The BBC's take on Pol. Correctness in the US for Christmas [Archive]

LethalWolfe

Dec 23, 2003, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by mactastic
My feeling is that if the religious folks would be less forceful with things like putting the 10 commandments in courtrooms and classrooms, the secular folks would be more tolerant of things like the spirit of Xmas and not protesting every manger and wise man they see.

I think this is just another symptom of a larger PC trend. There are some people out there that are so wrapped-up in making sure that the rights of minorities aren't trampled that they trample the rights of the majority in the process.

Of course this whole thing is part of a dumbing down of American, IMO. All of the lawsuits are another example. And some schools have eliminated various compititions (both physical and mental) because they are afraid the kids who don't win will be emotional scared for life. So instead of pushing our children to do better and strive for excellence we are making them all equally dumb and fat, and unable to cope w/reality.

I could probably rant on and on but I'm at work and at least have to appear busy. ;)

Lethal

Sayhey

Dec 23, 2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
I think this is just another symptom of a larger PC trend. There are some people out there that are so wrapped-up in making sure that the rights of minorities aren't trampled that they trample the rights of the majority in the process.

Of course this whole thing is part of a dumbing down of American, IMO. All of the lawsuits are another example. And some schools have eliminated various compititions (both physical and mental) because they are afraid the kids who don't win will be emotional scared for life. So instead of pushing our children to do better and strive for excellence we are making them all equally dumb and fat, and unable to cope w/reality.

I could probably rant on and on but I'm at work and at least have to appear busy. ;)

Lethal

There are some amazing things that are done in the name of political correctness. Things like the renaming of "male" and "female" connections are just dumb. The campaign to keep one religion from inserting its beliefs into are public schools is not one of those "dumb" ideas even if some stupid things are done in the pursuit of that goal.

I would like comparative religions taught in schools. I think it makes sense for an objective teaching of what different religious practices are to be part of learning what our society is about. That does not mean taking for granted it is ok to give those practices free rein over school activities. I was raised in an era when it was assumed everyone was Christian (and Protestant to boot.) Going back to those days is not a good idea.

LethalWolfe

Dec 23, 2003, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
There are some amazing things that are done in the name of political correctness. Things like the renaming of "male" and "female" connections are just dumb. The campaign to keep one religion from inserting its beliefs into are public schools is not one of those "dumb" ideas even if some stupid things are done in the pursuit of that goal.

I would like comparative religions taught in schools. I think it makes sense for an objective teaching of what different religious practices are to be part of learning what our society is about. That does not mean taking for granted it is ok to give those practices free rein over school activities. I was raised in an era when it was assumed everyone was Christian (and Protestant to boot.) Going back to those days is not a good idea.

I agree. This kind of goes along w/what I said in my previous post. Instead of pulling everyone down (trying to make believe religion doesn't exist) we should be pushing everyone one up (exposing/educating people about different religions).

I don't think people should force their views, religion, or culture on other people, but at the same time people shouldn't be forced to hide their views, religion or culture. And if you are a minority expect to see a lot of things that don't pretain to you. That kinda comes w/the territory of being a minority. If I go to Isreal I'm not going to complain about all the Jewish symbols and traditions I'm surounded with and demand they take down some Star's of David and toss up a few crucifixes. If I'm in Germany I'm not going to expect people to speak English to me. When I was working at a store in a prodominantly<sp?> black area I wasn't telling people to speak "proper" English or to pull their damn pants up. Most of my employees and customers came from a very different backgrounds than I did but we didn't focus on how we were different. We found out how we were the same and, even though the job sucked, goin' to work everyday wasn't too bad 'cause we were all friends and, as much as we could, we tried to be there for one another.

Live and let live. Educate don't legislate.

Damn I just can't seem to not stopping ranting...:o ;)

Lethal

Dont Hurt Me

Dec 23, 2003, 06:55 PM

LethalWolfe

Dec 23, 2003, 07:20 PM

nevermind. I need to work on my reading comprehension skills. And probably my spelling.

Lethal

Ugg

Dec 24, 2003, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Live and let live. Educate don't legislate.

The problem with American evangelicals is that they feel they they have been given a mandate by god to "spread the word" and many American religions in this day and age seem to have no idea of what "love thy neighbor" really means. I'm all for comparative religious studies in high school, but actual religious instruction does not belong in US public schools.

The last few years I've noticed a trend around Christmas whereby not everyone says "Merry Christmas" or even "Happy Holidays" in greeting anymore. As someone who places much more emphasis on the winter solstice, which is the basis for most of Christmas anyway, I welcome it greatly. For those who don't believe that Jesus' birth was the be all and end all of western civilization, it is very refreshing.

Sayhey

Dec 24, 2003, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Ugg
The problem with American evangelicals is that they feel they they have been given a mandate by god to "spread the word" and many American religions in this day and age seem to have no idea of what "love thy neighbor" really means. I'm all for comparative religious studies in high school, but actual religious instruction does not belong in US public schools.

The last few years I've noticed a trend around Christmas whereby not everyone says "Merry Christmas" or even "Happy Holidays" in greeting anymore. As someone who places much more emphasis on the winter solstice, which is the basis for most of Christmas anyway, I welcome it greatly. For those who don't believe that Jesus' birth was the be all and end all of western civilization, it is very refreshing.

Ugg, I agree with the idea that religious training does not belong in US public schools, but I also think there should be room for a comparative religion class in the High School level. I have two reasons for this. First, I don't think one has an adequate understanding of society if one doesn't have a basic understanding of religion. Second, it would be very important for those who think that Christianity is the only way of looking at the world to be exposed, even in an elementary way, to other beliefs. I am an atheist, so I would prefer that none of these ideas are force fed to children, but a basic understanding of each other would do us all good.

I hope you had a good solstice and enjoy the new year.

