Dawkins campaigns to keep God out of classroom

[muriel_volestrangler]

In particular, the science classroom. The stealth creationist approach is now being used in Britain too:

Prof Dawkins' renewed push to counter what he perceives to be the religious indoctrination of young people comes amid revelations that dozens of schools are using teaching materials in science lessons that promote the creationist alternative to Darwinian evolution, condemned by the government as "not appropriate to support the science curriculum".

The packs promote the theory of intelligent design and the group behind them, Truth in Science, said 59 schools are using the information as "a useful classroom resource".

The group sent the teaching pack to the head of science at all secondary schools in England on September 18. To date, 89 schools have returned the enclosed feedback postcard - 59 were positive, 15 negative or dismissive and 15 said the material was "not suitable".

Richard Buggs, a member of Truth in Science, said the group was not attacking the teaching of Darwinian theory. "We are just saying that criticisms of Darwin's theory should also be taught," he said.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1958138,00.html

A look at the Orwellian-named "Truth in Science" organisation, by a Churhc of England vicar and geologist:

The organisation, which aims to combat Darwinism, continues: “TiS provides resources to assist teachers in allowing students to critically examine Darwin's theory of evolution. Whilst accepting that changes in gene frequencies occur over time, and that limited evolution occurs in nature, TiS encourages a rigorous examination of whether or not this can explain the origin of life and its huge diversity.”

On examination, this turns out simply to be Young Earth Creationism repackaged. The initiative has been a year or two in the planning and is well-thought out, with considerable financial backing. TiS have a board of directors, a council of reference and a scientific panel.
...
All the fifteen mentioned on the website are Young Earth Creationists, and connected variously with Biblical Creation Society, Answers in Genesis and other groups. This is not apparent in the website materials, as any reference to YEC is avoided in preference to “teaching the controversy” and presenting that “Alternatives to Darwinian evolution as a theory of origins can be taught in Key Stages 3 and 4 under the topic of Ideas and evidence in science. These topics give pupils some understanding of the nature of scientific enquiry and how modern scientists work. ... Darwin’s theory of evolution has been highlighted in KS4 as an example of how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence.”

There is an air of superficial plausibility about this, which is apparent in four lesson plans on Irreducible Complexity (Intelligent Design’s catchphrase), the Fossil Record, Homology and Natural Selection. As a geologist I will only comment on the Fossil Record Lesson Plan, where “Pupils are introduced to the three theories currently used to interpret the fossil record: Phyletic Gradualism, Punctuated Equilibrium and Phyletic Discontinuity.” These three are, of course, Darwinian gradualism, PE and essentially Six Day Creation. Both scientists and theologians contend, with massive evidence that it is disingenuous to present the last as a scientific theory.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_060925roberts.shtml

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. When they can come up with scientifically based criticism of evolution...

Then I'm sure that the criticism would be taught. Theology has no place in a science classroom.

[goddess40]

2. or any other classroom, except in private schools...

where parents pay to have their children mislead.

[endarkenment]

5. I have no problem with a comparative religions course

as part of a history program, for example.

I have no problem with including the bible as part of western literature courses. It is part of western literature and you will not be able to understand much of the rest of the literature if you don't have some knowledge of the bible.

The problem is the dishonest effort to place religious nonsense and fables up as 'scientific theories' when they aren't.

[Finder]

25. I agree...

but even that is getting fundies upset...

They want us to teach a sanitized(or false) version of history.

[goddess40]

125. I really don't have a problem with that either

but then they have to take the challenges that come too, they can't teach it as fact.

[trotsky]

3. Bingo.

That's what gets lost in this "debate."

[Evoman]

192. Completely right....and guess what...there IS NO scientifically based

criticism. Evolution is about at perfect a theory as you can get.

[bryant69]

4. What's probelemattic with Dawkins leading this charge

Is that he seems to believe that a correct teaching of Evolution does in fact weaken faith. From an interview he gave with Salon --> http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/10/13/dawkins/index.html

"They say this hurts the cause of teaching evolution. It just gives fire to the creationists.

Exactly right. And they could be right, in a political sense. It depends on whether you think the real war is over the teaching of evolution, as they do, or whether, as I do, think the real war is between supernaturalism and naturalism, between science and religion. If you think the war is between supernaturalism and naturalism, then the war over the teaching of evolution is just one skirmish, just one battle, in the war. So what the scientists you've been talking to are asking me to do is to shut my mouth. Because for the sake of what I see as the war, I'm in danger of losing this particular battle. And that's a worthwhile political point for them to make.

. . . Let's stay with the battle over evolution for a moment. Why do you think Darwinian evolution leads logically to atheism?

Well, I'm not sure it's a logical thing. I call it consciousness raising. I think the most powerful reason for believing in a supreme being is the argument for design. Living things in particular look complicated, look beautiful, look elegant, look as though they've been designed. We are all accustomed to thinking that if something looks designed, it is designed. Therefore, it's really no wonder that before Darwin came along, just about everybody was a theist. Darwin blew that argument out of the water. We now have a much more elegant and parsimonious explanation for the existence of life.

So the big reason for believing in God used to be the argument for biological design. Darwin destroyed that argument. He didn't destroy the parallel argument from cosmology: Where did the universe come from? Where did the laws of physics come from? But he raised our consciousness to the power of science to explain things. And he made it unsafe for anyone in the future to resort automatically and uncritically to a designer just because they don't immediately have an explanation for something. So when people say, "I can't see how the universe could have come into being without God," be very careful because you've had your fingers burned before over biology. That's the consciousness-raising sense in which, I think, Darwinism leads to atheism."

Bryant

[endarkenment]

6. Well he is right about that.

It does undermine faith in a supernatural diety. So?

[bryant69]

8. Well I suppose the natural comeback

Is that you wouldn't like me teaching your kids my faith at school, so I'm not keen on you teaching your opinion on religion to my kids at school.

Bryant

[endarkenment]

10. Uh, evolution is not 'my opinion'.

The fact that a straight forward teaching of evolution may very well undermine faith-based belief in a supernatural diety is not me teaching my opinion on religion to your kids, it is just a potential by-product of teaching evolution. Dawkins might be wrong, perhaps teaching evolution won't undermine faith, or he might be right. It doesn't matter.

[bryant69]

11. I'm just saying that if your spokesperson is a man

who believes understanding evolution leads to atheism, it makes it a harder sell. Because its easy to put him in the role of your kids future science teacher.

Let me ask you a question, let's say you you knew your child's biology teacher was an ardent creationist - he had never been caught deviating from the official syllabus in class (i.e. as far as you know he'd always taught evolution while in the class room, his creationism was outside the class room). Would that situation make you comfortable or uncomfortable?

Bryant

[Finder]

22. A creationist biology teacher? Not in public schools.

You sure have a lot of hypothetical individuals in your examples.
Thank goodness for teacher certifications...sheesh.

[endarkenment]

28. Your example is silly.

Dawkins certainly shouldn't be teaching an introductory course on christian theology, and creationist are a poor choice for teaching biological sciences. Your objection, I thought, was to Dawkins as an advocate for keeping religion out of the science classroom. How that applies to your hypothetical escapes me. Should all atheists be barred from such advocacy? Or just Mr. Dawkins, a reknowned expert on the very topic of science education?

[bryant69]

29. Read the interview

Hawkins is fighting for a society in which religion and belief in God no longer exist. Fair enough. Insofar as I want to spread the good word of my faith, I can't really object to others trying to spread their opinion on religion. That said, when you are talking about teaching kids, the question becomes more sticky.

What should Atheists be fighting for, a society in which Atheists and Theists get along in harmony? Or a society in which Atheism is the only game in town?

Dawkins seems to have made his call, but it does make him a less than perfect person to fight against Creationism. Because when people ask him "Do you think teaching kids biological science will destroy their faith?" he will probably answer in a way that will make it harder to fight Creationism.

Bryant

[Zhade]

135. Secularism. It's the only way societies can thrive.

You wouldn't be able to force us to believe in your god, and we wouldn't be able to force you to acknowledge that there's no corroborating evidence your god exists.

Win-win.

[beam me up scottie]

36. Since when is Dawkins the spokesman for evolution?

There is no room in science for gods of any kind.

Your analogy is ridiculous.

[bryant69]

39. Check the title of the original post

I'm not sure how to take - "There is no room in science for gods of any kind." Presumably that means you think science shuts even the deists out? Or is it simply saying that religion and science are two separate fields of study and shouldn't co-mingle?

[beam me up scottie]

42. Well, duh. Did you read the article? He's countering creationists.

And if you're really more threatened by an atheist scientist than a creationist science teacher, nothing I can say will change your mind.

PZ Meyers is doing the same thing, by the way, and so are many other scientists.

Their reasoning seems to be that while they were politely trying not to offend christians, the effing creationists hijacked our schools.

So they're fighting back.

And I couldn't be happier about it.



I just wish the politicians from the left would do the same thing in Washington.

