot more information now than they did in the past and will get even more in the future. They'll be finding out about these things earlier in life.
This is true... I have friends who have gotten a lot of information... they left their religions when they were young. Many, if not most of the, have returned to their religious roots as they have grown. More than 200 years after it's birth, the United States is still a very religious nation. In addition, Islam is considered by some to be the fastest growing religion in the world. It would seem that technology and information has not reduced the religious and spiritual fervor of the world.

[Chuck]

It is not put into science... science is only a tool. It is embraced by the individual as fact. I doubt that you are the one to lecture me or other indiviiduals on such subjects. Science is a tool, it is not necessarily a way to live one's life. One, scientist or teacher, does not mislead students by telling them that there is more to life than that which can be understood through science. If someone wishes to live their life that way, that is their choice. There are others who do not. The belief in gods is pervasive... many fine scientists are certain that a deity of some kind or another exists... You are welcome to your way, but I doubt you are one to call down judgment on others...You mean like you're calling down judgment on me? We all judge each other. It's the way we are. I see nothing wrong with expressing opinions. I'm against trying to enforce them, such as with inquisitions and crusades.

I'm fine with teachers believing in God. I'm against passing it off as science. If they want to give their students religion as another option they should call it what it is, not try to sneak it into something else.

This is true... I have friends who have gotten a lot of information... they left their religions when they were young. Many, if not most of the, have returned to their religious roots as they have grown. More than 200 years after it's birth, the United States is still a very religious nation. In addition, Islam is considered by some to be the fastest growing religion in the world. It would seem that technology and information has not reduced the religious and spiritual fervor of the world.That's fine, as long as it's their informed choice. If they know that religious propaganda is being included in their lessons and they're fine with it then it's their choice.

[Lurker]

I'm fine with teachers believing in God. I'm against passing it off as science. If they want to give their students religion as another option they should call it what it is, not try to sneak it into something else.That's fine, as long as it's their informed choice. If they know that religious propaganda is being included in their lessons and they're fine with it then it's their choice.
{{rolls eyes}} It isn't science... science is a tool... but science does not define for everyone how what life is or how it should be lived. I find your term "religious propaganda" offensive.

Given your attitude toward religion... I am finished with this discussion...

[Chuck]

What attitude toward religion? We can't discuss religion here. We were discussing science and education.

[Chuck]

So, in answer to the first post of this thread, it does seem to be appalling, but I'm against trying to stop it by legislation. That would make things worse. Continued enlightenment is probably the way to go. It will lose its power if people become aware of it. I hope.

[Neverfly]

I don't think its APPALLING by any means...
it IS tedious though.

For a Person who believes in God- why NOT give him due credit for the creation of the Universe? By using Physics!!
It SEEMS like a good thing. Because rather than spout that Nonsense about the Earth is 6 thousand years old...

and rather than claim that footprints of dinosaurs and of man prove that they lived during the same period...

and that carbon ( or elemental?) dating is inaccurate...

They are TEACHING and Embracing Science and Promoting rational explanations and evidence and research.

I think this kind of curriculum in a Religious school is GOOD and should be encouraged.

[Michael Noonan]

I don't think its APPALLING by any means...
it IS tedious though.

For a Person who believes in God- why NOT give him due credit for the creation of the Universe? By using Physics!!
It SEEMS like a good thing. Because rather than spout that Nonsense about the Earth is 6 thousand years old...

and rather than claim that footprints of dinosaurs and of man prove that they lived during the same period...

and that carbon ( or elemental?) dating is inaccurate...

They are TEACHING and Embracing Science and Promoting rational explanations and evidence and research.

I think this kind of curriculum in a Religious school is GOOD and should be encouraged.

There are those of us who need to believe lesser of self and need that higher thought to be of God. That is a belief structure, not religion. I am sad that science is not taught consistently.

As a child I twisted logic to suit what I was being taught, please don't blame my 7 to 10 year old self for that. I have always needed to believe there is more than just self. For others self is enough. To put rules on self or human ways is very sensible it is called the justice system.

There are those who need rules for higher than self, those we do not discuss here.

Originally posted by SeanF
Bad logic, Michael. If you've sinned once, the referenced statement will be true forever after. You don't need to keep sinning for the statement "I have sinned" to keep being true. :)
Fair comment I believe it is called venial sin, a habit established over time. I have tried to improve over the years but in that case I was misusing the logic taught to me by the Nuns when I was a child. I am most happy accepting an infallible God and hope that God is happy enough accepting fallible me. Belief not religion.

This excerpt from my first ever post here:-

The start was an observation as an eight year old that lightening takes time to discharge. This happened on a gravel road some forty feet ahead of me and took some seconds after which the stones were still hissing and jumping as the energy discharged

I am not claiming that I was pleasing in any way, in fact to this day after nearly 40 years if I have said something that I should thought better of I still glance up 'just to confirm we still have a deal'. I am happy for people to know my totally lesser position and that I need to believe.

Which bring us back to the supposition that something as logical as mathematics is not biased by belief.

I believe that anything even factually presented is biased by ones own self opinion or belief but that is human nature.

[Maksutov]

I am simply saying it gets a bit more grey, some might say rich, beyond the sterile strictures of science....
I do not ask anyone to live life by the sterile, rational rules of science....Pardon me, but, what is it about science that you find "sterile"?

:think:

[Michael Noonan]

Originally Posted by Lurker
I am simply saying it gets a bit more grey, some might say rich, beyond the sterile strictures of science....


Originally Posted by Lurker
I do not ask anyone to live life by the sterile, rational rules of science....


Pardon me, but, what is it about science that you find "sterile"?

:think:

I believe this is saying the rules of teaching are sterile.

I can not believe anyone is suggesting that science is sterile.


Originally Posted by Neverfly
I don't think its APPALLING by any means...
it IS tedious though.

And I agree with Neverfly it IS tedious

[Neverfly]

Not to butter you up- But i read your post..
and Im going to need to Re-read it a few times.

But you make some REMARKABLE points that I think a LOT of people would do very well to realize...
ETA: after a few reads :p

The article describes a school that teaches SCIENCE- not watered down- or twisted- but from what i read and the curriculum- REAL science. It Merges and ties together FAITH in A divine Creator- WIth His creation-
It doesnt seem to detract from Real Science in any way.

I think this is GOOD for science. Because we have enough nuts out there as it is that think science is a fraud.
Im glad to see a religious school stepping up to plate and not defying science- but supporting it.