Ugg

Dec 24, 2003, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
Ugg, I agree with the idea that religious training does not belong in US public schools, but I also think there should be room for a comparative religion class in the High School level. I have two reasons for this. First, I don't think one has an adequate understanding of society if one doesn't have a basic understanding of religion. Second, it would be very important for those who think that Christianity is the only way of looking at the world to be exposed, even in an elementary way, to other beliefs. I am an atheist, so I would prefer that none of these ideas are force fed to children, but a basic understanding of each other would do us all good.

I hope you had a good solstice and enjoy the new year.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that comparative religious classes should be taught in HS. A class that outlines the basic beliefs of all major religions with emphasis on the major offshoots and current trends in religion would be very valuable in our society.

I had a Jewish friend in college from whom I learned a lot about Judaism but he claimed to know very little about Christianity even though he went to public schools. I found that very hard to believe at the time (early nineties) and still do today. But it made me realize that schools are pretty secular already (he went to HS in Seattle) but through that secularization we are losing touch with something that, if we are to believe the pollsters, is very close to many Americans' hearts. Ignorance is not bliss when it comes to religion and I feel this country for the most part is very ignorant when it comes to anything outside of mainstream Christianity. I'll admit that the majority of my knowledge of Islam has occurred over the last year.

Solstice was great, thanks!

McToast

Dec 27, 2003, 07:30 PM

I went to a private prep school and we had a comparative religion class (that everyone took - mandatory)..in the *8th Grade*...and that was in 1981!

Code101

Dec 28, 2003, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by Ugg
I'm all for comparative religious studies in high school, but actual religious instruction does not belong in US public schools.

That's why it's time to drop public education and make it all private. It's time to give a full tax refund to all who take their kids out of public schools and put them in private schools.

Here in Utah, there is a big push for private education. It's really taking off. Kids will get to learn about their own religion for once with out the ACLU thugs getting involved.

If anything, it will be some stiff competition in making public schools do better with what they have. I know that if private schools managed money the way public schools do, they would be out of business on the first day of school.

zimv20

Dec 28, 2003, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by Code101
I know that if private schools managed money the way public schools do, they would be out of business on the first day of school.

i know if public schools had the same $/student private schools did, we'd all be a lot better educated.

i also know that if parents had to pay private school rates to educate their kids, there'd be a big number of kids who would never even get to go to school.

Sayhey

Dec 28, 2003, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by Code101
That's why it's time to drop public education and make it all private. It's time to give a full tax refund to all who take their kids out of public schools and put them in private schools.

Here in Utah, there is a big push for private education. It's really taking off. Kids will get to learn about their own religion for once with out the ACLU thugs getting involved.

If anything, it will be some stiff competition in making public schools do better with what they have. I know that if private schools managed money the way public schools do, they would be out of business on the first day of school.

The existence of a universal non-religious educational system is a prerequisite for the working of a modern democracy. If we are to begin to pay for private religious training out of public funds we will have demolished the wall of separation of Church and State. Not only would Jefferson and Madison be turning over in their graves, but we would condemn our children to inferior classes that teach such foolishness as "creationism" as legitimate science.

I know this has been a dream of the John Birch Society and others on the religious and political fringes of the right for many years, but even with Bush in the White House and majorities for the Republicans in both houses of Congress, they are not fool enough to openly adopt your agenda. At least not until after the upcoming election. If that day comes we will have taken a very large step back into the dark ages.

Code101

Dec 28, 2003, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Sayhey
"we would condemn our children to inferior classes that teach such foolishness as "creationism" as legitimate science."

What about the foolishness of Darwinism and the "big bang" junk that is pushed on students today against their parents will. That is a form of religion with the mask of science.

I don't want my kids to learn about that. Where is the ACLU?

zimv20

Dec 28, 2003, 01:17 AM

Code101

Dec 28, 2003, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by zimv20
ha! you just outed yourself! hi-larious.

No, I did not. As I said before, it is time for private schools. If parents want there kids to learn about Darwin, they can send them to that kind of school. If parents want their kids to learn about Jesus, then they can send their kids to that kind of school. The point is that it is private.

It works for everyone. Even people with your viewpoint.

Sayhey

Dec 28, 2003, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by Code101
What about the foolishness of Darwinism and the "big bang" junk that is pushed on students today against their parents will. That is a form of religion with the mask of science.

I don't want my kids to learn about that. Where is the ACLU?

You don't have to have your children go to public schools or have them learn the basis of most of modern biological sciences or astronomy, if you don't want. That choice has always been open to you. The need for a educated citizenry is, however not a choice we can afford to ignore.

If you want to take this country back to the days of mass illiteracy and the religious veto of what is taught in our classrooms then I think you will find little support for your extreme ideas. Public education needs the support and the expansion of resources that it has been denied by ideologues like yourself for so many years. It will be a sad day if through the use of jingoism and religious intolerance you are successful in the destruction of a secular educational system that has made our country one of the great economic and political success stories of the last two hundred years.

zimv20

Dec 28, 2003, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Code101
No, I did not. As I said before, it is time for private schools. If parents want there kids to learn about Darwin, they can send them to that kind of school. If parents want their kids to learn about Jesus, then they can send their kids to that kind of school. The point is that it is private.

It works for everyone. Even people with your viewpoint.

you had just said you wanted to convert all education to religious, private school, because the education was better.

but in reality, you're an anti-science jesus nut. and that's fine, you have that choice. i support that. but you're advocating lack of choice, and a religious one at that, and that's not what this country is about. even to people with "my viewpoint" (thanks for the laugh, btw).

and fwiw, science isn't a religion.

wwworry

Dec 29, 2003, 11:26 AM

-

I want my kids to know that it all rests on the back of a turtle and I expect the ACLU to help.

zimv20

Dec 29, 2003, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by wwworry

I want my kids to know that it all rests on the back of a turtle

awesome

Sayhey

Dec 29, 2003, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by wwworry
-

I want my kids to know that it all rests on the back of a turtle and I expect the ACLU to help.