Yeah, sure BMUS, like anyone actually believes in that separation of church and state pipe dream...

[bryant69]

45. I'm not threatened by either one - I'm just saying that

there's a downside to putting Dawkins up there - because to him this is about more than teaching science in our schools. This is a front in the battle between Religion and Atheism.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

47. It's a battle between religion and atheism if you're a fool.

You're buying what they're selling.

I prefer to think for myself.

Dawkins and the others are defending science from troglodytes who want to dumb down our kids so they can brainwash the next generation.

That means your kids too.


I chose my side, now it's your turn.

[bryant69]

50. It depends on what the battle is.

And it seems like you are calling Dawkins a fool too - again from the article referenced above

"Well, I think a lot of these scientists really do accept Stephen Jay Gould's idea of non-overlapping magisteria. These are hardcore evolutionists, but they say religion is an entirely different realm. So you, with your inflammatory rhetoric, just muddy the waters and make life more difficult for them.

That is exactly what they say. And I believe that actually is the political reason for Steve Gould to put forward the non-overlapping magisteria in the first place. I think it's nonsense. And I'll continue to say that I think it's nonsense. But I can easily see, politically, why he said that and why other scientists follow it. The politics is very straightforward. The science lobby, which is very important in the United States, wants those sensible religious people -- the theologians, the bishops, the clergymen who believe in evolution -- on their side. And the way to get those sensible religious people on your side is to say there is no conflict between science and religion. We all believe in evolution, whether we're religious or not. Therefore, because we need to get the mainstream orthodox religious people on our side, we've got to concede to them their fundamental belief in God, thereby -- in my view -- losing the war in order to win the battle for evolution. If you're prepared to compromise the war for the sake of the battle, then it's a sensible political strategy.

Throughout the ages, one has resorted to that kind of political compromise. And maybe it would be a good thing for me to do as well. But as it happens, I think the war is more important. I actually do care about the existence of a supreme being. And therefore, I don't think I should say something which I believe to be false, which is that the question of whether God exists is a non-scientific question, and science and religion have no contact with each other, so we can all get along cozily and keep out those lunatic creationists."

I don't know how you take that but that he sees the battle to keep creationism out of our schools as but one phase of a larger war.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

52. Yeah, a war on the troglodytes.

Sorry, I still side with science.

And I commend the scientists who are mobilizing and fighting back.

The creationists got what they wanted.

And they're hoping to get your support by scaring you with the big bad boogie-atheist.

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. He doesn't do it to promote atheism

he does it to promote science. He also thinks that the more people understand science, the less they'll believe in gods; and he's not willing to say "the existence or non-existence of gods doesn't have any effect on science", because he doesn't believe that, and he's not going to lie about his views just to win one battle in science (as well as evolution, there's the history of the universe, whether miracles can occur, and so on).

[Realityhack]

86. Guess it comes down to...

would you rather he spoke what he believed or lied to make you feel better.

I applaud Dawkins for having the guts to stand up and say that science and religion (well the kind he is talking about) DO overlap and that they are not always fundamentally compatible. It takes guts to stand up and say that religion should not be hands off.

Very well put post btw.

[Silent3]

126. I can kind of go along with the "non-overlapping magisteria" thing...

...if you carry it to its logical conclusion, which is that the "magisteria" (singular "magisterium"?) of religion becomes the realm of wishful thinking and fantasy about all of the stuff science can't yet explain, a large enough realm which will probably remain large for a very long time, but which is nevertheless always slowly shrinking.

If you're peddling "non-overlapping magisteria" to the religious, however, it'll be a tough sell if you're blunt about the meager and declining purview left over for religion. :D

I'd like religious moderates to be on my side when it comes to keeping creationism out of public classrooms too, but I don't think I should have to hide what I think about religion as part of the deal. While religious moderates aren't as harsh about atheism as fundamentalists, and might even be so kind as to grant that their God won't burn atheists in a Lake of Fire for All Eternity for their lack of faith, it's not as if their publicly stated views of atheism are very flattering.

I can deal with the theists dissing atheism, and still work with them for common causes, so long as they don't expect me to hide what I think about theism, offering the theists a special deference they don't offer me.

[hunter]

145. There is nothing "shrinking" no matter how science expands.

Even if you were say, omnipotent ;) and knew everything possible of the science of this universe, there is still the same amount of room to imagine something else.

If science makes it clear that the story of Noah's Ark is impossible as written, and I think that's always been clear to anyone who hasn't had the common sense beaten out of them, even in pre-scientific times, then it's quite obvious the story is about something else. Likewise the story of Jonah and the big fish is, by it's very structure, quite obviously a story, and not a historically accurate work.

If I as a religious person argue with you as an atheist about the existence of God, it's like arguing about a favorite color or ice cream. You like just-the-facts-ma'am vanilla, I like fruity-tootie.

It's when some damned idiot decides to interfere with your pursuit of the truth (anyone with good sense is seeking the truth) or your freedom to seek happiness in ways that do not harm other people, that's when religion goes utterly rotten and evil.

[Evoman]

193. From now on, I'm totally going to call you Fruity-Tootie.

LOL.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Except this is specifically about science lessons

and Dawkins, as the Oxford Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, is doing his job with this. It's quite right for him to want any supernaturalism excluded from science teaching.

[bryant69]

9. In case I haven't made it clear before

I am opposed to teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design taught in the schools. But that's, in part, because I believe you can believe in God and Evolution. I would, however, be opposed to teaching that Evolution implies the non-existence of God, which is where I and Dawkins might disagree.

Bryant

[Finder]

13. It is the gods of religion that Dawkins is referring to...

in most cases. The personal god(s) of theists are easily disproven by education in science.

[bryant69]

16. "easily disproven by education in science?"

That statement strikes me as being pretty close to bigoted.

At any rate the god I believe in a god of religion and is a personal God. And yet, somehow, I don't think I'm an idiot.

Bryant

[Finder]

17. I didn't infer you were an idiot...

nor do I think most people who have not received a proper science education are idiots...I was just stating a fact.

[bryant69]

19. So my friend who has a degree in physics and still believes in God

does not have a "proper science education?" On what day exactly do they teach the non-existence of God in a "proper science education?" Early on, or do they hold that for the end?

Bryant

[Finder]

20. Is this an invisible friend or a real one?lol

Is the degree from Liberty U or such ilk?

There are many scientists who believe in a creator...the god of the Deists...

Gods such as Zeus, Isis, Jesus, Jehovah, Odin, Thor are pretty much seen for what they are(myths)by most educated peoples.

[bryant69]

21. No - Florida State University.

Oh and I like how it's not just science - now I'm not even educated? Nice. But I am glad that you have confirmed my initial suspicions (i.e. that you are bigoted against believers).

Bryant

[Finder]

23. Not bigoted at all...

I think thou protests too much...

As long as religion is kept out of science I have no issue.

[bryant69]

24. You just think that believers are all uneducated dolts

You don't have any problem with them personally.

Isn't that a lot like "Look I got nothing against Gays - I just think they are going to hell for their sinful ways."

Bryant

[Finder]

26. I don't think people deprived of education are dolts...

not their fault...I do think those that want to keep facts away from believers are dolts though. Faith based on fallacy is weak.

Why would you defend that?

Why don't you argue substance rather than imagine what I think?

[bryant69]

27. I'm not imagining what you think I'm reacting to what you said

Which is that a proper education lends one not to believe in a personal god - the best you can do is a God who created everything and took off millions of years ago - the Deist God. But if you get a proper education you will probably stop attending church and ceace believing in religion. Which is quite a knock against millions of believers including myself.

At this point I'd like to point out that I oppose teaching Intelligent Design or Creationism in the schools (this is usually the point where people tend to forget that). I favor teaching evolution, but oppose teaching that evolution implies the non-existence of a personal God. If you want to use Science Class to indoctrinate kids to your particular opinion on religion, whether that's the Christian Opinion or the Atheist opinion, I'm not keen on it.

Bryant

[Finder]

31. Attending church is mostly a community support thing for many...

and doesn't say much as to the who believes or doesn't believe.IMO

The teaching of evolution, biology, etc...does not even touch upon the topic of gods much less deal with opinions.

So we agree on that matter.

[bryant69]

33. You disagree with Dawkins then

and you disagree with yourself from a few hours ago when you said that a "proper science education" led to the non-belief in a personal God. Are you saying you were wrong earlier? Or are you wrong now?

[Finder]

122. Neither...

What science does is help people understand the world. Without science education, many of these "mysteries" have been attributed to a god.

For example, a worshipper of Thor would learn about thunder and lightning and realize that it does not require a god.

Many of the personal gods are believed in because of powers attributed to them that can be easily explained through science.

Many people believe because of faith in fallacies. Not all believers though. No longer are facts or beliefs labeled heretical by the church and those who do not believe the orthodox version are no longer subject to death. The idea of a personal god smiting has been seen for what it was...a tool to oppress and bring power to the church and its minions.