[pilgrim]

Just a thought but most of this debate seems to be centered around whether science should be allowed to overlap with other academic disciplines. While I am not forgetting the horrible censorship and prosecution science suffered at the hands of religion, even metaphysics, I think it's a good idea in principle. Everyone is complaining about how science (and mostly physics) is not exactly the top of the popularity list for most school kids, how there there's a lack of competent secondary school teachers in the field, etc. but then you look at how science barely acknowledges any other study and I can't be surprised anymore. Arts subjects such as literature or painting has been asknowledging maths and science for centuries (3rd and 4th dimension study in art during renessaince and cubism or impressionism or H.G. Wells books, not to mention Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials) while science community is barely willing to include diagram illustrations in its publishing, in general. Has anybody actually considered that by being less centralised or puristic and rigid in eaching methods (though not in what is actually being taught as far as practical use goes), scientific messages and procedures (in other words, the practical side of science) might stop 'preaching' (:)) only to the converted?

[BeetleB]

I hope no one has posted this before, I screened through a lot of the threads and didn't find it so I assume not.

http://chfbs.org/high_school/high_sch_math.htm

Yeah, read it. I wish I could get a look at their curriculum, I can't even imagine how they plan to synthesize God and Mathematics.

Aren't we supposed to be out of the Medieval Age?

I read somewhere that Issac Newton wrote more about the Bible than about science.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Maksutov
Quote: Originally Posted by Lurker
I am simply saying it gets a bit more grey, some might say rich, beyond the sterile strictures of science....
Originally Posted by Lurker
I do not ask anyone to live life by the sterile, rational rules of science....Pardon me, but, what is it about science that you find "sterile"?:think:I believe this is saying the rules of teaching are sterile....You may believe that, but what the words say is "the sterile strictures of science" and "the sterile, rational rules of science".

There's nothing in there about the "teaching" of science.

Instead it has to do with criticism of the method of science.

Kindly acknowledge that, and reconsider what you posted.


Note: Lurker, if you were referring only to "the rules of teaching" of science, then please correct me.

[Lurker]

I don't think its APPALLING by any means...
it IS tedious though.

For a Person who believes in God- why NOT give him due credit for the creation of the Universe? By using Physics!!
It SEEMS like a good thing. Because rather than spout that Nonsense about the Earth is 6 thousand years old...

and rather than claim that footprints of dinosaurs and of man prove that they lived during the same period...

and that carbon ( or elemental?) dating is inaccurate...

They are TEACHING and Embracing Science and Promoting rational explanations and evidence and research.

I think this kind of curriculum in a Religious school is GOOD and should be encouraged.
I have been very specific in what I have been discussing here. I do not believe in teaching the religious view of science in which the earth is 6,000 years old. I do not believe in bending science to fit religious preconception.

I have been specifically pointing to the fact that attributing the perceived "beauty and magnificence" of the truths revealed by science does not have to interfere with the quality of scientific work. I have pointed out that the history of our race is replete with examples of great scientists and mathematicians who have come from religious academies and have believed deeply in their faith and their gods...

[Lurker]

Pardon me, but, what is it about science that you find "sterile"?

:think:
I find it limiting when attempting to understand the deeper questions such as: "Why are we here?? What does life mean?? How should I choose my path through life??

I am not stating this as some Truth with a capital 'T', I am saying that this is the path I choose. Some have chosen to make science the star by which they chart their course through life. I have no issue with this. However, there are others who feel as I do... their scientific inquiries have been among the best and a few have laid the foundation for the mondern fields of mathematics and science.

It should not be a question of "What is it about science that I find sterile?" but "Is there room for other paths through life?" and "Do such paths make it impossible to engage in scientific inquiry?

I think history shows that there is conflict, but it does not have to be that way.

[Lurker]

You may believe that, but what the words say is "the sterile strictures of science" and "the sterile, rational rules of science".

There's nothing in there about the "teaching" of science.

Instead it has to do with criticism of the method of science.

Kindly acknowledge that, and reconsider what you posted.


Note: Lurker, if you were referring only to "the rules of teaching" of science, then please correct me.
No... you are infering that my words contain criticism. In fact, I use those words in a neutral fashion to describe the scientific method. Science must be sterile in order to function properly. It looks for those natural laws that are and must be true. As I have pointed out, science cannot answer the question "is a painting pretty?" This is not a criticism... this is not a drawback... this is not a limitation... this is the strength of the process.


Edited to add:

Maksutov -- I respect your posts and admire you a lot. I think science is a strong tool but that there is more than science to life. I want my water purified of toxic substances in a scientific fashion, I don't choose the plane I fly in because it is pretty. However, the picture that hangs in my front room over my meditation bench was chose for many reasons; none of them scientific...

each has its place...

[Chuck]

To be truly educated, students should be told where the information that they're being taught came from rather than just being given a list of facts to remember. They should be told why they should accept something as a fact other than just because a teacher or textbook says it's true. If the teacher tells them that the earth is roughly spherical he should also tell them what observations were made that lead to this conclusion. If he tells them that speed of light is constant he should tell them what experiments were done to test this idea. If he tells them that God made the sum of the angles of a triangle 180° he should tell them how it is that we know this to be true.

[Michael Noonan]

Originally Posted by Lurker

each has its place...
This is what I wanted to get at, it is very good.


Originally Posted by Chuck
To be truly educated, students should be told where the information that they're being taught came from rather than just being given a list of facts to remember.

My Mum was a teacher and just as math and English were taught fully and separately and have ways of working together. We were taught science separately from belief as two distinct subjects. This was so we could make up our own minds and not be limited to one point of view.

At some point we all may make our own choices.

For us science needed to be taught as per the scientific method which means evolution. Belief as per the rules of belief. We were told that at some time we may be required to choose if that was what we wanted or to continue with an open and receptive mind.

As children we had the best that could be given, no prejudice just that knowing as much as you can will give the best chance of making a right choice.

[Maksutov]

[edit]Aren't we supposed to be out of the Medieval Age?Well, we seem to have been for a while.

But history shows that progress towards enlightenment is not necessarily linear, and contains many setbacks. One example would be the achievements of certain Greek proto-scientists whose discoveries were then lost for hundreds of years.

One basic principle I made sure my son understood when I was raising him was that the Dark Ages may seem to be gone, but actually they're just lurking around the the next corner, waiting for an opportunity to take over again.

Therefore, if one is a rational being, one must always be vigilant and stay on one's toes. The price is the same as that for freedom.

[Maksutov]

[edit]Belief as per the rules of belief....Just out of curiosity, what exactly are these "rules of belief"?

[Sticks]

So are they teaching that PI=3

:shifty:Ducks and covers :lol:

[pilgrim]

Therefore, if one is a rational being, one must always be vigilant and stay on one's toes. The price is the same as that for freedom.