I've never been clear on whether that makes you a turtlian or a turtlist? ;)

wwworry

Dec 29, 2003, 12:57 PM

turtolitarian. I fight for it.

mactastic

Dec 29, 2003, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by wwworry
turtolitarian. I fight for it.

Oh man, you're killin' me!:D :p ;) :)

Turtolitarian. I love it. Join the Terrapin party or DIE!

Sayhey

Dec 29, 2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by wwworry
turtolitarian. I fight for it.

Do you have to wear funny turtle hats and have secret ceremonies where everyone has to move real slow? 'Cuz if you do I'm in! :p

mactastic

Dec 29, 2003, 01:09 PM

How about tax-exempt status? Have you made an attempt to get any of those faith-based-initiative federal dollars yet? The future could be bright for the turtles...

zimv20

Dec 29, 2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
Do you have to wear funny turtle hats and have secret ceremonies where everyone has to move real slow? 'Cuz if you do I'm in! :p

join early, 'cuz the newest members are at the bottom of the stack at the meetings

this movement, of course, is an offshoot of the Society for Putting Things On Top of Other Things

"splitters!"

Sayhey

Dec 29, 2003, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by zimv20
join early, 'cuz the newest members are at the bottom of the stack at the meetings

this movement, of course, is an offshoot of the Society for Putting Things On Top of Other Things

"splitters!"

I detect the influence of certain group of merry british pranksters.

I shall indeed join early, I'm filling out my application as I write this. How many boxtops do I need for my turtle hat and do I send them to Battle Creek, Michigan?

McToast

Dec 30, 2003, 11:52 AM

DavisBAnimal

Jan 2, 2004, 10:21 PM

I once had a very bright, articulate friend of mine (who happened to be deeply religious) make the argument that the push to remove all references of Christianity (Ten Commandments, Creationism, etc.) from public life is really nothing more than government sponsorship of agnosticism or atheism - two anti-religious perspectives, which, in dealing with ideas of God (in this case, that He doesn't exist, or is impossible to detect), are themselves religions, and thus should be afforded no sort of state-sponsorship, for violation of church and state.

His argument was that if children are taught that evolution is the only true explanation for life on earth, while not being taught the ideas of creationism (a "truth" - in the William James sense - held by many many people in this country), then those children are being fed an education marked by the agnostic tradition of science, a direct mingling of church (or anti-church) and state.

It was a provocative argument, and I have to say he convinced me (I was passionately arguing against the presence of creationism in schools). Because if you think about it, removing all mention of God from public life is an atheistic practice - and it would be stupid to think that any line of thought which deals with questions of the origins of the universe and divinity (even when arguing that there is no supreme, divinical being) is not a religious doctrine. I mean, how is passionately arguing that there is no God and that "only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge" any different from passionately arguing that on the sixth day God created the Heavens and the Earth? (forgive me for not knowing the actual Christian creation story - that's just the fault of the state-sponsored atheistic education I recieved).

I am not Christian, but I really do think that Christianity is being shat on on a pretty consistent basis by most "progressive" leaning people. A big part of this has to do with the unintentional demonization of Jesus Christ by the Religious Right - whose arguments like "God hates Fags" etc. really paint Christianity as horribly intolerant. But as any "Jesus freak" (what a disgusting term by the way, and I've never been to a day of church in my life) will tell you, it's really not something Jesus Christ would have ever said (for more on this topic, read some of the speeches by new Epsicopal Bishop Gene Robinson).

Frankly I think it's absolutely freaking stupid that I can't tell you the basic premise of the Christian Creation story - an explanation (however false or corrupt you may think it) that has whole heartedly been believed for thousands and thousands of years by millions, if not billions, of people. I mean, if that many people believe it to be true, I should at least know the dang story.

I think the only real solution is to inject MORE religious thought and explanation into public life, and to stop living behind the lie that no mention of God is not a religious statement in and of itself.

My dream would be to walk into a courtroom or an elementary school only to see side by side a monument of the Ten Commandments and a bust of Nietzsche with the words "God is Dead" carved right into his frickin' forehead.

Davis

pseudobrit

Jan 2, 2004, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
Because if you think about it, removing all mention of God from public life is an atheistic practice

You've confused the refusal to recognise religion with the denial of God.

Most people who want a separation of Church and State, myself included, want the government to ignore religion and act as if it didn't exist. I don't want it to say that God doesn't exist and I don't want it to try to promote several religions or all religions to be fair.

I want it to say nothing about faith at all. That means it doesn't promote or interfere with any religious matters. I don't want my Church involved in political matters either. The mixing of faith and politics is poisonous and has been since the beginning of civilisation.

Science is not a religion. Religion is centered around faith - the unprovable - while science by definition is centered only around that which is provable.

They are opposite.

Neserk

Jan 2, 2004, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by Code101
[B]That's why it's time to drop public education and make it all private. It's time to give a full tax refund to all who take their kids out of public schools and put them in private schools.

That is a misnomer. When they experimented with students who were at "low performing schools" and sent them to high performing schools the students did just as poorly on their standardized tests. (Which is how low/high performance is determined). The key to a good education is home support. 99% of the time if the child has 1 person in the home who supports them through homework help and emphasis of education (eg expectation) they will do well in school. The exceptions are going to be a student with a learning disability that is undiagnosed/untreated on one hand and a student with a great deal of internal motivation to do well in school on the other hand.

Home and Church,Synagogue, Mosque, etc. are the place to learn about your own religion. At the very most schools should teach comparative religion as someone else pointed out.

Neserk

Jan 2, 2004, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
[B]I once had a very bright, articulate friend of mine (who happened to be deeply religious) make the argument that the push to remove all references of Christianity (Ten Commandments, Creationism, etc.) from public life is really nothing more than government sponsorship of agnosticism or atheism - two anti-religious perspectives, which, in dealing with ideas of God (in this case, that He doesn't exist, or is impossible to detect), are themselves religions, and thus should be afforded no sort of state-sponsorship, for violation of church and state.