Deism and some nature-based religions do not require belief in the supernatural or a physics-defying deity.

Prozac and/or therapy has replaced exorcism.

[Realityhack]

44. Thats fair BUT...

I think its fair to assume that you would agree that evolution IS incompatable with some peoples religions.

So reguardless of your religion not being at odds with evolution isn't it honest/fair for Dawkins to say that evolution implys the non-existance of some peoples version of god?

You don't care about evolution and so you are by deffinition not realy the group he is talking about.

[immoderate]

85. "Belief in" and "existence of" are not related.

Learning science only excludes the existence of god if you take it seriously. People's beliefs have nothing to do with any of this.

--IMM

[Silent3]

127. Evolution may not directly imply the non-existence of God...

...but it certainly contributes, along with our knowledge of physics and cosmology, to making the idea of deities more and more superfluous.

You could start out believing that the planets move in their orbits as they do because giant invisible angels push them along their observed paths.

You could then learn about Newton's Law of Gravity, and you might then further refine that understanding by learning about Einstein's General Relativity.

At this point, you could still cling to your giant invisible angels if you wish, and simply say that they angels just happen to enjoy following the same equations Einstein discovered... but what's the point of doing so? What do you gain by keeping the angels?

[bryant69]

128. Well in the matter of hypothetical angels it seems like

there would be nothing to lose by accepting Newtons Laws. Unless the angels were a key part of a larger belief system.

Take God as a Creator on the other hand. I don't believe in young earth creationism (i.e. the world got created 6,000 years ago. But I do believe in a creating God and it's a significant part of my belief system - so abandoning that would actually tear a chunk out of my belief system - a gap that would cause me to lose other parts of my belief system as well.

Bryant

[Silent3]

129. I'm not talking about what you might lose or gain emotionally...

...I'm talking about explanatory power. I'm sure people will keep playing whatever mind games they think they need to play with/on themselves to feel happier or more secure or more purposeful or whatever, for a long long time.

Part of the appeal of belief in the supernatural is, however, and has been historically, the supposed explanatory power of supernatural explanations and religious myths. But what's left that you need a God to explain that can't be explained better by science? What's left that science can't explain where it isn't just better to say "I don't know" rather than to provide an answer that doesn't really answer anything?

If the idea of a Universe simply arising out of nothingness unsettles you, or if a Universe which has always existed eternally with no beginning is such a terrible thing to accept, how does it help at all to invoke a God which Himself arose from nothingness, or One Who always existed, as an explanation?

[bryant69]

130. Well there are questions it is hard for science to answer

Or that the answers of science aren't very satisfying.

Questions like "What's the point to all this?"

Or "Does my life have meaning beyond my ability to pass my genetic material on?"

Or "What happens after we die?"

Those sorts of questions.

Bryant

[Silent3]

131. I don't think the universe is obligated...

...to provide us with satisfying or comforting answers, or any answers at all. The supposed answers provided by religion (or by so-called "spirituality") are not verifiable, nor do they distinguish themselves in any significant way from human hopes and fears dressed up as some sort of mystically "revealed" truth.

[kiahzero]

12. Absurd.

He's setting up a strawman that all religious people subscribe to a "God of the Gaps" mentality.

[Finder]

14. How is that a strawman?

Not that I necessarily agree that is what he is doing...

Isn't all religion about the "gaps"?

[kiahzero]

15. No. (n/t)

[Finder]

18. Can you give me an example of a religion that does not...

use supposed gaps?

[kiahzero]

30. Most modern religions as understood by theologians

The "God of the Gaps" has by-and-large been relegated to people who don't seriously examine their religious beliefs and Creationists.

[Finder]

32. I agree with that...

and those are the only people who I am arguing against.

[kiahzero]

34. So, to reiterate

Dawkins is setting up a strawman that all religious people subscribe to a "God of the Gaps" theology, which is inaccurate (as you just agreed).

[Realityhack]

40. not really

Dawkins is a bit better versed than that. He just aims his argument at the audiance and the vast majority of religious peopole who are interested in wither evolution is taught in schools subscribe to a god of the gaps theology.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. Isn't a 'God of the Gaps' what people who believe in God and evolution have?

Rather than thinking God has controlled everything, they accept the explanations of science, and then say their God controls the gaps in between - for instance, without a universally accepted theory of consciousness, they attribute that to God, while leaving the evolution of organisms to natural selection. If you don't believe in a God of the Gaps, they you believe in an omnipotent God.

[kiahzero]

65. No. (n/t)

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. OK, since this isn't something with a precise definition

and the Wikipedia explanation ("It refers to a theistic position that anything that can be explained by human knowledge is not in the domain of God, so the role of God is therefore confined to the 'gaps' in scientific explanations of nature.") agrees with mine, I think you need to give us your definition.

[kiahzero]

76. I agree on the Wikipedia definition

I'm disagreeing with the baseless assertion that every theist that accepts evolution must therefore subscribe to a GotG theology.

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. I did specify evolution due to natural selection

and the point is that by accepting that, the concept of God gives up the creation of humans, which all major religions attribute to him/them. You're left with a God claiming the remaining gaps.

[kiahzero]

83. No, you're not.

It's trivially easy to reconcile those beliefs without turning to the idea that "If there is no known explanation for why something happens, it must be because of God."

[muriel_volestrangler]

89. So you have a deist god?

That just set the universe in motion? What religion is that?

[kiahzero]

91. Um... Deism.

You walked right into that one. ;)

[Realityhack]

94. um...

we don't know what set the universe in motion => god did it

Sounds kindof god of the gapsy to me.

[kiahzero]

97. Hardly. (n/t)

[Realityhack]

99. Wow what an insiteful response.

I now completely understand where I was wrong and I can see your point of view. Thank you so much correcting me.

[kiahzero]

101. You're conflating Deism with ID

http://www.moderndeism.com/html/deism_defined.html

[Realityhack]

104. not quite.

the post I responded to was where you labled something as deism that the poster before had stated as god setting the universe in motion. That is a form of deism that puts god firmly in a major gap.

I have other issues with a more generalized deism.

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. So you are saying there's a religion with a deist god, are you?

What is it?

On edit: I'm not sure if 'deism' qualifies as a religion. It's certainly not an organised religion, and has so little in shared beliefs or practices that it doesn't seem to make it to 'religion' at all.

[kiahzero]

98. An organized religion?

Does it not count to you unless it's tax-exempt or something?

[muriel_volestrangler]

102. I'm using typical dictionary definitions

compare the Webster definitions online (or Chambers, a British dictionary, for that matter) for 'Christianity', 'Islam' or 'Buddhism' - all of which are defined as a religion, and Deism - which is defined as a belief, movement or system. Then look at 'Taoism', which, in both dictionaries, is defined first as a philosophy or system, then as a religion when magic and belief in gods or spirits is added.

Chambers: "belief in the existence of God without acceptance of any religion or message revealed by God to man"

Websters:a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe"

"Natural religion"? I'm having a problem finding a decent definition, but it looks rather 'God of the gaps" to me.

[kiahzero]

103. That's because that's the way you want to see it.

Despite, as I said above, being rejected by most modern theologians, "God of the Gaps" is a convenient strawman for attacking religion generally.

Here's a hint: general dictionaries are poor for use in any discussion of a specialized field, including religion and philosophy.

[Zhade]

136. Honestly, it looks more like you don't want to see the gaps.

If Deism posits a god that started the universe, and this ISN'T proven by anything (it's not), then it's a gap, even if you can't admit it.

[Finder]

123. Deism is compatible with evolution....

and is based on reason. The creator of Deism is not a personal god.

[Realityhack]

38. Well here's the thing.

Yes, politicaly it isn't an easy sell to religious people. Better to play pretend like they do and act like we think evolution is compatable with their religion.

But it isn't.

Evolution is not compatable with YEC for example. And some of us have this nasty habbit of telling the truth.
Teaching that the earth and sun orbit a mutual center of gravity deep within the sun could be incompatable with someones religion. It could cause them to question their religion. But so what? We know science isn't compatable with all kinds of mythology. And we intend to go on teaching science anyway. And when they whine and complain that our science cariculum is anti-whatever their religion is, we will say tough nooky. Dawkins is intent upon setting the same thing up for all religions to prevent religion from attempting to destroy science. The message is 'I don't care if it decreases your beleif, its science and we intend to teach it reguarldes... and yes it is incompatable with your faith if you must know but we frankly don't care'

Dawkins is basicaly just beeing truthful.

I think its unclear in the end wither the more 'diplomatic' approach or the more 'millitant' one will work better. It is arguable that the diplomatic approach of saying that everyones religion is off limits to critism has gotten us into a bad position.

[bryant69]

41. That's the thing

If the more militant approach wins out than you have to write off believers entirely. Because that's what Dawkins seems to be fighting for. And at the end of the day, you can't really expect believers to join a movement to make their beliefs laughable.