Is there such a thing as a rational being? Particularly if we allow the existance of strong emotions in people?

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Maksutov http://www.bautforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/63186-does-anyone-else-find-appalling-4.html#post1050249)

Therefore, if one is a rational being, one must always be vigilant and stay on one's toes. The price is the same as that for freedom.
Is there such a thing as a rational being? Particularly if we allow the existance of strong emotions in people?Yup. There's one who just replied to your post.

There are those who think that rocket engines cannot be controlled (http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality/) due to the large amounts of energy being produced and other factors, but, guess what?

Ditto re rational people.

[pilgrim]

Yup. There's one who just replied to your post.

There are those who think that rocket engines cannot be controlled (http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality/) due to the large amounts of energy being produced and other factors, but, guess what?

Look, I'm not trying to suggest rationality is impossible, just that constant, complete rationality is something I have yet to encounter. If you've ever lost your temper, felt an affection for someone even though they hurt you and forgave them, did anything spontaneous, or did something, anything, without overanalysing it, it's likely there was some irrationality concerned. An example, 2 nights ago I was walking home from a music gig and saw a busker on the street. He had a sign asking if he could sleep on someone's sofa that night. I had been in the same situation on a number of occasions myself, so I let him crash on mine. If I am to analyse this rationally, I have never met him before and he could have been any number of horrible things from murderers through rapists and thieves (incidentally he wasn't). I had acted irrationally, though not illogically since I had been in his situation before myself and therefore identified. Therefore I'd say if you (general you, not someone in particular) performed any small act of kindness, even giving some change to a homeless person, you have been guilty of an irrational behaviour.

[Michael Noonan]

So are they teaching that PI=3

:shifty:Ducks and covers :lol:

It depends on what you believe.

I would assume that is why Newton who wrote more for church kept science independent. That does seem to be an enlightened philosophy.

When the laughing dies down where do you stand?

[Lurker]

This is what I wanted to get at, it is very good.



My Mum was a teacher and just as math and English were taught fully and separately and have ways of working together. We were taught science separately from belief as two distinct subjects. This was so we could make up our own minds and not be limited to one point of view.

At some point we all may make our own choices.

For us science needed to be taught as per the scientific method which means evolution. Belief as per the rules of belief. We were told that at some time we may be required to choose if that was what we wanted or to continue with an open and receptive mind.

As children we had the best that could be given, no prejudice just that knowing as much as you can will give the best chance of making a right choice.
You want someone to learn science as if it were outside the rest of their existence. No one is suggesting that the rigor or science be compromised. The world works as it does... but many don't want science dictating their philosophy of life.

I have a friend a very strong, respected researcher in physics. She is Jewish and has brought up her children to be Jewish. She "knows" that the fields of science in which she works are a result of the glory of "the one god with the name that cannot be spoken" (no vowel marks in the original Hebrew)...

She does not ask science to recognize her spiritual path, she does not believe that PI can changed at the whim of this almighty creator of hers. She is happy, contented, and certain in her spiritual knowledge and spiritual path through life. She is passing this tradition on to her children just as it was passed down to her across thousands of years...

[Lurker]

Well, we seem to have been for a while.

But history shows that progress towards enlightenment is not necessarily linear, and contains many setbacks. One example would be the achievements of certain Greek proto-scientists whose discoveries were then lost for hundreds of years.

One basic principle I made sure my son understood when I was raising him was that the Dark Ages may seem to be gone, but actually they're just lurking around the the next corner, waiting for an opportunity to take over again.

Therefore, if one is a rational being, one must always be vigilant and stay on one's toes. The price is the same as that for freedom.
One of the reasons that science has setbacks is that those who practice it tend to be too evangelical just as some of the followers of the major religions tend to be too evangelical. Not everyone wants to live their lives the way some here are suggesting. They wish to harness science as a tool and yet walk a path through life with some level of mysticism...

I find it somewhat humorous that the BA works so hard in the interests of good science and yet he is losing because not all want to lead a life of pure rationalism... Some do and I am not suggesting that anyone attempt to take that away... but some wish to attend religious academies... they see themselves as striving in sicence and mathematics for the greater glory of their gods... there should be a place for this as well...

[Lurker]

So are they teaching that PI=3

:shifty:Ducks and covers :lol:
I have no time for such people and I am not suggesting anything of the sort.

[Lurker]

Yup. There's one who just replied to your post.

There are those who think that rocket engines cannot be controlled (http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality/) due to the large amounts of energy being produced and other factors, but, guess what?

Ditto re rational people.
And yet there is a strong irrational component in many people...

The christian and islamic faiths talk about the spirit being willing and the flesh being weak. They suggest that the flesh must be subdued so that the spirit grows strong. I think that we are both...

It sometimes seems to me that some say that there is a dichotomy within the human makeup between the rational and the irrational. They seem to suggest that the irrational must be subdued so that the rational can grow strong. Again, I believe that we are both... I, and others, do not believe that this means that PI, or other scientific concepts, are mutable, but it does mean that one's reasons for pursuing science and certain unknowable questions of "why?" be left as an exercise for the individual.

[farmerjumperdon]

Yes.

(That's 7).

[Michael Noonan]

It sometimes seems to me that some say that there is a dichotomy within the human makeup between the rational and the irrational. They seem to suggest that the irrational must be subdued so that the rational can grow strong. Again, I believe that we are both... I, and others, do not believe that this means that PI, or other scientific concepts, are mutable, but it does mean that one's reasons for pursuing science and certain unknowable questions of "why?" be left as an exercise for the individual.

I would be one who says dichotomy in that when any subject is taught there is a region of overlap. How it is handled is most important. People need to have their faith respected.

If the teaching was to achieve excellence of knowledge then ideally a person of one faith should be able to learn science taught without bias from a school of another faith and be more informed and not feel put down as a result. Am I alone on the idea that atheism is a faith in self and as such is a 'faith'?

To teach only one half of what the student wants to learn is wrong, to downplay any persons beliefs (or lack of) is worse. It is not easy to resolve conflicting ideas but that is one of the most important life skills a human can be asked to make. Starting from a lack of knowledge is not helping.

Steering to calmer waters take English and math. In math 1+1=2, agreed.
"They say that one and one make two but you and me, we know its three" sung by Pussycat.

I say both in their context are valid.

[CodeSlinger]

With all due respect, Michael, atheism does not require faith, and is not a faith. I don't know how much I can expound on this without violating the no-religious-discussion rule. So I'll just point you to this page, which I feel does a reasonably good job of explaining this:

Atheism is not a religion (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/atheismreligion.html)

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Michael Noonan http://www.bautforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/63186-does-anyone-else-find-appalling-4.html#post1050247)
[edit]Belief as per the rules of belief....Just out of curiosity, what exactly are these "rules of belief"?
Still waiting for someone to answer my question.

