why are 'faith schools' legal?

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

The fact that you agree with Fishguy's erroneous explanation of science IS as damning a commentary on his explanation of science as there is. And I regret that it sounds like an attack on you.

Is it errornous that religon and science can live in harmony together??? I don't see the reason that the two have to be opposed to each other.

No, it is not erroneous tp assert that religion and science can coexist. As you can read for yourself, I said they can coexist. What I took issue with is Fishguy's assertion that both require a leap of faith. Utter nonsense, as is his assertion that scientists are doing everything they can to stop religion.

(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote: Isn't science incredibly fucking dull?

Pah! Martin....

Just cos it aint got burning bushes, wailing walls, plagues of locusts, men that can walk on water, part the Red Sea, and rise from the dead etc.

Thrillseeker!

But then i spose that's reality. Fucking dull.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: No, it is not erroneous tp assert that religion and science can coexist. As you can read for yourself, I said they can coexist. What I took issue with is Fishguy's assertion that both require a leap of faith. Utter nonsense, as is his assertion that scientists are doing everything they can to stop religion.

If you mentioned religon and science can coexist, I missed it, my apologies on that.

Now I can't assert what FG was trying to say, but my take was not at all to the side of the spectrum you are seeing it.

As for the leap of faith issue you have, I think it might be that you are under the belief that to take a "leap of faith" you are jumping blindly into acceptance and not questioning anything. If that is what you are believing, then I agree wholeheartedly.

However, taking a leap, doesn't mean the person is jumping blindly into acceptance. To me it means more that the person is accepting an explination that is outside thier ability or knowledge. That the explination might not be fully proven, but that there is enough evidence to support the idea within their understanding.

FG used a good example on the creation of the cosmos. BigBang and Creation by God. Niether can be proven without doubt, both are ideas of how creation happened, neither can really be proven wrong or correct with full emperical evidence, and even the possibility arises that both are one and the same. To believe in either of these explinations requires some leap in faith.

As for science trying to stamp out religon, well that's been an arguement for a long time. Science itself is not, but there are individuals that do try to discredit religon with science, just as there are religious fanatics that try to discredit science with religon. As I posted above, this fight has been around since Plato and his demiurge. With a growing anti-religious society, so has the growing of individuals that try to discredit religon with science. Which to me is pointless since religon and science answer two completely different questions.

I'm so enjoying this debate. I must admit I'm learning a few things and having a nice discussion at the same time, minus a couple of personal attacks, whether intentional or not.

EdelBrock:

However, taking a leap, doesn't mean the person is jumping blindly into acceptance. To me it means more that the person is accepting an explination that is outside thier ability or knowledge. That the explination might not be fully proven, but that there is enough evidence to support the idea within their understanding.

Nice, you got the message. Comrade and others, please, take a step back and really just say it out loud:

Before anything happened there was this ball, and it exploded and the universe was formed. Prior to the ball, there was infinite nothingness. (simplified, but basic jist no?)

Before God said "let there be light" there was infinite nothingness and then God said "let there be light" and everything was formed.(simplified, but basic jist no?)

OK, so the big bang has evidence. That's the scientific argument and a tested method. But really, even with all of the evidence, can we really all come to the same conclusion? I don't know about you, but I need some kind of faith to accept the big bang theory and I do accept it. However, I can see the other part too.

AgentWood:

as for fishguy's comment that scientists are trying to destroy religion, that's patently untrue. yes, fundamentalist christians are at loggerheads with scientists but that doesn't mean that all religions are opposed to incorporating science into their worldview. for example, at the moment i'm reading a book called 'judaism, physics and god'. the author makes parallels between jewish beliefs and traditions and scientific theories. he writes from the understanding that the ancients wrote biblical stories as allegories for the unknown, what we now know as scientific theory. at least in judaism, as well as moderate christian, hindu and buddhist thought, religion is meant to unite people in tradition and provide a moral backbone to what can be a very difficult and confusing life, NOT force one into a strict dogmatic way of living. this is the religion, or spirituality if you will, i subscribe to. i find fundamentalism of any kind to be abhorrent.