On the other hand, perhaps it is a more honest approach - just accepting that religious people and atheists really can't live in harmony and we shouldn't try to paper over our differences with some nice words about tolerance and mutual respect. That's not really my opinion (i prefer to believe in tolerance and mutual respect (unless your a jerk of course), but I can see the logic of it.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

43. Oh bullshit.

Being nice to the creationists got us Kansas.

Now it's going to take an army of Dawkins to beat them back into their caves.

[bryant69]

46. Good comeback

That really set me straight.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

48. Think about it, Bryant.

You're listening to hyperbole from the people who want to turn this into a theocracy.

Dawkins is not a threat to anyone who believes public schools should be secular.

As a matter of fact, he's defending their kids' right to a good education.

And your kids' rights too.

[bryant69]

51. Again, I am basing this on an interview he gave to Salon Magazine

I'm not basing this off of anything I've heard from religious sources at all - Salon isn't a perfect magazine, but it is generally pretty left wing, and it certainly wasn't a hostile interview. Read the quotes above - hell read the whole interview - it's interesting even if I think a lot of what he says isn't right.

They did a second interview with him - in which he clarified and softened a few points --> http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins/index.html

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

54. I don't need to read all of it to know Dawkins speaks for me.

I read a lot of science blogs and this "battle" has been a long time coming.

I just hope the institutions have the guts to back their scientists and teachers.

[bryant69]

58. You don't have to read it to agree with it, I suppose

But if you want to claim I'm misreading him, maybe you should. Because it's clear to me that Dawkins sees the battle over creationism as one phase in a much larger war. Superstition vs. Science, if you like. A battle Dawkins is fighting to eliminate superstition and unfounded beliefs, which of course include not only Pat Robertson's, Jerry Falwell's and the Creationist's, but mine and every moderate or liberal Christians at well.

So that if I want to say "Teaching Evolution is no threat to our religious beliefs" Dawkins would say "Wait, yes it is. You can't believe in both Science and God."

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

61. Listen to hunter and muriel, then.

hunter is a christian, his take on this might be less confrontational than mine.

Although, judging by his last post, not by much.

[Realityhack]

81. FWIW

Dawkins has a very specific definition of 'God' when he speaks about God being incompatible with science. He is actually just fine with what he calls Einsteinian religion. It would be a mistake to think that Dawkins point can be understood through a couple of quick sound bites. I think you would find yourself in complete agreement with what he means when he says he wants to keep the supernatural and superstition out of science.

[beam me up scottie]

82. And to be fair,

Dawkins is pissed off.

And he should be.

We all should be.

He's not a superhero, he's a brilliant scientist who is sick of seeing the same kind of people who imprisoned Galileo trying to drag us back into the dark ages by declaring a jihad on science.

[Realityhack]

84. BMUS - You ROCK!

All very good points.

I think I score as several people in the pissed off category.

The only thing I don't understand is why more people aren't pissed off. This is serious, serious stuff. How can you be all upset about global warming, birth controll acess, etc. while ignoring a massive assult on the science that is at the heart of all those issues? Dawkins is more perceptive than many, this isn't about evolution v. creationism. It's about science v. ajenda driven psudoscience.

[beam me up scottie]

88. They don't know about it.

We've always been taught to "respect" religion in this country.

To our detriment.

We should respect freedom of religion, of course.

But we should also defend the Constitution.

These people aren't just waging war on science, that's just one battle.

They have their sites set on the big prize.

And if they get what they want, all of us will suffer, liberal believers and atheists alike.


Jeez, six years ago, I was an "agnostic" who avoided any and all talk about religious beliefs.

I didn't want the baggage that came with the label "atheist".

I can't afford that luxury anymore.

None of us can.

Let them vilify the ACLU and atheists, some day they may realize we're fighting for their rights too.

[Realityhack]

92. What scares the #$@* out of me is...

that they may realize it about 3 years into writing the history of thistic America's rise and fall. I know someone people where fighting against all the various oppressive regimes in history. I am just not inspired to hope based on the success record so far.

[beam me up scottie]

96. Some of us learned it second hand.

My mother was a child refugee in Germany during WWII.

The one thing she could not tolerate was when any of us didn't think for ourselves.

Or if we didn't take up for others.

[bryant69]

87. He doesn't believe in Salvation, he doesn't believe in the afterlife

he doesn't believe in a personal God. And he doesn't believe anybody else should either. He might be just fine with Einstinien religion, but it's quite clear that he's not fine with mine.

Bryant

[Realityhack]

90. See post #73 n/t

[beam me up scottie]

93. Do you think atheists can't teach science without opining about God?

Atheist teachers are no less capable of leaving their lack of belief outside the classroom than christians are at checking their faith at the door.

Dawkins has become militant because some christians don't think they should have to do that anymore.

Militant atheism is a reaction to militant theism.

You guys created the monster, now learn to live with him.

And the rest of us Frankensteins.

[bryant69]

105. Fair enough

Insofar as Dawkins believes that Atheist science teachers should leave their opinions on religion out of the class room I agree with him. But some of his statements make it seem like maybe he doesn't. That's all I'm saying.

The end of your post is interesting though - We, meaning Christians, fundamentalist or not, apparently, created Militant Theism, which led to Militant Atheism, so we should learn to live with him? That's an interesting formulation, and worth considering.

[beam me up scottie]

107. You think I was always an uppity atheist?

Something had to happen to piss me off this much.

And no, it wasn't you liberal christians, but your less evolved brethren who told us this is a christian nation.

We're not a threat to you, and neither is Dawkins.

[Realityhack]

109. well

"We, meaning Christians, fundamentalist or not, apparently, created Militant Theism,"
So far I have to say thats true.

"which led to Militant Atheism"
Thats certainly possible. Other arguments are also possible but I think for a lot of atheists this describes how they feel. Dawkins didn't pull the war on science out of his ass.

"so we should learn to live with him?"
Not sure about this one. I would rather see you just extinguish the militant theists and lay off science. Frankly the millitant atheists would mostly dissapear shortly thereafter.
But yes learning to live with him is probobly a good plan as I don't think you (less extreme theists) can kill off what you started.

[beam me up scottie]

110. I don't think they can extinguish the militant theists.

Maybe at an earlier time, but not now.

They do, however, have a better chance at siccing the moderates and conservatives on the dominionists than we do.

Instead of attacking us, they should be calling attention to the real monsters.

And you're exactly right, if the dominionists went back to their caves, and let us get back to running a secular democracy, we'd only annoy the liberal christians occasionally.

[Realityhack]

111. Thats true.

The thing is right now I can't see much of a way out at all. I have known a few fundies. There are way too many psychological factors in play accross too big of a group for a quick resolution.

And on that note I think its off to bed. Later BMUS.

[beam me up scottie]

112. G'nite!

Unfortunately, I have another long night ahead.

As usual, you brought a lot to the table, I hope you saved some of it in your journal.

[Realityhack]

133. extrodinarily stupid question...

'saved some of it in your journal'?

[beam me up scottie]

185. Oops, sorry, just saw your question.

DU lets us keep our own journals now. You should see a link in the icons at the top of the screen, right after the link for the Lobby.

Here's the Journal Help Screen: http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/journals.html

If a poster has a journal, the first icon after their user name will let you view it.

Once you've activated yours, the "Add to my Journal" link will appear after the "alert" at the bottom of your post.

It's a great feature!

[bryant69]

121. One other point worth mentioning

DU is a special situation - there aren't any dominionists here. I'm the closest thing to a pro-creationist I've seen and I've said many times that I oppose teaching Creationism in the class room. So when we have a conversation here, at DU, it's going to be between Moderate/Liberal Christians and Atheists (and other faiths too of course). But the dominionists aren't here, and for the most part aren't ever going to be here. If a Dominionist ever showed up, spouting off how this is a Christian Nation and what not - well, I'd close ranks pretty damn fast.

In my other endevors - like my blog, I spend far more time writing on Dominionism than I do Atheism. I don't know that I've written more than a few posts on Atheism - and I know I've written many on Dominionists and other Christian Fundementalists.

But to take the same stance here at DU makes no sense - this is a discussion board not an agreement board - it makes sense to talk about the space in between us, not the issues we all agree on. I guess it makes sense to do both, but the real debate and discussion is going to take root in the space where we disagree - cause how long can you carry on a conversation where both sides agree?

Bryant

[bryant69]

120. I feel like i'm getting held responsible for Pat Robertson

But ok.

Bryant

[Zhade]

138. AND? He's under no obligation to respect your beliefs.

No one is.

Respect you as a human being, yes. Respect your RIGHT to hold your beliefs, yes.

But to whine that he doesn't appreciate your beliefs strikes me as a bit egocentric. He doesn't have to, and you shouldn't feel the need for him to, I would hope, if your beliefs work for you.