[astromark]

This is very silly... As much as I agree with the notion that sciences and mathematics should not contain references to religious influancess... You just can not win this argument. You are up against the bible belt. People have the right to spread their words as they see fit. Wrong, they might be, No. Are. (My opinion only.) It does little harm as those with inquiring minds soon learn to separate this chaff out. It is a basic right to hold a religious belief. Its not compulsory to believe it.
So in summery i do not except censorship as a reasonable form of education. Freedom to select must out weigh religious dogma., and it usually does. You can lead the horse to... but he might not drink it.

[Michael Noonan]

[/I]


Originally Posted by Maksutov
Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Noonan
[edit]Belief as per the rules of belief....

Just out of curiosity, what exactly are these "rules of belief"?
Still waiting for someone to answer my question.

Applicable to me I suppose, others are entitled to see it differently.

Rules of belief are the way an individual perceives their world based on their beliefs and influenced by others beliefs and as such requires an acceptable method of human interaction and communication.

[Maksutov]

Therefore, in summary, rules of belief are beliefs without rules.

OK.

I guess I set my expectations too high.

So much for this thread. On to more meaningful (and less rules-skirting) areas.

http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/frech/s015.gif

[Michael Noonan]

With all due respect, Michael, atheism does not require faith, and is not a faith. I don't know how much I can expound on this without violating the no-religious-discussion rule. So I'll just point you to this page, which I feel does a reasonably good job of explaining this:

Atheism is not a religion (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/atheismreligion.html)

Interesting, and I don't believe in zero. So how do we resolve this difference of opinion?

I hope it doesn't end up with me being accused of not understanding mathematics. :shifty::whistle:

[Maksutov]

Interesting, and I don't believe in zero. I hope it doesn't end up with me being accused of not understanding mathematics. Of course it will.

Man, you must have some really fundamental problems with such basic things as number lines. Meanwhile, look out for that nasty button (in the example below, the one to the right of the M+ button) on a calculator:

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/8207/calculatornb0.th.jpg (http://img526.imageshack.us/my.php?image=calculatornb0.jpg)

(couldn't avoid one last comment, bye)

[Michael Noonan]

Of course it will.

Man, you must have some really fundamental problems with such basic things as number lines. Meanwhile, look out for that nasty button (in the example below, the one to the right of the M+ button) on a calculator:

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/8207/calculatornb0.th.jpg (http://img526.imageshack.us/my.php?image=calculatornb0.jpg)

(couldn't avoid one last comment, bye)

And you point to something real to prove zero?

[pilgrim]

You are up against the bible belt.

Bible belt?

[farmerjumperdon]

Bible belt?

Used to hold up a big belly, the usual cause of which is too much fried food and too many long sleepy sermons.

[NEOWatcher]

Bible belt?
The U.S. has lots of belts... And not just because of our weight problem. ;)
I don't know where "belt" actually came from, but it indicates an area of something highly common.
The corn belt is the parts of the country where growing corn is common.
The rust belt is the parts of the country where there was a lot of steel (and therefore automotive) industries.
Locally, we have a snow belt, where it snows much more heavily due to terrain and proximity to the lake.
The bible belt is... Well; lets just say you see a lot of roadside crosses in some areas of the country.

[farmerjumperdon]

For us science needed to be taught as per the scientific method which means evolution. Belief as per the rules of belief. We were told that at some time we may be required to choose if that was what we wanted or to continue with an open and receptive mind.

Maybe I am reading too much into this, but you can choose AND continue with an open and receptive mind.

Not being in politics and no longer climbing the corporate ladder; I tend to be rather honest. I refuse to accomodate for silly ideas or play silly apologetics in order to make people feel good. There is no contradiction in discarding silly ideas like Bigfoot, Planet X, faked Moon landings, the magic of pyramids & crystals, astrology, and loads of other bunk and continuing to keep an open and inquisitive mind.

All opinions are not valid, resolving conflicting ideas is actually pretty easy most of the time, science is not a religion, and atheism has nothing at all to do with faith.

[CodeSlinger]

Interesting, and I don't believe in zero. So how do we resolve this difference of opinion?

I hope it doesn't end up with me being accused of not understanding mathematics. :shifty::whistle:

Well, you are free to not to believe in zero, if you so wish. Although, as Maksutov pointed out, this leads to some problems when you do math (like, what does 1 - 1 = when your mathematical toolkit does not include zero?). I just wanted to address the mis-conception that atheism requires faith, a mis-conception that's tossed around far too often.

[pilgrim]

... atheism has nothing at all to do with faith.

I dunno, would there be any need for atheism if there had never been theism (faith) in the first place? I mean, they're even linguistically derived from each other.:think: As for the reason to believe one or the other can be very different, though atheists are often as passionate about the deffence of their beliefs as theists. That's not to say that there is not more scientific experimental evidence for atheism, so the reason for choosing it as a philosophy is not necessarily faith. But if a term is defined as 'a lack of religious faith' (paraphrasing) then it deffinitely has something to do with faith.:shifty:

BTW, thanks for the clarifications on 'bible belt':D

[Michael Noonan]

Well, you are free to not to believe in zero, if you so wish. Although, as Maksutov pointed out, this leads to some problems when you do math (like, what does 1 - 1 = when your mathematical toolkit does not include zero?). I just wanted to address the mis-conception that atheism requires faith, a mis-conception that's tossed around far too often.

Thank you CodeSlinger it is the fact that my opinion is respected by anyone that is of value to me. Its rightness can always be called into question later. Just as my take on atheism in that theistically one needs to start with self belief, I think therefore I am.

The bit about zero is I don't like points where my apples could quite equally be bananas. So treating it as a passable platform eliminates the division by zero and hence the other of my aversions, physical absolutes.


Originally Posted by farmerjumperdon
Maybe I am reading too much into this, but you can choose AND continue with an open and receptive mind.

I will admit to being lazier than I would like to be, however there is so much to learn. I choose not to reject outright something that is deemed wrong without attempting to know something of it so I can make that choice or choose to hold in abeyance.

[CodeSlinger]

Hi Michael Noonan,

Upon re-reading what I wrote earlier, I realized that they could be construed as sarcastic. That was certainly not my intent! I thank you for interpreting them charitably :)


Just as my take on atheism in that theistically one needs to start with self belief, I think therefore I am.