Except that not all Christians belive in Creationism,in fact, most of the Christians I know believe humankind evolved.

Not having blantant religious symbolism isn't anit-God; God is outside of religion. If they can represent *all* faiths, including the million and 1 Christian Denominations *then* I might agree with him.

DavisBAnimal

Jan 2, 2004, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Science is not a religion. Religion is centered around faith - the unprovable - while science by definition is centered only around that which is provable.

They are opposite.

This may have been true up until about the 1920s, when the work of the Quantum Physicists fully illustrated the huge leap of faith any person of science must make in order to believe that science is reality. Such a realization came most notably with Werner Heisenberg and the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" and Niels Bohr, with his Copenhagen Interpretation.

The first principle of the Copenhagen Interpretation is the assertion that you cannot specify reality, only the results of experiments. The interpretation goes on to say that any attempt at oberving the reality of the world is invariably skewed by the act of observation itself - experiments change the very systems they are trying to investigate.

That being said, the compelling evidence of Darwinism and "survival of the fittest" and all that - from fossil discoveries, to the observations of that moth species in England which went from being white to black over the course of the industrial revolution when their white tree habit suddenly became covered in black soot - all of that stuff is really just the results of a whole bunch of experiments. As Bohr pointed out, it takes a huge leap of faith (yes, faith) to believe that these experiments are in any way connected to reality, or are reality itself.

The belief that evolution is truth and is nature is itself a leap of faith, one I myself have taken. But I would never do the insult to my own belief system by asserting that what I think is truth isn't in some ways based on some form of faith. I think Evolution is a really neat idea, and the survival of the fittest just makes sense to me, but the belief that this is the way the world operates is a manner of faith, not of objective truth.

All science can give us is the results of experiments. Assigning science the label of "truth" or "reality" is entirely a matter of faith - as most any theoretical scientist since the 1920s will tell you - a leap of faith similar to the one made by those among us who would immediately assign the words of the Bible the same titles of "truth" and "reality".

Davis

EDIT: For more insight on questions of faith and science, check out "Contact" either the movie with Jodie Foster, or the book by Carl Sagan.

Neserk

Jan 2, 2004, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal

I am not Christian, but I really do think that Christianity is being shat on on a pretty consistent basis by most "progressive" leaning people. Davis

It is the backlash of years of "Christians" dominating the US.

pseudobrit

Jan 3, 2004, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
The belief that evolution is truth and is nature is itself a leap of faith, one I myself have taken....

All science can give us is the results of experiments. Assigning science the label of "truth" or "reality" is entirely a matter of faith

You again confuse faith with something else -- scientific theory.

Theories are still based on facts, logic, experiments, mathematics and observation.

Faith requires no proof and indeed is above such petty notions of logic. To ask for proof from your faith is to admit your faith is hollow.

Scientific theory is presumption with proof while seeking more evidence; faith is knowing in the face of no evidence and no desire for such.

Stelliform

Jan 3, 2004, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Neserk
Except that not all Christians belive in Creationism,in fact, most of the Christians I know believe humankind evolved.

Evolution is the official belief of the Catholic church. Or so I was told in my senior religion class. (At a Catholic High School)

Neserk

Jan 3, 2004, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Stelliform
Evolution is the official belief of the Catholic church. Or so I was told in my senior religion class. (At a Catholic High School)

My step-son (who is not catholic) attends a catholic school and is also taught evolution as science in school.

DavisBAnimal

Jan 3, 2004, 03:38 AM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
You again confuse faith with something else -- scientific theory.

Theories are still based on facts, logic, experiments, mathematics and observation.

Faith requires no proof and indeed is above such petty notions of logic. To ask for proof from your faith is to admit your faith is hollow.

Scientific theory is presumption with proof while seeking more evidence; faith is knowing in the face of no evidence and no desire for such.

No, I knew I was talking about scientific theory, and I know that theories are based on observed facts (an object of the observer, not an objective world - according to Bohr, etc.), logic, experiments, mathematics and observation - but that's it. The belief that these things represent what is "real" or what has "happened" over the course of history is the leap of faith required in order to trust in the theories of science. There is no proof that the facts of science - the results of experiments or the objects of observation - are in line with the nature of reality. Indeed, all you can KNOW are the results of experiments themselves, not their connection to the real world.

We can't know for sure that the human being is the result of millions of years of biological, organic evolution. All we can do is collect the results from a bunch of experiments, pick up a bunch of observations (whose connections to the real world is obviously skewed by the presence of the observer) and then messily try to piece together some vague recollection of how we got here. And indeed believing that this is "true" and the way things actually went is a tremendous leap of faith.

The connection of scientific theory to fact is the faith I was talking about - I know the theories are based around a whole assortment of things, I didn't mean to make it sound as if I was confusing the two. But connecting the theories to notions of reality - being able to say "Well, this is how it happened, according to our experiments and observations" is a huge leap of faith, because science is limited in that, as Bohr said, it can tell you the results of experiments, but can't tell you reality.

The belief that evolution is the process by which all life has been created on earth is indeed a faith based belief. Indeed, no one could possibly have witnessed the entire thing unfolding first hand as a fly on the wall - all we have are bits and pieces of observation which we try to link together, and the fly on the wall always leaves a sticky mess on the room - you can't disconnect the observer from the observed, and thus can't always be sure the observation is objective.

Again, none of this is coming out of my head - it's all straight from the mouths of the leading scientists of the last century - from Bohr to Einstein.

Davis

pseudobrit

Jan 3, 2004, 10:17 AM

You're still missing my point. It's largely due to your overgeneralisation of the word "faith." Allow me to captialise my words to separate faith (a belief) from Faith (a religious belief).

While science demands proof regardless of how much "faith" you have in a theory, your Faith is by definition empty if you demand the same proof.