Besides, even if he said "I loathe Bryant's beliefs", it's not like you're going to give up on secularism and keeping church and state separate just because he doesn't find your beliefs worth anything, right?

[Zhade]

137. You admit that your beliefs are unfounded, and you attack Dawkins...

...for pointing it out?

Shouldn't you maybe be looking at why you believe in unfounded beliefs, rather than attacking a guy who wants to increase the amount of critical thinking in the world?

[bryant69]

148. I apologize

I was being generous and phrasing Dawkins in the way that you and other atheists look at him. I certainly don't actually consider my beliefs superstitions or unfounded. I apologize for the confusion.

I'm not attacking Dawkins - or at least that's not my intent. I just think that his views make him a questionable choice to lead the fight on Creationism. But as has been pointed out elsewhere, if he is all we have, than he's certainly better than nothing.

Bryant

[Realityhack]

57. Let me see if I can try this again...

basicaly what you have is:

SOMETheists: God created mankind in present form 6,000 years ago
Science Teacher: Teaches evolution
Theists: How dare you teach that our religion is wrong.

Dawkins: Because it is.

Me: Dawkins is right, you are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is wrong.

[beam me up scottie]

59. You can almost hear the poor beleaguered science teachers' collective sigh of relief.

The calvary is on the way.

And hopefully when the dust settles, they can go back to teaching SCIENCE in SCIENCE class.

[bryant69]

60. That's not all Dawkins says

Because after we dispense with the Creation 6,000 years ago, you have to deal with people who believe that God Created the Earth over Millions of Years, Miracles, Life After Death, Prayer to a Divine Being and so on and so forth - until you end up with a God who is basically toothless, a God who never actually does or did anything. Who never could do anything.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

63. So you're claiming he's really going to indoctrinate students into atheism?

Instead of just honestly giving his opinion about superstition while defending science from the dominionists?

Yeah, that's what he wants to do.

Curses!

You've foiled his evil plan.


:eyes:

[bryant69]

66. Read the quotes.

In the long run do you think that Science and Religion are mutually compatible? Or somewhere down the road are we, as a nation or as a species, going to have to choose one over the other? Dawkins seems to believe that it's important that Humanity reject religion - and that's what he's fighting for. I'm not criticizing him per se (while I obviously disagree with him, I can see where he's coming from), I'm just saying that his point of view isn't going to very palatable to those who are religious.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

70. I hope that science will eventually make religion obsolete.

I think it's called evolution.

Nobody's going to take anyone's blankie away from them, to paraphrase PZ Meyers.

But it's long past time for scientists to stop coddling christians who can't stand to have anyone cast doubt on their faith.


Look at it this way, if your faith is strong enough, it will survive whatever doubt science inspires.

[Danger Mouse]

142. Perhaps that will...

eventually be the case.
When that happens, the world will likely be a better place.

[Realityhack]

73. And what I am trying to say is...

that for some people (those that want evolution out of schools and creationism in) that really is the choice right NOW. Either they give up one of their beliefs or they give up science. And they want us to all give up science in favor of allowing their religion to remain viable.

So we don't have to argue about future hypotheticals. This is happening right NOW. The real question is, if science somehow 'proved' (to the extent that evolution is currently proven) that your religious beliefs where in error. Would you chose your religion or science?

Dawkins is making the point that we must not allow anyone to stop science just because they don't like the results. The point that faith has no buisness in science.

[bryant69]

106. I assume in that hypothetical situation I would assume there

was additional data science didn't have access to yet. I believe everything down to the existence of the soul and the afterlife to be eventually scientifically provable and I believe in a God who operates through natural laws - laws that in many cases we don't fully understand yet and won't in this life.

I don't entirely know what you mean by stopping science - if we are talking about university level scientific research, I don't know that this discussion impacts that at all. What we are talking about is teaching children and teenagers science in school - High School mostly I guess. They don't get into evolution much before that I believe.

Do you buy Jay Goulds formulation of separate spheres? Religion answering a certain kind of question and Science answering another? Or do you, like Dawkins, reject that formulation? edited to add: I should note I may be misstating through incompleteness Jay Gould, but it's late and if I am I apologize.

Bryant

[Realityhack]

108. Thanks for answering...

As for the first part I am assuming in our hypothetical that the evidence against some aspect of your religion is as great but not greater than the evidence for evolution. So its not 100% perfect, but its a massive and growing set of evidence. And the question is if it where something that would logically be taught in high school... would you be against teaching it because you believed differently?

That’s what is happening now for some fundamentalists. I can understand why they are upset because they correctly see this as a choice between science and their beliefs. I just still come down against them.
---
As for Dawkins v. Gould I agree with Dawkins points against Gould. That is that while many people claim science and religion are in different spheres those spheres in reality have an enormous overlap. Science can explore many of the questions and statements in *most* religions.

Science can be applied to claims of miracles, how man was created, wither there was a great flood, why we have different races, how the universe developed, etc.

So no I do not think they are separate spheres. Because religions aren't a set of moral principles. They are an entire belief structure with ancient writings and stories of this and that, in short they make testable predictions. So you can apply science to them.

So in the case of the young earth creationist science and religion are fundamentally at odds. And it hardly stops at the YEC. It goes as far as the current science goes.
BTW this should not exactly come as a surprise. Religions have been warring with science for quite some time.
---
Basically IMO they YEC has a choice, either
a) modify his beliefs (accept that science has proven his religion wrong)
b) Deny science in an amazing display of mental gymnastics where evolution is all wrong.
So the question is given that this is a real situation… how can religion and science be two separate spheres?

That was longer than I thought but I hope it helps.

[bryant69]

119. It helps - but can you see how this might be troubling

even to non YEC believers? I mean they are on the chopping block currently - but if this is only one battle in a longer war, than what beliefs are next? Today it's the YECs that have to choose between Science and Beleif - but given that Dawkins, at least, sees belief and religion as wholly negative, why not spend a day on the myth of the flood or the idea of Adam and Eve and so on an so forth and so on and so forth on down the list.

Bryant

[Realityhack]

134. Yes of course...

but frankly I don't really care if they like it. The only way teaching science will affect anyone's religious beliefs is if they believe in something that is silly to believe in given our current scientific knowledge.

And they can go ahead and keep believing it anyway. That’s not really what is at issue.

But IMO no mater WHAT science provides evidence for or against it should be allowed to do so regardless of anyone’s religious protest.
Which I suspect you agree with.

That may well make many religious people nervous about how science might reflect upon their beliefs. And it probably should. If you believe the flood really happened... well science makes that seem more than a bit silly. But that is no grounds for keeping geology out of schools.
I don't advocate going out of our way to 'bust religious myths' or anything. But any topic that comes up under a normal thorough science education... should be taught without even the slightest regard to religious viewpoints. And that any attempt to limit or alter what is taught based on ‘religious’ rights/views/tolerance/etc. should be seen as destructive to society.

So yes I understand why some people don’t like Dawkins or have an ‘issue’ with science in general. I just don’t think it’s a very valid viewpoint.

[bryant69]

147. I think we need to focus at the issue at hand

and not some generalized conflict between science and religion. Presumably we all have to figure out our answer to that question on our own. The question though is what should be taught in the class room. Your example of the flood. Should a high school science teacher go out of his or her way to emphasize that the Geological record provides no evidence of the flood? Should a high school science teacher go out of his or her way to debunk other miracles? I mean you can't teach science with out running over the young earth creationists, but is it required to hit those other points? Or should it be required? Or allowed?

Bryant

[Realityhack]

162. Seems prity strait forward to me.

"The question though is what should be taught in the class room."
Science without regard to religion. An earth science course covers geology. It should cover what comes up including formation of the grand canyon etc.

"Your example of the flood. Should a high school science teacher go out of his or her way to emphasize that the Geological record provides no evidence of the flood?"
No. I see no reason to go out of the way to do 'debunk' various religious claims. However, if the topic comes up then the teacher should absolutely state what science has deduced about various things involved.

"Should a high school science teacher go out of his or her way to debunk other miracles?"
No. See above.

"I mean you can't teach science with out running over the young earth creationists,"
Given

"but is it required to hit those other points?"
Through the course of a well rounded science education? IMO yes. Any student graduating from high school should know some general information about how fossils are formed, continental drift, how the grand canyon was formed, etc. Not all necessarily in high school but they should have exposure to those ideas before graduating IMO.

"Or should it be required?"
See above. But basically some things yes. Others no. The point is to provide a wide ranging understanding of science as well as a foundation in scientific exploration of the world around us.

"Or allowed?"
Yes. Some of these things are directly at odds with important pieces of science that students should be exposed to. You can tell your kid the teacher is lying if you want, but the material should be presented. We should not try to manipulate the science curriculum to avoid things that might upset the religious.

---

Now I am going to say something that I hope you do not take the wrong way because I think we have been having a good discussion about this.