I would agree that theists and atheists both need to start with some basic principle like this, but since this is based on the undeniable observation that "I think", I don't see this as something that needs to be taken as an article of faith.

There are certain beliefs that even atheists must accept on faith. For instance, to escape solipsism, one must accept that there is an external world and one's perception of it is relatively accurate. Neither of these can ever be proved, they must be accepted with some non-zero amount of faith. But these have nothing to do with atheism, a position on the question of whether there are supernatural deities. So my view is that the fact that even atheists accept certain beliefs on faith does not mean atheism itself requires faith.

If someone claims "there is a toaster in orbit around the moon", you would (rightly) demand evidence to back up this claim. And if the claimer could not provide sufficient evidence, you would be right in not accepting in the claim. Does this mean your position, which might be called a-orbital-toaster-ism, requires faith? No, you are simply exercising rational skepticism. Substitute "God" for "toaster in orbit", and you have the atheist position.

[Lurker]

With all due respect, Michael, atheism does not require faith, and is not a faith. I don't know how much I can expound on this without violating the no-religious-discussion rule. So I'll just point you to this page, which I feel does a reasonably good job of explaining this:

Atheism is not a religion (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/atheismreligion.html)
If atheism were not a religion, then it would have to recognize that the nonexistence of gods was not something that could be either proven or disproven by science. Since it asserts that gods cannot exist, it becomes a religion.

[Lurker]

[/I]
Still waiting for someone to answer my question.
Personally I don't think there are necessarily rules for belief...

[Lurker]

This is very silly... As much as I agree with the notion that sciences and mathematics should not contain references to religious influancess... You just can not win this argument. You are up against the bible belt. People have the right to spread their words as they see fit. Wrong, they might be, No. Are. (My opinion only.) It does little harm as those with inquiring minds soon learn to separate this chaff out. It is a basic right to hold a religious belief. Its not compulsory to believe it.
So in summery i do not except censorship as a reasonable form of education. Freedom to select must out weigh religious dogma., and it usually does. You can lead the horse to... but he might not drink it.
Or he may just drink from both. Some very great scientists and mathematicians have held deep spiritual beliefs... They have pursued their researches in order to better understand "the full glory of their god".

[Lurker]

Therefore, in summary, rules of belief are beliefs without rules.

OK.

I guess I set my expectations too high.

So much for this thread. On to more meaningful (and less rules-skirting) areas.

http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/frech/s015.gif
Sorry you feel this way Maksutov... I respect your thoughts a lot, but not everyone lives by a set of rational rules. if you do, I don't think anyone has a quarrel with you. It is unfortunate that you have so little with those who would pursue a different path.

[Lurker]

You are up against the bible belt.
You are up against much more than that. I have little respect for those of the bible belt who push their way of life on others. However, I do not wish the those in the sciences to push their way of life on me either... In this you may find many disparate elements united against you...

[Chuck]

Most atheists don't insist that no gods can possibly exist, although some do. Most say they don't believe that any gods exist due to lack of evidence. That's not at all similar to the religious certainty that not only does God exist but that one is 100% certain that his way of worshiping God is the one true faith.

Atheism is the lack of faith. Atheists want evidence.

[Lurker]

Most atheists don't insist that no gods can possibly exist, although some do. Most say they don't believe that any gods exist due to lack of evidence. That's not at all similar to the religious certainty that not only does God exist but that one is 100% certain that his way of worshiping God is the one true faith.

Atheism is the lack of faith. Atheists want evidence.
So... what't the difference between an atheist and an agnostic??

[Chuck]

I don't believe in agnostics.

[Lurker]

I don't believe in agnostics.
Not really much of an answer... agnostics exists with or without your belief...

[Chuck]

They claim to exist, but they're all either atheists or believers who won't take a stand. They can label themselves as they please but it doesn't change what they are.

[Lurker]

They claim to exist, but they're all either atheists or believers who won't take a stand. They can label themselves as they please but it doesn't change what they are.
uh huh... seems a bit closed minded to me, but I will meantion it to the agnostics I know.

It doesn't seem very scientific though... a scientist would not decide until a specific definition was postulated and evidence presented that soundly indicated that such an entity could not exist based on scientific principle.

[Chuck]

It's not a matter of whether or not God could exist. The question is does he exist? Just about anything could exist. Should we believe that all of it does? Atheists want a reason to believe, not evidence of nonexistence.

[Lurker]

It's not a matter of whether or not God could exist. The question is does he exist? Just about anything could exist. Should we believe that all of it does? Atheists want a reason to believe, not evidence of nonexistence.
Hmmmm... the agnostics say that they have no feelings either way because of a lack of evidence that proves either the existence or non-existence of gods. It seems that an athiest would be convinced of the non-existence of god, but then that's just me.

The agnostics I know have no convictions either way... I find it interesting that they label themselves "agnostics" and you tell them that they aren't...

[Chuck]

I find it hard to believe that someone actually has no opinion either way. Such perfection seems impossible.

[Lurker]

I find it hard to believe that someone actually has no opinion either way. Such perfection seems impossible.
Well... does your doubt make something so?? The definition of an agnostic that they embrace is as follows :
The term agnostic was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869 and is often used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion.

This is not their defintion, but a widely accepted definition. They define themselves as agnostic based on this definition. What you believe is pretty much irrelevant. Afterall from a scientific prospective, if only one person knows that 1+1=2, then only one person knows the truth. Their attitudes are pretty much independent of your belief in them... wouldn't you say??

[Chuck]

Well, nobody knows with certainty whether or not any gods exist. That would make everyone agnostic so the term is worthless.

[NEOWatcher]

Well, nobody knows with certainty whether or not any gods exist. That would make everyone agnostic so the term is worthless.
Which is why it's called faith. They made a decision without being certain. Agnostics just haven't made a decision.

[SeanF]

I find it hard to believe that someone actually has no opinion either way. Such perfection seems impossible.
Not to single you out personally, Chuck, but I suspect the concept of "I can't quite imagine it, so it must not be true" probably explains many atheists' disbelieve in God, as well.

I, luckily, can. ;)

[Lurker]

Well, nobody knows with certainty whether or not any gods exist. That would make everyone agnostic so the term is worthless.
It would seem if the term is well defined and that it defines my friends then it is not at all worthless. As to the certainty, or lack of it, to the existance of gods, I can't really speak.

If there are those who are certain of the lack of existence of gods, the term athiest would seem to apply. I know many who are certain of the existence of their gods... You may not be, but they are.

[Chuck]

They may be certain that a god exists but they don't actually know. I mean, most religious people are certain that their own religion is the one true faith. But there are many religions and there can't be more than one true faith. Atheists believe that all of them are wrong, but even if one is right, we still know that most religious people are 100% certain of something that just isn't true.