While you may need some "faith" to believe in anything, even when you're talking about scientific theory, it's not the crux of your beliefs.

DavisBAnimal

Jan 3, 2004, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
You're still missing my point. It's largely due to your overgeneralisation of the word "faith." Allow me to captialise my words to separate faith (a belief) from Faith (a religious belief).

While science demands proof regardless of how much "faith" you have in a theory, your Faith is by definition empty if you demand the same proof.

While you may need some "faith" to believe in anything, even when you're talking about scientific theory, it's not the crux of your beliefs.

Oh, no, I get your point, I understand it completely.

Without using the word faith, this is all I am saying: Science-leaning people believe that their system of experimentation, logic and mathematics provides an accurate description of the world and nature and how things came to be and how they are today. These people, apparently, can best be labeled "science freaks" - and you are apparently among them (which is fine, you are in good company). Science freaks feel as though science is the end-all/be-all explanation for the nature of the world. They gather "proof" in the form of experimentation and observation - two things Bohr, Heisenberg and Einstein have shown to have no objective connection to the nature of reality (as I pointed out in a previous post).

"Jesus freaks", on the other hand, believe that the Bible provides to them an accurate description of the world and nature and how things came to be and how they are today. To them, the Bible is the end-all/be-all explanation for the nature of the world. They gather "proof" in form of the written words of the Bible - words to which it would be difficult to find any sort of objective connection to reality.

It's really no use arguing with either "freak" (and I don't mean that as an insult - just taking a word used be a previous poster) because they believe so fully in their system of worldy explanation, they'll never be able to see outside of it. And you are right in saying that you can't demand the same proof from a biblical expanation as you do from a scientifict explanation. But how is any proof better than the other if neither are objectively associated with reality?

Davis

PS. If you ask me, the overt insistance of science as fact that exists in this country (something most theoretical physcists would instantly reject) is really the result of the spirit of capitalism present within our society. Capitalism itself is really nothing more than the extension of the Protestant emphasis on the individual (see Max Webers "Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism") coupled with the Darwinian emphasis on competiton as the driving force of progress. We are very Darwin-based in our societal ideologies because the theory is essential for an allegance to capitalism. In Soviet Russia, they didn't buy it - Darwinism wasn't accepted. In fact, genetics was outright not even practiced for years. Soviet Science was instead dominated by Lysenkoism, which preached an anti-competitive, pro-cooperative theory of evolution, characteristic of the Marxist nature of Soviet society.

wwworry

Jan 3, 2004, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal

In an earlier post you said that the govt. is removing religion from public life which is an active stance. What the govt. does (or should do) is remove religion from the govt.

Yuo can put whatever you want up on your lawn and no one can do anything about it. Public life and the government arena are two different areas. It sounds like you want some mild referencing to vaguely Christian beliefs in government. What I do not understand is why. Why do want the government involved at all in religion? Do you really want the government legislating your failth? Besides, Christianity as originally conceived was specifically organized to be outside of the mechanism of the state. America, to be free of religious intolerance, must not show any preference. The only practical way to achieve that is to ignore religion, otherwise I will expect to see the image of the Turtle next to your god Nietzsche.

As for the theory of evolution it is just that, a theory based on the evidence at hand. If the evidence changes the theory can change. No one is saying that it is the final truth. For instance the theory of end state of our universe has changed a lot in the past 30 years based on new evidence. If you want to live in a world where the scientific method is thrown out then go ahead. Throw out your computer too. Become Amish, move to Iran, etc..

As for teaching the pseudo "creationism", do you really want the number of babies on people of one faith have to determine what the beginning of time is? If we Turtolitarians end up out-populating this country your "creationism" will be defunct. Also I find it strange that you are using the example of quantum physics to refute what we have learned about quantum physics.

Scientists don't pretend to know everything about the mysteries of the universe. They just use the best evidence and the test theories against the evidence. How can you or anyone else be so arrogant as to know the mind or scope of god? To me that sounds as if you want to put yourself on the same level as god. Government is of men by men (humans) and should deal solely with the affairs of men. Keep your faith, leave the government out of it.

wwworry

Jan 3, 2004, 12:01 PM

I really think you need to read up a bit more on Bohr, Heisenberg, Einstein and quantum physics. You are extrapolating too far and carrying your argument to illogical extremes.

THe scientific method, by it's very nature is NOT "the end-all/be-all explanation for the nature of the world". Do you know about the scientific method?

Again you are positing a fierce duality where only a small minded person would have one. Those with profound faith might only be made stronger knowing more about the depth the sub-atomic dance. Those with small faith are upset with and jealous of science. Their concept of god is so small that it can only be explained to them with small letters on paper.

No scientist worth his/her salt thinks science can ultimately explain everything.

DavisBAnimal

Jan 3, 2004, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by wwworry
In an earlier post you said that the govt. is removing religion from public life which is an active stance. What the govt. does (or should do) is remove religion from the govt.

Yuo can put whatever you want up on your lawn and no one can do anything about it. Public life and the government arena are two different areas. It sounds like you want some mild referencing to vaguely Christian beliefs in government. What I do not understand is why. Why do want the government involved at all in religion? Do you really want the government legislating your failth? Besides, Christianity as originally conceived was specifically organized to be outside of the mechanism of the state. America, to be free of religious intolerance, must not show any preference. The only practical way to achieve that is to ignore religion, otherwise I will expect to see the image of the Turtle next to your god Nietzsche.

As for the theory of evolution it is just that, a theory based on the evidence at hand. If the evidence changes the theory can change. No one is saying that it is the final truth. For instance the theory of end state of our universe has changed a lot in the past 30 years based on new evidence. If you want to live in a world where the scientific method is thrown out then go ahead. Throw out your computer too. Become Amish, move to Iran, etc..