You seem perfectly happy to let science cover topics that are flat out incompatible with the YEC position. But you seem to be trying quite hard to create wiggle room to make it ok for the science curriculum to dodge other issues because they might make someone’s religion look silly.
So is this more about what is appropriate in the science classroom or more about protecting religion from science?

I submit that it is inappropriate to 'protect' religion from science across the board.

In the hypothetical case that your religion was at odds with a fundamental scientific principle would you want science to dodge around it, or would you rather see schools teach good science regardless of your belief?

[bryant69]

170. Interesting question

If there was rock hard scientific proof that a fundamental principle of my religion was false, I don't know what I'd do. If it were a tertiary point like the flood, I'd probably find some way to work around it - justify it I suppose.

On the other hand if there were rock hard proof that after we die there's nothing, for example, or that Jesus never existed at all. Hmmmmmmm. I'm not going to answer that question, I don't think.

Bryant

[Finder]

174. Your response is scary...lol n/t

[bryant69]

175. Well if i went further it would expose me to mockery or condesension

I don't know why it should - you are asking me to contemplate what would happen if one of the pillers of my life were destroyed - do you think that sort of thing could happen and not have consequences?

Bryant

[Finder]

176. Seriously, what would change?

Also, why is what happens after death a pillar of your life?

I am going to assume you are young and have not studied the religion you have decided to follow...Faith should not rely on paper and ink.

Pillars of our lives are important and many a pillar has fallen only to be built again with stronger material.

[bryant69]

181. I'm in my 30s and i've studied the religion I believe in depth

Bryant

[Realityhack]

178. A 'pillar' falling or contemplating one falling?

I asume you mean one actualy falling. No I would expect it to have concequences. Its like asking you to think about the murder of a loved one. I understand it is hard. I was only trying to demonstrate that for some people that point is reached well within the normal science ciriculum so the reaction is predictable.

And thus follows my point that even though some things are terribly devistating to some people... we should still teach good basic science and we should not even consider what peoples beleifs are when we are writing up the courses.

Thats just my opinion.

[Realityhack]

177. Thank you.

Thank you for giving a considered and apparently truethful answer.

It seems to me that your response is exactly what we see happen to fundementalists when they come up against evolution (for example). Several things tend to either create some kind of workaround, or they ram into a mass of cognitive dissonence that sometimes results in their denying science (either outright or through some seudo-science mumbo-jumbo).

However if this is central to their religous views, then Dawkins etc. are correct that science is incompatable with their religion. So one or the other has to give.

In private life they can make their own decisions. In public schools I come down on the side of science every time. If there is some 'science' not covered in school... thats what talking to your kids or sundayschool is for.

[hunter]

183. Huh?

I personally think all biology would be best taught from the perspective of evolution and not some perverse and neutered sort of systematics.

Most U.S. biology textbooks are utter crap because they confine evolution within a neat little cage that is often overlooked. Kids who graduate from public high schools often don't know the first thing about biology because nobody ever taught it to them.

But the foundation of modern biology is evolution. If you don't understand evolution, you don't understand biology. It's as simple as that.

[Realityhack]

71. Huh?

Actualy thats exactly what he is saying in this case.

Science shouldn't teach people things that might show belief in miracles to be silly?
Science shouldn't teach things (like evolution) that the planet could have evolved without any intervention?

And where EXACTLY does Dawkins say we should teach against prayer and a life after death in science class? I know he thinks both are silly but where does he say we should make it part of the school science curriculum?

Dawkins sees science and faith as fundementaly incompatable because faith is by deffinition the oposite of scientific exploration. Science accepts things based only upon evidence and faith excepts them reguardess of evidence. I happen to agree.

[Zhade]

139. Miracles et al are not off-limits. Sorry.

There's no evidence for them. None. If someone tries to insist they actually happened, well, show us the evidence.

Ooops, there isn't any. Okay. So it remains a personal belief. And those are not exempted from criticism, any more than Zeus and unicorns are. Or that conservatism is great (although at least conservatism actually exists).

Just because you don't LIKE that there's no science to back up these myths doesn't mean that they're not to be discussed.

[bryant69]

146. Well we are talking about a number of forums

Debunking the miracles here among presumed adults is one thing - i might not participate - but you obviously can't say that that's off limits.

On the other hand, debunking them in a highschool or junior high school science class I'm not sure I'd be as keen on - it seems gratuitious. What's the rationale for debunking them?

And if the answer is "Well the kids should know the truth" keep in mind that rationale works just as well for an evangilical history teacher who thinks he has to witness to the students in his class.

Bryant

[Finder]

149. Keep in mind that many children will ask...

a teacher outright. If the teacher answers honestly they would be "debunking" but they do not set out to do it.

It is not the same as an evangelical history teacher witnessing.

[bryant69]

150. Well it's impossible to know what a teacher

would do in that situation. If a teacher is asked about the flood, probably the best is "There is no evidence of a flood." Simple direct without overreaching.

But of course an evangelical might want to embellish that answer with a statement abuot how Science doesn't know everything and there probably was a flood, science just hasen't found the evidence of it yet. Whereas an Atheist might want to walk past that statement to the implication that the Bible is full of mythology that is no more credible than the stories of Hercules or Thor. I'm not saying they would do that - just saying they might want to.

Bryant

[Finder]

152. Here is how I would and do answer...

Many different ancient cultures have legends of a flood. Some of these stories are allegorical and some are about actual floods and people's interpretations of why it happened. They are not meant to be scientific explanations.

Unlike the proposed answers you listed, this is the truth. It also encourages the child to research the different legends and stories available.(outside of science class)

[bryant69]

153. Congratulations on being so truthful

certainly we are blessed to have such a truthful person here to particpate in our discussion, expecially when there are decietful bastards like me around.

You must feel really good about yourself being so truthful.

Bryant

[Finder]

154. tsk tsk...

"The Truth will set you free."lol

[bryant69]

155. I forgot who I was talking to

A Person who believes that a proper education in science will lead to a rejection of all Gods save the Diest God who doesn't do anything. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want you teaching my kids anyway.

Bryant

[Finder]

156. What is your idea of God?

Why would you want your children to believe in a smiting, storm-sending deity?

[bryant69]

157. I don't - but I do want them to believe in a loving personal God

who cares about humanity and cares about them. Not a watchmaker who made the world some time back then stepped out for lunch and isn't likely to make it back.

Bryant

[Finder]

158. Well they will believe what they want regardless of what...

you want them to believe.

Unless you plan to send them to bible school or homeschool, they will evaluate the information you tell them and what they learn. Careful though, they are more likely to reject those that lied to them along the way.

[bryant69]

159. That's twice you've called me a liar - Nice

I don't intend to lie to my children, assuming I ever have any. One thing you might learn somewhere down the road is that people can disagree with you without being liars.

Bryant

[Finder]

160. I did not call you a liar...

and there are no lies(hopefully)in debates, just positions. I am curious as to what you and others mean by a "personal God"...

How is it different than having an imaginary friend? If you do not consider this personal deity imaginary, what makes it real? Does it talk to you?

[bryant69]

161. Decietful, untruthful. Pick whatever adjective you like

Example 1 - "Unlike the proposed answers you listed, this is the truth."

Example 2 - "Careful though, they are more likely to reject those that lied to them along the way."

As for how a personal God is like an Imaginary friend, that takes us pretty far afield of this post - so will post a new topic on it.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

163. Why are you here, Bryant?

More than once when you were offended by something someone said in this forum, I asked you to keep posting because I think you bring a different and much needed perspective to the issues discussed here.

But dude, you are trying so hard to find offense where there is none, I'm beginning to wonder if it's become a hobby.


For fuck's sake, in this forum there's plenty of offense to go around if one's looking for it, and you've certainly been on the receiving end of your share of it.

But for some reason you seem to think you have to create your own when others are having what they think is a civil and productive discussion.



In case you haven't noticed, atheists don't exactly tiptoe around the tulips in here.

You don't have to be a genius to figure out when someone is dissing you.

If you ask the alleged offender if that was their intent and they tell you no, have a little faith in your fellow liberals and take their word for it.



If you want to debate and discuss religion related topics, I for one welcome your input.

In the past you've proven yourself to be a considerate and thoughtful poster.

Take a chill pill and stop making enemies out of allies just because they may disagree with you.

[bryant69]

172. You know what I don't need to be lectured by you on this issue

I know where we stand.

Bryant

[Realityhack]

166. Um...

I have no idea what the other posters intention was but...

Example 1... Seems to me you intentionaly bent both the 'atheist' and 'fundy' answers to intentionaly be dishonest. I don't think the comment about lies was directed at you but rather at your hypothetical responses that where intentionaly phrased with non-scientific slant.

Example 2... Seems to me like a warning against lying not an accusation of lying. More along the lines of pointing out that no matter what the teacher says the kids will discover that (for example) the flood is a rather silly notion and they may dismiss people who promote it.

[Finder]

171. That was my intention...

I think Bryant just feels defensive at times...