I believe that agnostics are labeling themselves incorrectly. The opinions of others may vary.

[Lurker]

They may be certain that a god exists but they don't actually know. I mean, most religious people are certain that their own religion is the one true faith. But there are many religions and there can't be more than one true faith.

Chuck... this may be true, or may not. Some falths are certain that their's is the one ture faith. Others do not see things that way. Those who follow my spiritual path believe that there are many truths... This is not within the realm of science... we do not put forward our certainty in the scientific arena.

You tell me that they cannot be certain because some of them must be wrong. This does not shake their certainty. Whether you wish to accept their certainty as real is, of course your choice. I would warn you, it is no less the real for your lack of belief...



Atheists believe that all of them are wrong, but even if one is right, we still know that most religious people are 100% certain of something that just isn't true.

No... we know that most religious people are 100% certain of something that science has neither proven true nor proven false.



I believe that agnostics are labeling themselves incorrectly. The opinions of others may vary.
I understand that... and you are welcome to your beliefs just as those who are religious...I have no difficulty with systems of belief, I have difficulty when followers of a belief system attempt to force others to believe as they do...

[Chuck]

If members of two religions think that their method of worship is correct and that the other's method of worship is wrong then someone is 100% certain of something that isn't true. It might be both but for sure at least one must be wrong. The other religion can't be both right and wrong at the same time.

[Lurker]

If members of two religions think that their method of worship is correct and that the other's method of worship is wrong then someone is 100% certain of something that isn't true. It might be both but for sure at least one must be wrong. The other religion can't be both right and wrong at the same time.
And your point is... this is not being presented before the bar of science... why do you insist on judging it from a scientific context.

For some what you say is true... for others, such as myself, we are certain but believe that other spiritual paths are true as well... I am not presenting this in a journal paper, nor before a jury of my scientific peers...

[Chuck]

You might believe that paths other than your own are true, but not all religious believers are as open minded. Some would say that you're wrong. So either you're wrong or they're wrong. It's got nothing to do with science.

[Lurker]

You might believe that paths other than your own are true, but not all religious believers are as open minded. Some would say that you're wrong. So either you're wrong or they're wrong. It's got nothing to do with science.
If you say so... no one is asking you to be a mystic... but when you get away from the rigorous metrics of science, the world is a bit different.

[Chuck]

It doesn't take science or mysticism to know that if someone says I'm wrong, then either I am wrong or he is.

[SeanF]

So either you're wrong or they're wrong. It's got nothing to do with science.
The same could be said for atheism, Chuck - you could be wrong, too.

I'm Catholic. I think you're expecting me to say, "Since the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Wiccans are all wrong, doesn't that make it possible that I'm wrong, too?" And, of course, it does.

But that's true of the atheists, too, and would still be true even without the other religions. Consider if every person in the world were either Catholic or atheist. Wouldn't I still be in an "either you're wrong or I am?" state? And wouldn't you be, too?

But - I can look at all these other people and say, "You know, the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Wiccans are at least partially right - they're in the ballpark, at least - but those atheists are 100% wrong." Besides, it would stand to reason that, for example, the Jewish God would be more forgiving of a Catholic than an atheist - I'm at least in the ballpark. :)

I don't see why the fact that all the rest of us except the atheists are similar should be construed to mean that the atheists are more likely to be the ones who are right.

[Lurker]

- I'm at least in the ballpark. :)

As a friend of mine would say with a wicked smile on her face...

Or are you?!?!?!?!? :)

[CodeSlinger]

Wow, lots of activity in this since I last checked in!

It seems the topic has since moved on, but being the pedant that I am, I'd like to try one more time to clear up what atheism is and isn't and what agnosticism is and isn't.

Atheist is an umbrella term for all those who lack belief that gods exist. And then there's a division between "strong" and "weak" atheists. "Strong" atheists (Lurker, I believe these are the ones you're thinking of) are those who go on to assert that gods (or a particular god) cannot or do not exist. "Weak" atheists (the majority, as far as I can tell) allow for the possibility of gods, but lack belief in them due to lack of evidence (see my orbital toaster example on the previous page). One might argue about whether the strong atheist position requires faith, but the weak atheist position definitely doesn't. As such, it would be incorrect to claim that atheism, which includes both strong and weak positions, requires faith.

Agnosticism is not a half-way position between atheism and theism. It's not a position about whether gods exist. It's a position about whether it is *possible* to know for certain whether gods exist. Gnostics believe it is possible to determine for sure whether gods exist or not. Agnostics believe it is impossible to do so.

Since (a)theism and (a)gnosticism are tangential and are positions on different questions, one can be a gnostic theist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist, agnostic atheist. A person will always fall into one of these four categories, because one either has belief in gods (theist) or one doesn't (atheist), and one either believes it is possible to determine whether gods exist (gnostic) or one doesn't (agnostic).

Me, I'm a gnostic atheist, since I believe there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of any of the gods humans have proposed, but believe it is *possible* to obtain evidence that proves some god's existence (note that I did *not* say that one can prove gods do not exist, since it's impossible to prove a negative).

[SeanF]

As a friend of mine would say with a wicked smile on her face...

Or are you?!?!?!?!? :)
If the Jews are right, I think so, yes...:whistle:

[Lurker]

CodeSlinger -- a lot of words, but if the definition they gave me can be found in a number of references, so if they want to apply it to themselves, it would seem appropriate.

[Lurker]

If the Jews are right, I think so, yes...:whistle:
What're you gunna do if the native americans and their great spirits are right?? ;)

[Chuck]

The same could be said for atheism, Chuck - you could be wrong, too.

I'm Catholic. I think you're expecting me to say, "Since the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Wiccans are all wrong, doesn't that make it possible that I'm wrong, too?" And, of course, it does.

But that's true of the atheists, too, and would still be true even without the other religions. Consider if every person in the world were either Catholic or atheist. Wouldn't I still be in an "either you're wrong or I am?" state? And wouldn't you be, too?

But - I can look at all these other people and say, "You know, the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Wiccans are at least partially right - they're in the ballpark, at least - but those atheists are 100% wrong." Besides, it would stand to reason that, for example, the Jewish God would be more forgiving of a Catholic than an atheist - I'm at least in the ballpark. :)

I don't see why the fact that all the rest of us except the atheists are similar should be construed to mean that the atheists are more likely to be the ones who are right.

Of course atheists might be wrong. Anyone might be wrong about anything. Some of us just won't admit to the possibility of being wrong when it comes to religious beliefs, even though most of them must be wrong in at least some details. I hardly call the difference between an eternity in heaven and burning in hell to be the in the same ballpark.