As for teaching the pseudo "creationism", do you really want the number of babies on people of one faith have to determine what the beginning of time is? If we Turtolitarians end up out-populating this country your "creationism" will be defunct. Also I find it strange that you are using the example of quantum physics to refute what we have learned about quantum physics.

Scientists don't pretend to know everything about the mysteries of the universe. They just use the best evidence and the test theories against the evidence. How can you or anyone else be so arrogant as to know the mind or scope of god? To me that sounds as if you want to put yourself on the same level as god. Government is of men by men (humans) and should deal solely with the affairs of men. Keep your faith, leave the government out of it.

I guess I should clarify - I don't want government to legislate religion, or to meddle in the development of religious affairs. And I'll admit that my assertion that the removal of mention of religion is a state-sponsored endorsement of atheism, a religion in and of itself is suspect. That was really a hat I was trying on for size and I'm not sure if it fits. I think it's a neat idea, and one I am sure I will continue thinking about, but for the time being I'll concede I was wrong with that - you guys convinced me.

So you're right, Government should not legislate religion, and religion should be removed from the government. I still have no problem with government officials referencing their religion even while legislating, or even putting up religious symbols in their private offices - but no religion should be endorsed by the state as a whole.

That being said, I won't back down from the assertion that the evidence upon which the theory of evolution is based is in no ways preferntial to the evidence upon which creationism is based. One is based on the system of science, one is based on the words of the bible. Why is any one more "real" than any other? How is scientific proof any more convincing? Just because it has this whole method behind it? I don't buy it.

And neither do a lot of scientists - notably the quantum physicists. And I don't know why the quantum physicists used their work to refute quantum physics - that wasn't me talking, it was Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg - I was just regurgitating. My only guess is that they were open minded enough to think critically of the restrictions and limits of science, and to be honest about what science can or can't do. And what they figured science couldn't do was prove that science was objectively connected to the nature of reality.

To get back to the education thing - I still think it's stupid I don't know the creation story. I wouldn't want to have been taught "now, children, on the 1st day God did this, on the second day God did that" etc. etc. - but I wish somewhere along the line someone had said "a popular belief of one faith has been creationism, the idea that blah blah blah". I don't see this as state-sponsorship of the creation story. I also wish I knew more about the Hindu creation story, the Buddhist, Muslim, on and on and on. Because I do know one story, and that's the story of the Big Bang and Evolution. And it's a convincing story, one based on a huge developed system and method of intellectual development, but it's still just that - a story - a story whose only proof is based on the results of experiments, something I believe along with Bohr to have no true, objective connection to the nature of reality.

Kids should know that different people believe different things, and that not everyone buys into evolution (and I'm not saying I don't - I do, I do) because that's just the nature of the community we have going on here. I think the teaching of evolution as the only accepted fact out there fuels a sort of religious intolerance that is damaging to our community. And I'm an atheist.

Davis

DavisBAnimal

Jan 3, 2004, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by wwworry
I really think you need to read up a bit more on Bohr, Heisenberg, Einstein and quantum physics. You are extrapolating too far and carrying your argument to illogical extremes.

I will keep reading up on them, because they are fascinating thinkers - scientifically and philosophically. But was I incorrect in my explanation of Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation, in which he described the inherent limits of the scientific method as a means for the description of reality?

mactastic

Jan 3, 2004, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
To get back to the education thing - I still think it's stupid I don't know the creation story. I wouldn't want to have been taught "now, children, on the 1st day God did this, on the second day God did that" etc. etc. - but I wish somewhere along the line someone had said "a popular belief of one faith has been creationism, the idea that blah blah blah".

Well maybe I was just lucky, but in HS I took a class called 'Dreams and Myth' where we spent some time talking about different creation mythologies and their similarities and differences. We read Joseph Campbell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691017840/qid=1073154111//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/103-3114401-9439842?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) and "The Power of Myth". (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385418868/qid=1073154111//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl14/103-3114401-9439842?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) The Christian creation story was used as a baseline, since many of us were familiar with it to some degree, and compared to other stories of creation from other cultures. However, this takes a special person to have the necessary educational background to teach this material. It is not in the core curriculum, and no funding is provided to find someone with this expertise. This happened to be an English lit teacher who knew an awful lot about religions, and was in addition, a stellar instructor who was a pleasure to learn from (even in my rebellious stage my junior year). Those kind of teachers do not fall from the sky. But every science teacher, from physics to biology to chemistry has at least a basic understanding of the scientific theory of creation, and so you are exposed to it quite often.

That being said, it's not the job of the school to teach you everything in the world. You could find plenty on the Christian creation myth by going to Google. Take some responsibility for your own edu-ma-cation. Learning should not stop when you leave school....;)

DavisBAnimal

Jan 3, 2004, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
Well maybe I was just lucky, but in HS I took a class called 'Dreams and Myth' where we spent some time talking about different creation mythologies and their similarities and differences. We read Joseph Campbell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691017840/qid=1073154111//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/103-3114401-9439842?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) and "The Power of Myth". (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385418868/qid=1073154111//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl14/103-3114401-9439842?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) The Christian creation story was used as a baseline, since many of us were familiar with it to some degree, and compared to other stories of creation from other cultures. However, this takes a special person to have the necessary educational background to teach this material. It is not in the core curriculum, and no funding is provided to find someone with this expertise. This happened to be an English lit teacher who knew an awful lot about religions, and was in addition, a stellar instructor who was a pleasure to learn from (even in my rebellious stage my junior year). Those kind of teachers do not fall from the sky. But every science teacher, from physics to biology to chemistry has at least a basic understanding of the scientific theory of creation, and so you are exposed to it quite often.