[beam me up scottie]

180. I think he's turned it into an art form.

I live and work in the heart of the bible belt and I'm not even that paranoid.

[Realityhack]

164. Very weak example.

First off it should be noted that:
Not off limits != going out of your way to debunk

Secondly you might want to find a better example. Any student graduating from highschool should have a firm enough grasp on science to know that there is no scientific basis for bleif in the flood and lots of good evidence to reject it on.

[Realityhack]

49. For what its worth

I DO write off believers who's version of god is incompatible with science. I defend their right to stupidity but I do in fact write them off. The FACT that some belief systems are incompatible with science does not make me want to bend science to accommodate them.

If someone wants to believe that god created the world 6,000-10,000 years ago... more power to their dumbass. But I will NOT try to 'get along' with them. Yes the science curriculum makes such a belief laughable. I have absolutely no problem with that. In fact if the science curriculum didn't make such a belief seem idiotic I would have a real problem with the curriculum. We should under no circumstances make any change to the educational curriculum in geology, astrophysics, etc, etc. to accommodate such crap.

That is my position. And its the same with evolution. I am perfectly honest and up-front when I say that I KNOW evolution is incompatible with some religions. And I think that’s just fine thank you. Paper over our differences my rear end. I don't think science should just shut up and not criticize imaginary BS just because someone calls it religion. That’s how we got in this mess in the first place.

[bryant69]

68. The question is where do you stop

I mean you say 6,000 years ago - what about believers who believe God created the world over millions of years? Or what about those who believe that the biblical miracles actually happened? Life after death? So on and so forth.

here's another Dawkins quote - "It's said that the only rational stance is agnosticism because you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural creator. I find that a weak position. It is true that you can't disprove anything but you can put a probability value on it. There's an infinite number of things that you can't disprove: unicorns, werewolves, and teapots in orbit around Mars. But we don't pay any heed to them unless there is some positive reason to think that they do exist."

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

75. You stop when the science ends.

Scientists don't pretend to have the answers, creationists do.

Scientists are perfectly happy to say "we don't know".

Well, maybe not "happy" about it, but they'd rather tell the truth than make up a bunch of bullshit.

Who would you rather have teaching science?

Someone who says "we don't know" when asked, or someone who says "Goddidit" every time?

[Realityhack]

79. I agree with BMUS - see my post above about your religion vs. science n/t

[Realityhack]

77. question.

Are we talking about science classes or my personal philosopy?

[beam me up scottie]

78. Excellent question.

And something that should be kept in mind when reading Dawkins as well.

:)

[Danger Mouse]

144. In the Christian case...

There's not even a basis within our own faith to hold a belief that the world was created 6,000 years ago. The number was devised by some bishop who basically pulled it out of his ass.
Doesn't mean that someone has to accept it. The Bible does not specify how old the world is. End of argument. Right-wing nutjobs that want to listen to long-dead bishop, uh, have fun with that.

[Realityhack]

167. to be honest...

There are an auful lot of incompatabilities between what IS in there and science.

And the general age of the earth / how the earth/universe developed is one of them.

[hunter]

53. The ID people don't get into classrooms by tolerance and mutual respect.

They get into classrooms by deceit, and by taking advantage of people who believe in "tolerance and mutual respect."

They are liars and cheats and swindlers and dangerous fools.

Throw them out of the classroom, they are harmful to our children's intellectual development.

[beam me up scottie]

55. Have I told you lately how much I love you?

:loveya:

[bryant69]

64. I do want to make it clear for like the 15th time that I do not

support teaching Creationism in our schools - I'm opposed to that - I just don't think Dawkins is the best person to be leading this battle.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

67. Who the fuck else is going to do it?

Who else can stand up to them?

They fucking mow down everyone who doesn't champion their cause.

They've been planning this for DECADES.

Where have you been?


arrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh :banghead:

[bryant69]

69. Well if he's all we got, than he's all we got

I'm sorry to be so frustrating to you.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

72. It's only frustrating because I know you're capable of understanding

what he's doing.

Sure, he hopes someday religion will go the way of the dinosaurs, so do I.

But he's NOT going to force you or anyone else to accept atheism.



I'm sorry, we just can't afford to use the carrot approach anymore when it comes to creationists.

It's way too late in the game for that.

I'm just glad Carl Sagan isn't alive to see what happened to Kansas.

[hunter]

100. I didn't realize Dawkins was "leading this battle."

That's putting a false frame on the issue.

If Dawkins wants to slug it out with the ID people, more power too him. So what if he's an atheist and I'm a Christian -- the issue is intellectual dishonesty.

In my own experience I have also witnessed strong Separation-of-Church-and-State Creationists taking on the ID people because evolution is something they think they can inoculate their kids against at home, but ID is rightfully recognized as an insidious corruption of their own beliefs. If their own strict religion can't be taught in schools, they don't want anyone's religion taught in schools, especially wishy-washy ID.

My own Christianity is such that science is a celebration of the Creation. When I was teaching science (from the perspective of evolutionary biology of course!) I did not invite religion into my classroom, and gently redirected any of the little darlings who'd been coached at home to bring it up.

I've never been gentle on my kid's teachers. At times I've been brutal. One short term teacher invited a pseudo-geologist to speak to one of my kid's classes, a guy I knew as a stealth ID proponent who'd I'd had entanglements with before. I promised him I'd be there. The guy bailed on the teacher that morning, and the teacher asked me what I'd said to him, which let me unleash again... I also complained to the principal. I haven't seen any of them teaching in public schools lately, and I like to think I played a small part in discouraging them.

[Danger Mouse]

143. Though I personally dislike Dawkins...

...if he is instrumental in keeping ID out of classrooms, then good on him. It's not like he wants to ram atheism down kids' throats (which, of course, is what the ID slime would just LOVE to do with their 'opinions'), it's just that he's sick and tired of people actually taking ID even somewhat seriously. Letting that into schools is dangerous, because bit by bit, it allows for more and more corruption of the line separating church and state. These fools believe in 'one Nation under one VERY specific God,' and will stop at nothing to make sure that their beliefs are the ONLY beliefs. This is just their first step.
That being said, I think Dawkins is an jerk, but he's a jerk that's fighting a fight that needs to be fought. And dammit, I'm glad he's doing it. I'm glad he's standing up to these pseudo-religious thugs. It's for the benefit of our kids, and our country.
Incidentally, I think that Eugene O'Neill was a tremendous asshole, but I respect and admire him. Make of that statement what you will.

[hunter]

35. If there's any group of people I detest, it's the Intelligent Design crowd.

They defile both Christianity and Science.

Who would want to live in a universe that's a cranky old machine requiring a god always be on hand to twiddle with the controls?

If I'm feeling generous I can almost appreciate strict Creationists, in the same way that I might appreciate the Amish disdain for electrical appliances, but the anti-Evolution Intelligent Design believers simply don't make any sense. Every argument they make is built on a shifting foundation of ignorance and delusion.

[beam me up scottie]

37. This is something all liberals should agree on.

Secularism doesn't mean anti-religion.

And when the IDers try to vilify secularism and/or science by associating it with the evil atheists, they're parading their ignorance.

Believers and non are perfectly capable of teaching science without bringing god(s) into it.

They've been doing just that for a long time, and guess who's trying to change the status quo?

Here's a hint, folks, it's not the atheists.

[SPKrazy]

113. It's Some Of Those Idiot Folks That Think That We Need To

teach God in school

as a believer, I no more want my son's teacher teaching him about God, than I want his Sunday school teacher teaching him how to do math (although the latter would be more palatable than the former)

Why can't people be responsible for teaching their own kids about religion, god, etc., why do they want the schools taking that job?

Do they realize that these are the same teachers that will teach that to their kids that they think are teaching them evil atheist things already?

LOL:bounce:

[beam me up scottie]

114. Ah, another atheist sympathizer.

Man are you ever going to get in trouble when they take over!

:hug:

[SPKrazy]

115. I'm Going Into Hiding With You!

help me atheist:hug:

the evil KKKristians are after me

[beam me up scottie]

116. Come to Vermont.

They're going to secede as soon as I get home.

Well, on second thought, maybe they won't be in such a hurry now.

They want Leahy to take out the trash on Capitol Hill first.

[SPKrazy]

117. Vermont Is Kind Of Cold

but if they are seceding, then count me in!
but only if I can hide out with you so they won't get me!
:pals:

[beam me up scottie]

118. We get REALLY creative in the wintertime.

And what's not to like about the state that gave us Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders, Pat Leahy, and Ben & Jerry's?

[SPKrazy]

132. Hey, You Sold Me!

I'll be there!

Let's secede!

:hi:

and we'll fight off the KKKristians together!

[NMMNG]

124. Good

The churches don't allow evolution to be taught in Sunday School, so why should religion be taught in science class?

[struggle4progress]

140. Dawkins pushes the moronic Fundie line: "Choose between Evolution and Religion."

This is idiotic politically, because it encourages confused religious people to take an idiotic anti-evolution line.