[CodeSlinger]

CodeSlinger -- a lot of words, but if the definition they gave me can be found in a number of references, so if they want to apply it to themselves, it would seem appropriate.

The definition I gave can also be found a large number of references, references that I accept as un-biased and reasonably authoritative on the subject, such as:


Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

About.com comparison of atheism vs. agnosticism (http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm)


Agnosticism (from the Greek "a," meaning "without," and Gnosticism or "gnosis," meaning knowledge) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience.

Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism.

Wikipedia article on Agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Qualifying_agnosticism)

As the first line of the Wiki article shows, my definition also follows from the word itself. Gnosticism/gnosis = knowledge. Thus, agnosticism is more accurately defined as a position on the possibility of knowing something.

Lurker, if your friends use a different definition, I would love to see what their sources are and why they think the sources support their definition rather than the commonly accepted one.

[SeanF]

What're you gunna do if the native americans and their great spirits are right?? ;)
First thing I've got to ask is, what do the Great Spirits do to non-believers? :)

Besides, Catholicism is still closer to the Great Spirits than atheism is, isn't it?

At any rate, my point is not to make the argument that Catholicism is better than the other choices, but merely to counter Chuck's argument - that the existence of other religions suggests that Catholicism is not a better choice than atheism.


I hardly call the difference between an eternity in heaven and burning in hell to be the in the same ballpark.
So you'd have no problem with all the different religions if the biggest difference between them was that believers got to sit on God's right-hand side and non-believers had to sit on His left? Then it would be reasonable to choose Catholicism over atheism?

[Lurker]

First thing I've got to ask is, what do the Great Spirits do to non-believers? :)

Besides, Catholicism is still closer to the Great Spirits than atheism is, isn't it?

At any rate, my point is not to make the argument that Catholicism is better than the other choices, but merely to counter Chuck's argument - that the existence of other religions suggests that Catholicism is not a better choice than atheism.

I saw that... but its Friday afternoon so... well damn, I think that says it all!! It's Friday Afternoon!! :)

[CodeSlinger]

I saw that... but its Friday afternoon so... well damn, I think that says it all!! It's Friday Afternoon!! :)

Amen to that! :)

[Chuck]

First thing I've got to ask is, what do the Great Spirits do to non-believers? :)

Besides, Catholicism is still closer to the Great Spirits than atheism is, isn't it?

At any rate, my point is not to make the argument that Catholicism is better than the other choices, but merely to counter Chuck's argument - that the existence of other religions suggests that Catholicism is not a better choice than atheism.


So you'd have no problem with all the different religions if the biggest difference between them was that believers got to sit on God's right-hand side and non-believers had to sit on His left? Then it would be reasonable to choose Catholicism over atheism?

If that were the only difference then they'd all be essentially the same from my point of view, although they might not see at that way.

As far as being a reasonable choice in what to believe, that's not a choice I can choose to make. I don't get to decide what I believe. It's not under my voluntary control. If I wanted to believe that the sky were green I'd be out of luck. I don't know how to change a belief at will.

[Lurker]

If that were the only difference then they'd all be essentially the same from my point of view, although they might not see at that way.

As far as being a reasonable choice in what to believe, that's not a choice I can choose to make. I don't get to decide what I believe. It's not under my voluntary control. If I wanted to believe that the sky were green I'd be out of luck. I don't know how to change a belief at will.
Actually some may actually know the sky is not blue. If they are color blind, then they may "know" that the sky is not blue. But this is neither here or there...

Our eyes tell us the color of the sky... science can explain why the sky is the color it is. Science cannot tell us what happens to us after we die... it cannot tell us whether gods exist or not... this leaves some things up to each individual...

[SeanF]

As far as being a reasonable choice in what to believe, that's not a choice I can choose to make. I don't get to decide what I believe. It's not under my voluntary control. If I wanted to believe that the sky were green I'd be out of luck. I don't know how to change a belief at will.
Then you can't choose to not be an atheist, and I can't choose to not be a Catholic, and somebody who's Jewish can't choose to not be Jewish, and the entire discussion is pointless, isn't it?

Maybe you didn't intend it, but your posts have come across as critical of a belief in God. Why would you be critical of something that cannot be changed?

Oh, of course, you can't control your belief that it's wrong to believe in God... ;)

[Chuck]

Not knowing about something doesn't give me the ability to believe whatever possibility happens to sound good at the moment. I have no idea how turn on a belief that is currently off. It's not like selecting something to eat or deciding what channel to watch. I can do those. I can't alter a belief at will.

[Lurker]

Not knowing about something doesn't give me the ability to believe whatever possibility happens to sound good at the moment. I have no idea how turn on a belief that is currently off. It's not like selecting something to eat or deciding what channel to watch. I can do those. I can't alter a belief at will.
I am not arguing that belief is about "whatever happens to sound good at the moment"... For many it is about experiences in life that convince them... they may not be evidence that would stand the test before the bar of science and logic, but none the less the individual is convinced.

No one is asking you to alter anything... but you might consider having a bit more respect and regard for "the truths" small 't' others hold dear...

[Chuck]

Then you can't choose to not be an atheist, and I can't choose to not be a Catholic, and somebody who's Jewish can't choose to not be Jewish, and the entire discussion is pointless, isn't it?

Maybe you didn't intend it, but your posts have come across as critical of a belief in God. Why would you be critical of something that cannot be changed?

Oh, of course, you can't control your belief that it's wrong to believe in God... ;)
It's not pointless to debate. It gives me entertainment while I'm waiting to die.

Well, besides that, people's beliefs can be changed by giving them information. They can't choose the change. It would be something that happens to them.

[Chuck]

I am not arguing that belief is about "whatever happens to sound good at the moment"... For many it is about experiences in life that convince them... they may not be evidence that would stand the test before the bar of science and logic, but none the less the individual is convinced.Even so, they're not choosing their beliefs. They're being convinced by external events.

No one is asking you to alter anything... but you might consider having a bit more respect and regard for "the truths" small 't' others hold dear...
I can't choose how respectable the beliefs of others seem to me. I could pretend to believe that I thought they were more respectable, but that seems dishonest. I could keep quiet, but I believe that people join discussion forums because they want to read the opinions of others, even of those who disagree with them. I don't stand outside churches and tell people that I think they're wrong, but if someone asks it's a different matter.

[Lurker]

Even so, they're not choosing their beliefs. They're being convinced by external events.