That being said, it's not the job of the school to teach you everything in the world. You could find plenty on the Christian creation myth by going to Google. Take some responsibility for your own edu-ma-cation. Learning should not stop when you leave school....;)

True that - I know the school can't teach it all - and the best education comes from outside of school. I'm just saying that in my experience, evolution was usually taught as if it was an "all" - it was taught as an "end-all/be-all". And as wwworry said, there's no scientist worth her salt who would believe this, yet everyday it is taught this way. Now the creation story isn't science, so it would be inapropriate to go into the same detail you did in that class you took within a biology class, or physics or whatever. But I do think it at least deserves some sort of mention as a widely-accepted theory of the history of the world, and I do think that science teachers need to reevalute the way they teach evolution, and move away from the "end-all/be-all" attitude that is very common. And I DON'T think mention of the creation story, discussion of the creation story, in any way violates church and state.

Davis

mactastic

Jan 3, 2004, 12:46 PM

Schools are also very afraid of costly litigation in cases where they stray to far from the middle and either offend the believers or the non-or-different-believers. Many shy away from having classes about religion because the particular teacher could be a huge potential problem for them.

Neserk

Jan 3, 2004, 01:39 PM

But I do think it at least deserves some sort of mention as a widely-accepted theory of the history of the world, and I do think that science teachers need to reevalute the way they teach evolution, and move away from the "end-all/be-all" attitude that is very common. And I DON'T think mention of the creation story, discussion of the creation story, in any way violates church and state.

Davis [/B]

If schools were to teach the Creation Myth of the Hebrew Bible they would also have to teach the Creation Myths from many other cultures. It would not be appropriate in the sceince segement of school. It would have to be taught as part of Social Studies.

If you want to know the story, pick up a bible at Borders. There are two versions of the story. They are the first two chapters of Genesis. :)

Or if you prefer: http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/BIBLE/GEN/GEN1.HTM

if you click on the little arrow at the top it will take you to chapter 2!

Sayhey

Jan 3, 2004, 02:06 PM

Damn, this is great stuff! Davis, mac, pseudo, and wwworry I hope you all don't mind if I throw in my two cents.

I agree that science is a world outlook just like a religious one that accepts certain assumptions at its core. It does not follow, however, that those assumptions are the same in method as well as outcome. It also does not mean that one outlook is "no ways preferential" than the other. That is a political decision. I mean that in the best use of the word "political."

We, as a society, made a decision in 1776 to base our political system and as a corollary our educational system (although that was done almost century later) on the ideas of the Enlightenment not on religious doctrine. We have made that decision and it is, IMHO, a sound one. Attempts to revisit it by putting religion and science on the same footing in our political life or our public educational system are dangerous for all of us, even those who have a personal religious view of the world. I don't think I have to give examples from history or current events to show just what dangers I mean.

In the broader discussion about science being just another "faith" based approach, I do want to point out what I think is a difference in the assumptions of any world view and those that are particular to a faith based approach. Faith assumes knowledge though that knowledge is in the hands of an unknowable supernatural force. That knowledge is unquantifiable, untestable, and different from every individual's view. Science starts from the other end of the problem and says that the world is knowable even if our perceptions of it are limited, faulty, and biased. It exists as an objective reality outside of our knowledge of it.

Those are indeed two sets of assumptions, but I have no problem in choosing which I want to accept, and although I have no problem with others accepting a different set of assumptions, I do have a problem with saying they are all equal in our public life. The religious view must remain essentially a private matter. I guess the philosopher Betrand Russell said it best for me:

Science tells us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance. Theology, on the other hand, induces a dogmatic belief that we have knowledge where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe. Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales.

Long Live the Turtle!

wwworry

Jan 3, 2004, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
That being said, I won't back down from the assertion that the evidence upon which the theory of evolution is based is in no ways preferntial to the evidence upon which creationism is based. One is based on the system of science, one is based on the words of the bible. Why is any one more "real" than any other? How is scientific proof any more convincing? Just because it has this whole method behind it? I don't buy it.

What is the "scientific method"? (http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html)

The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. Faith, defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded.

If I were to tell you the whole story of Turtolitarianism (which by the way is growing exponetially - hail to Sayhey, our latest member) you could say you don't believe it. You would be wrong and you would just have to take my word for it.

If the theory of evolution is not taught in conjunction with the scientific method then it is not being properly taught. The fact that it is not being properly taught is no reason to give up teaching it.

vniow

Jan 3, 2004, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by wwworry
If I were to tell you the whole story of Turtolitarianism (which by the way is growing exponetially - hail to Sayhey, our latest member)

Ooh, sounds interesting. I think I would like to make this the official religion of the PPP although I would like to hear a bit more about it first.

Piss to you.

Edit: Never mind, I just read the first two pages, I now make this the official religion of the PPP.

vniow

Jan 3, 2004, 05:24 PM

It is done. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=638538#post638538)

Sayhey

Jan 3, 2004, 06:39 PM

Cosmologists like to tell the story about the little old lady interrupting a lecture by the great thinker, who is earnestly describing the scientific view of the cosmos. In some versions it's Bertrand Russell, in others Albert Einstein. "You've got it all wrong, sonny," the woman says. "The Earth is sitting on the back of a giant turtle."

The scientist, amused, answers, "Oh, and what is that turtle standing on?"

"Another turtle," she says. And before he can interrupt with the obvious objection, she adds: "Don't waste your time asking. It's turtles all the way down."

vniow,

It is this kind of cosmic insight that attracted me to Turtolitarianism. I think you can see why. One must be careful, however, there are false prophets masquerading as Turtolitarianists all the time. As zim so rightly called them "splitters" they spread their heresy under the guise of righteous shell wearers. Some base their ideas on the ancient Indian cosmology, others on the Oneida native american stories. Blasphemy! We Geiselites (or Seussians for the uninitiated) know the true name of the Great Turtle is "Yertle."

Some of the rites of initiation are of course secret, but slow movement, laying on each other's backs, as well as the pouring of copious amounts of libations are definitely involved. I'm told that orgiastic rituals of egg laying at midnight on warm California beaches is involved for those who have proved their devotion. But I can divulge no more!

See Brother Orry (his first name of www is really an honorific title in an unpronounceable reptilian dialect) for more details.