It is also dishonest as philosophy of science: the natural sciences, by definition, study natural phenomena using natural devices such as clocks and rulers. But if there were beings somehow transcending space-time then surely our clocks and rulers would not be useful guides for our understanding of such beings. And if there were supernatural phenomena, then by the definition the natural sciences would not provide useful information about them.

And it is nauseating. Many religious people want the sciences taught as sciences, without supernatural reference, and many want a secular society. Dawkins' stereotypes do us a real disservice. :puke:

[Finder]

151. The choice is not between evolution and religion...

it is between facts and fallacies.

As an example, Catholic education and liberal protestant education has taught evolution for decades. Surely the church is not making its students choose. It is only certain sects that see no room for compromise.

[beam me up scottie]

165. I took anthropology courses with many of my catholic friends.

At that time, I had no idea there were people who actually believed in creation.

What a wonderfully naive childhood I had growing up in New England.


Unfortunately, even though most DUers don't believe in creationism, some of them still believe that the Boogie Atheists are hiding in their closets waiting to steal their religious beliefs. :eyes:

[Finder]

169. You should come back up here...n/t

[beam me up scottie]

179. Thank you, I intend to.

If I don't suffer any more financial setbacks, hopefully sometime within the next two years.

Being employed in a "Christian Workplace" where the only other atheist, an engineer, has to WHISPER the "A" word when we talk is a surreal experience.

I don't recommend it unless you're doing research for a documentary like Dawkins.

[Realityhack]

182. We will be glad to have you back n/t

[Realityhack]

168. Not realy.

Dawkins says science is incompatable with a very specific type of religion.

He says Darwinian evolution is incompatable with SOME religions.
AND....
It IS.

Some people who follishly make creationism a central tenent of their religion realy do have to chose to ignore science or change their religion.

[struggle4progress]

184. ""If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put ..

.. it down" - Richard Dawkins, in his The God Delusion

Let's not bullshit about Dawkins' agenda, which he has stated clearly more than once. If he wants to proselytize atheism, that's his right. If he wants to believe that scientific thought is incompatible with religion, that is also his right -- although I think he is wrong on that point.

I merely say that Dawkins, having staked out his anti-religious agenda clearly, plays exactly the role of the Fundamentalists' bogeyman, when he goes into the schools to argue for teaching evolution correctly, and he plays this role consciously and by choice. I happen to think that public schools should be secular in nature, and that religious and metaphysical issues should not contaminate the teaching of science in the schools, and many other religious people feel the same way. The Fundamentalists already claim that the teaching of evolution is intended to drive religion from society, and Dawkins seems to be an egoist who has decided he can get attention based on that controversy. Screw that crap.

[beam me up scottie]

188. Jesus Christ on a trailer hitch.

Here we go again.

Militant atheism is a reaction to militant theism.

Dawkins is REACTING to the troglodytes and their invasion of the classroom.

The ability of naive and/or obtuse christians to twist this issue into an atheist agenda never ceases to amaze me.

Like I said earlier, you guys created the monster.

Most christians turned a blind eye when the dominionists installed their soldiers in classrooms, courtrooms and the Legislative Branch.

And now you're whining because men like Dawkins offend your delicate sensibilities?


Maybe it's time to get out of the way and let the Frankensteins do what everyone else was afraid to do.

[struggle4progress]

189. Dawkins' quote is self-explanatory. And it's dishonest of you ..

to claim people like me put religion in the classroom, turned a blind eye to the Dominionists, or whined because Dawkins offended my "delicate sensibilities."

When I was still in elementary school, in the early 1960s, in a school district that ignored the SCOTUS decision against school prayers, I knew what Engel v. Vitale had said and argued regularly that the decision was correct and that school should obey it. I know exactly who supported me then -- and it wasn't you.

So kindly stick a sock in it.

[Danger Mouse]

141. For the last time...

evolution is NOT incompatible with creation if you're a Christian. Ever read 'Inherit the Wind'? I get so sick of this 'Intelligent Design' bullshit, and these people who have so many problems with evolution...I guess because everything has to conform to their narrow, narrow view...and anything that falls outside of that is blasphemy.
I mean, if you're a Christian, you're already taking a lot of improbable (or impossible) stuff at face value. Why is it so hard to accept this process as being part of 'God's plan'?
That 'Earth is only 10,000' years old line I've heard so many times (people have said this to me with a straight face, imagine!) is incredible.
This number was deduced by calculating the ages of prophets, etc. etc. However, among other things, it fails to take into account something I feel is pretty significant. How long WERE Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? I've never known there to be a specific time frame. Since mortality was nonexistent, and time therefore unimportant, theoretically, hundreds, thousands, even millions of years could've passed.
This was just a silly thought I had.

[Evoman]

173. It is incompatible with "creation" as read in the bible.

Evolution completely blows the biblical creation out of the water, and outside the realm of possibility. There is absolutely to no way that creation happened as outlined in the bible. At all.

Now, if your saying "God made the big bang happen", then no, Evolution is not incompatible with that kind of creationism because Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life or the universe. That may or may not be only temporary, however...it is possible that maybe someday, if humans live long enough, we may indeed find some sort of idea where the universe came from or how it started.

[Danger Mouse]

186. Well...

ask me if I think that the Bible should be taken literally, and I say no, that's an absurd notion.
Question: Is the Big Bang considered to be the mutually agreed-upon starting point of the universe? I had heard that there was some disagreement among scientists about this, but I confess that I don't know much about the topic.

[Evoman]

190. No, not at all.

There are some people who believe in steady state theory, and there are other who have hypothesized a yo-yo universe...i.e bang, followed by crush, followed by bang...

As I understand it, because of the red shift of other galaxies, it seems that galaxies are spreading apart at high speeds. I think thats one of the biggest pieces of evidence pointing towards the Big Bang, but its far from certain. I'm not a physcist so my knowledge is somewhat limited in that area.

[struggle4progress]

187. If you're not interested in Biblical interpretation, don't tell others what the text means

Many people, like myself, consider evolution an excellent scientific theory, yet are interested in reading Biblical texts, although not from a so-called "Fundamentalist" perspective.

If you're not interested in such texts, or don't like them, don't read them -- but then don't tell those of us who read them what they mean.

[Evoman]

191. I'm not telling you what they mean.

What I'm telling you is that as its written in the bible, its wrong. If you want to stretch and distort the writing, substituting days for millions of years or whatever, be my guest. I could really give a shit. But its not only the days part that completely wrong, its the order that god put animals on the Earth, how the earth was made, what humans are made of, etc. The story of creation really has nothing of relevance to say about the real world.

Biblical interpretation...heh..its funny how interpretation changes as soon as we find out something in the bible is completely wrong. All of a sudden, its because we're "limiting ourselves with a fundamentalist interpretation" and the bible is "really right if you throw this out, and interpret this differently, and and and....". Bah. I'll go straight to the science and ignore all the noise, thank you very much.

And don't worry, I'm pretty much done reading that book. I read it all once..I don't think I'm going to waste my time on a second read.

[struggle4progress]

194. Allegorical readings are ancient as the texts themselves. Here is Philo of Alexandria

writing on Genesis two thousand years ago:

ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION, I

... II. (2) "And on the sixth day G-d finished his work which he had made." It would be a sign of great simplicity to think that the world was created in six days, or indeed at all in time ... (3) When, therefore, Moses says, "G-d completed his works on the sixth day," we must understand that he is speaking not of a number of days, but that he takes six as a perfect number ...

IX. (21) "On which day G-d created the heaven and the earth, and every green herb of the field, before it appeared upon the earth, and all the grass of the field before it sprang up. For G-d did not rain upon the earth, and man did not exist to cultivate the earth" ... (23) By "the green herb of the field," Moses means that portion of the mind which is perceptible only by intellect ...

For why, when he has previously mentioned "the green herb of the field," does he add also "and all the grass," as if grass were not green at all? But the truth is, that by the green herb of the field, he means that which is perceptible by the intellect only, the budding forth of the mind. But grass means that which is perceptible by the external senses, that being likewise the produce of the irrational part of the soul ...

XI. (28) "But a fountain went up upon the earth, and watered all the face of the earth." He here calls the mind the fountain of the earth ...

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book2.html

See Philo say two thousand years ago "It would be a sign of great simplicity to think that the world was created in six days"? Of course, it is quite OK with me if you don't much like the interpretation Philo devises or any of Philo's other ideas. But you are simply wrong to claim that nobody read such texts nonliterally until modern science developed, and it is really not intellectually honest to make such claims without knowing the traditions.

[Evoman]

195. I concede to your point

You are obviously right....and no, I'm sure it didn't even seem completely reasonable to believe in that six days thing even before science came along.

The rest of my post stand thought ;). The bible is almost entirely useless in giving us any factual information about anything of relevance (I say almost, because it does illuminate us on the minds of our human ancestors and shares some of their stories).