I can't speak for all, but for many their path is a set of teachings, experiences, culture, many things blended together. The native americans use to have a basket or pot which all leftovers from their meals went into... A native american once told me that one's beliefs are like that basket. All of ones experiences, feelings, bits and pieces of day to day life go into that basket and the result is the spiritual path you walk. Her explanation touched me deeply because it was exactly how my path had been shaped.

Each is free to find such things as they wish... for many such a path is not chosen, the path chooses them. This is very much what happened in my case.



I can't choose how respectable the beliefs of others seem to me. I could pretend to believe that I thought they were more respectable, but that seems dishonest. I could keep quiet, but I believe that people join discussion forums because they want to read the opinions of others, even of those who disagree with them. I don't stand outside churches and tell people that I think they're wrong, but if someone asks it's a different matter.
You are welcome to follow the beliefs that you wish... I mine was a suggestion, nothing more

[mugaliens]

This isn't a religious (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious)issue. It's a problem of semantics (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantics). Faith (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith)is simply a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof)."

If you firmly believe there is no deity (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deity), you're an atheist (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist), and that takes faith (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith). If you firmly believe there's life elsewhere in our universe, that's faith (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith)that life is out there. If you firmly believe your lost dog Fluffy will return after being gone for three days, that's faith (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith)in Fluffy's ability to find his way home.

If you're either unsure, or just don't care, you're an agnostic (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic).

Believe what you will, but let's not try and reinvent the dictionary because we have some irrational aversion to words commonly associated with religious (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious)beliefs like "faith (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith)."

[Chuck]

This isn't a religious (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious)issue. It's a problem of semantics (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantics). Faith (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith)is simply a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof)."

If you firmly believe there is no deity (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deity), you're an atheist (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist), and that takes faith (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith). If you firmly believe there's life elsewhere in our universe, that's faith (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith)that life is out there. If you firmly believe your lost dog Fluffy will return after being gone for three days, that's faith (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith)in Fluffy's ability to find his way home.

If you're either unsure, or just don't care, you're an agnostic (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic).

Believe what you will, but let's not try and reinvent the dictionary because we have some irrational aversion to words commonly associated with religious (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious)beliefs like "faith (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith)."

I don't firmly believe that there is no deity. I'll believe if given sufficient evidence. Until then I have no reason to believe in any such thing. The dictionary to which you link says nothing about the belief needing to be firm so I'm an atheist now but could become an agnostic later if given reason to doubt my current beliefs.

It seems inconsistent of you to link to a dictionary definition of something and add to the definition in the same sentence. If an atheist must firmly believe that there are no gods then why link to a definition that doesn't mention this? Then you say we shouldn't reinvent the dictionary right after you have done so.

[CodeSlinger]

Faith is simply a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."

Agreed.


If you firmly believe there is no deity, you're an atheist, and that takes faith.

Disagree. Your statement only covers "strong" atheists. What about "weak" atheists, who allow that deities are possible, but reject claims of deities on grounds of insufficient evidence? Would you say that it takes faith to reject claims of UFO's because of lack of evidence? I would guess not, and this is the same stance weak atheists hold regarding deities.


If you're either unsure, or just don't care, you're an agnostic.

I'll take About.com and Wikipedia's definition of agnosticism over Merriam-Webster's, in this case, since the first two give a longer (and in my opinion, better) treatment of the subject. Theirs are also more in accordance with the etymology of the word itself. See post 168.


Believe what you will, but let's not try and reinvent the dictionary because we have some irrational aversion to words commonly associated with religious beliefs like "faith."

I'm not avoiding the word "faith" because of its religious association, I just don't like mis-conceptions being propagated.

[Neverfly]

This isn't a religious (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious)issue. It's a problem of semantics (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantics). Faith (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith)is simply a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof)."

If you firmly believe there is no deity (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deity), you're an atheist (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist), and that takes faith (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith). If you firmly believe there's life elsewhere in our universe, that's faith (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith)that life is out there. If you firmly believe your lost dog Fluffy will return after being gone for three days, that's faith (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith)in Fluffy's ability to find his way home.

If you're either unsure, or just don't care, you're an agnostic (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic).

Believe what you will, but let's not try and reinvent the dictionary because we have some irrational aversion to words commonly associated with religious (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious)beliefs like "faith (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith)."


Im just curious...:think:

Was it a painstaking task getting all those links labled so they appear as the word in your post that the link it leads to defines them as?:think:

[Michael Noonan]

I'm just curious...:think:

Was it a painstaking task getting all those links labeled so they appear as the word in your post that the link it leads to defines them as?:think:

It was certainly a great effort, so I thank you mugaliens for the effort. It stopped me for a while so I could study the words.


Originally Posted by Lurker
Those who follow my spiritual path believe that there are many truths... This is not within the realm of science... we do not put forward our certainty in the scientific arena.

I find this inspiring, here are a few thoughts on my experience.

Without being religious a spiritual journey is a very individual experience. The one common factor we bring is ourselves. The most dangerous individual to society and to themselves is the uninformed one.

When embarking on such a journey be very sure you know what you are setting out on. If you are a control personality this exercise is extremely dis-quietening. As I said you bring yourself.

Know what you want before you start and go with a reliable guide. The deep experience is very much like a schizophrenia, a second awareness. Based on your experience and expectations it will take you to an unknown region out of your control. Those negative thoughts will be amplified as will the positive ones.

Whether you find God or yourself is up to you. The fool and the wise are both hard to teach. But there are fools and there are fools just as there are those who are wise and those who are wise. In a quantum sense it is the understanding of a deep inner connection of your self to that which surrounds you.

If you achieve a deeper sense of how you influence your world around you and learn techniques to cope with the influences it has on you then you have achieved something. This is not a process to take lightly, nor alone. Your guide is there to help you but you are on the journey and it is yours to take alone. You can ask for as much help as you need but ultimately it is a test of your self worth.

It is not for the faint hearted or the weak minded but a strong minded fool and equally a strong minded wise person stand to gain a lot. I am glad of mine but it could have been easier if I hadn't rushed in alone.

[Michael Noonan]

I would like to add a very strong word of caution.

Seeking a spiritual experience is a very circular exercise. The greatest barrier is the belief that you are approaching it with an open mind.

You will find what you are looking for but it is what finds you that you learn from. Under no circumstance treat this lightly or in wrong company.

Give yourself time and a place to prepare for it. You are what you bring to such an experience and that can go either way.

What ever you do, do not be alone.

[Maksutov]

What ever happened to Itinerant Academic (http://www.bautforum.com/members/itinerant-academic.html)?

[Chuck]

We've completely enlightened him so he has nothing else to say.