DavisBAnimal

Jan 3, 2004, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by wwworry
What is the "scientific method"? (http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html)

If I were to tell you the whole story of Turtolitarianism (which by the way is growing exponetially - hail to Sayhey, our latest member) you could say you don't believe it. You would be wrong and you would just have to take my word for it.

If the theory of evolution is not taught in conjunction with the scientific method then it is not being properly taught. The fact that it is not being properly taught is no reason to give up teaching it.

That's a good summary of the scientific method, and I appreciate you posting it. But I wasn't trying to offer a criticism of the method in and of itself. Bohr and company got a lot of flack, mainly from the Nazis, who took their descriptions of the lack of "objectivity" in science to be a comment on the lack of objectivity present within the scientific method, but that's really not what they were saying. Everything going on within the scientific method is sound, and the method itself is not bound to any individual, and indeed the method exists beyond the individual scientists. I know that and I accept that. But what Bohr was trying to say (and I agree) was that there is no amount of scientific proof or material evidence that can show that science is objectively connected to reality, or in any way associated with the real world - there is no objective connection between the act of observation and the means of the scientific method and the natural world. To believe that science describes what is really out there constitues a faith that we can use science to know the world, and that's not something many theoretical physcists are willing to accept without scepticism, or at least without the recognition that it is a matter of faith - a faith in the scientific method. To many scientists, the only thing science can know is the result of experimentation, and that is not necessarily dependant on the "real world".

Since you did ask me if I knew about the scientific method (which I did, though I appreciate the explanation you posted) would it be alright if I ask you if you've ever read up on Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation, or Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? They say a lot of interesting things about the limits of the scientific method as means for the description of nature and reality.

Now all that being said, I really like what you said, Sayhey, at the top there, about the recognised difference between faith in the Bible and faith in the scientific method. Verrrrrrry well put. And also, the part about our society being based on the Enlightenment was one of those "duh" moments that put a lot in perspective. I am not in any way advocating a government based on faith based principles (although we do legislate a lot of morality - prostitution, etc. - but that is something that is changing and needs a whole nother thread to be discussed). But the government kind of needs to be based on something, so I am down with choosing the Enlightenment.

We as a society, should still maintain a level of scepticism and know that the ways in which science is "flawed" (it's not really a matter of flaw, more a matter of limits), and should still maintain an open mind and heart to those who choose the other faith-based approach, and not immediately jump at any mention of Jesus by defensively and rudely crying out "jesus freak!". Some of the coolest figures of our history, from Martin Luther King, to Mother Theresea, to, well, Jesus, were "jesus freaks", and proud of it, and they touched a lot of people that way, and have made our world a much better place through their freakiness. And you know what? Big ups to my man Jesus for that - it is much appreciated.

Davis

Sayhey

Jan 3, 2004, 07:46 PM

Davis,

now you have gone and done it. I have to switch back to reality. All I can say is very well put.

I have no problem with the needed recognition of the enormous contributions of any of the religious leaders you mentioned or many others. People bring insights from many different traditions and cultures, not all of them are steeped in the importance of the scientific method. I would say, that morality is not exclusive to religious traditions. I don't know if that is what you meant to imply or not, but our evolving sense of morality comes from many sources. Again, very good stuff!

Neserk

Jan 3, 2004, 10:30 PM

We as a society, should still maintain a level of scepticism and know that the ways in which science is "flawed" (it's not really a matter of flaw, more a matter of limits), and should still maintain an open mind and heart to those who choose the other faith-based approach, and not immediately jump at any mention of Jesus by defensively and rudely crying out "jesus freak!". Some of the coolest figures of our history, from Martin Luther King, to Mother Theresea, to, well, Jesus, were "jesus freaks", and proud of it, and they touched a lot of people that way, and have made our world a much better place through their freakiness. And you know what? Big ups to my man Jesus for that - it is much appreciated.

Davis [/B]

The difficulty people have doing this comes from the extremist view of creationist. The tendency is to be more moderate when one is talking to a moderate and be more polarized when talking to someone who is polarized. I'm much more comfortable discussing the meaning of "theory" in "theory of evolution" when someone isn't shoving their fundamentalists beliefs down my throat. But when they get dogmatic, I'm going to tend to as well.

wwworry

Jan 3, 2004, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
Davis,

now you have gone and done it. I have to switch back to reality. All I can say is very well put.

I have no problem with the needed recognition of the enormous contributions of any of the religious leaders you mentioned or many others. People bring insights from many different traditions and cultures, not all of them are steeped in the importance of the scientific method. I would say, that morality is not exclusive to religious traditions. I don't know if that is what you meant to imply or not, but our evolving sense of morality comes from many sources. Again, very good stuff!

Hear hear!

That's a good summary of the scientific method, and I appreciate you posting it. But I wasn't trying to offer a criticism of the method in and of itself. Bohr and company got a lot of flack, mainly from the Nazis, who took their descriptions of the lack of "objectivity" in science to be a comment on the lack of objectivity present within the scientific method, but that's really not what they were saying. Everything going on within the scientific method is sound, and the method itself is not bound to any individual, and indeed the method exists beyond the individual scientists. I know that and I accept that. But what Bohr was trying to say (and I agree) was that there is no amount of scientific proof or material evidence that can show that science is objectively connected to reality, or in any way associated with the real world - there is no objective connection between the act of observation and the means of the scientific method and the natural world. To believe that science describes what is really out there constitues a faith that we can use science to know the world, and that's not something many theoretical physcists are willing to accept without scepticism, or at least without the recognition that it is a matter of faith - a faith in the scientific method. To many scientists, the only thing science can know is the result of experimentation, and that is not necessarily dependant on the "real world".

The scientific method is good as far as it goes. JC, MLK, Mother T, Mahatma G all very cool and a credit to what is possible. I hope that does not sound flip because I mean it sincerely.