OK not all scientists are trying to destroy religion. In my own experience, many people who are of the scientific mind cannot accept the two realities, and like the fundamentalist religions, believe that it should be stopped. This goes both ways. As for the religious and the scientific coming together, I have heard of many different versions of this working, though yours is the first that I've heard that incorporates the Jewish religion. And, yes, I agree, fundamentalism is abhorrent, whether scientific or not.

Truly, I'd love to come back to this 100 years from now, I'm sure every one of us would have something different to say. Provided that we are all the thinkers that we appear to be.

Sorry if my explanations were flawed, I was simplifying things to be concise. Yes I do understand scientific method and argument as people have described it, I don't think anyone could have passed high school without that knowledge.

EdelBrock wrote:

404 error wrote:

Because the religious schools are often the 'good' schools, or, in a few areas, the ONLY schools. Those schools are allowed to give precedence to kids whose parents are religious, while non-religious schools can't give preference to those whose parents aren't. The religious schools tend to be the 'good' ones precisely _because_ they are selective.

There's also the fact that they are divisive.

I'm curious, where are the only schools religious schools (in the modern free world, not including places like the ME)?

Well in the UK a third of state schools are religous ones, and, apparently there are some rural areas where the local schools are all religous ones and hence if you are non-religious and are concequently rejected from them you have to travel a considerable distance out of the area to find a school you can attend. This isn't first hand knowledge though, given I live in London, just based on complaining letters from parents I've read in newspapers. It would stand to reason though, that it would happen in some areas, if 1 in 3 schools are religious.

EdelBrock wrote:

darran clarke wrote: Faith schools should be phased out. If you want to teach your children religion take them to the local church / chapel / mosque / temple / synagogue whatever. religion should have no place in the education system of this country. It is too devisive.

I think one of the issues with teaching religon at home is that people are too busy to even eat dinner with their kids, let alone teach them the religon.

Religious schools give a good foundation of the religon.

A couple people have posted the divisiveness of them, how so? A private school that isn't religious is just as divisive. Don't like that people with more money have better opportunities? Neither do I, but such is the way of the world.

Frankly some of us aren't very keen on private schools either, but I admit its a lot more difficult to argue for banning them than it is to argue against taxpayer funded religious schools. Most folk can't afford private schools anyway so there's a limit as to how much division they can create. They _are_ divisive though, as they aren't really about 'better academic standards' so much as avoiding your kid having to mix with the plebs they are going to be bossing around for the rest of their careers.

Ally wrote:

fishguy190 wrote: Truly, I'd love to come back to this 100 years from now, I'm sure every one of us would have something different to say.

You must really have some special arrangement with God if you'll be checking this thread in 100 years time

Surely there are internet cafes in heaven? Though they'd probably block this site.

404 error wrote:

Surely there are internet cafes in heaven?

You'd better hope so, it's the only way to keep in touch with the rest of us who are going the other way

fishguy190 wrote: Comrade and others, please, take a step back and really just say it out loud:

Before anything happened there was this ball, and it exploded and the universe was formed. Prior to the ball, there was infinite nothingness. (simplified, but basic jist no?)

Before God said "let there be light" there was infinite nothingness and then God said "let there be light" and everything was formed.(simplified, but basic jist no?)

Uh...

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

fishguy190 wrote: Science and religion can coexist

The scientific explanation for creation is "the big bang" theory. The Judaeo-Christian explanation is that God said "Let there be light."

Those two accounts are entirely compatible with each other, and it's not unreasonable to accept both accounts.

fishguy190 wrote: I don't know about you, but I need some kind of faith to accept the big bang theory and I do accept it. However, I can see the other part too.

I haven't personally "tested" the theory either.

But I could, and so could you. That's the difference....

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: However, the "big bang" theory is capable of being tested; the Judaeo-Christian explanation is not capable of being tested, and so if one is to believe the Judaeo-Christian explanation, it must be accepted as a matter of faith.

If a scientist states the obvious-- that the Judaeo-Christian explanation can't be tested, and therefore shouldn't be taught as science-- that's not an attack on religion.

fishguy190 wrote: OK not all scientists are trying to destroy religion. In my own experience, many people who are of the scientific mind cannot accept the two realities, and like the fundamentalist religions, believe that it should be stopped.

Being an atheist and "trying to destroy religion" are not the same thing.

EdelBrock wrote: However, taking a leap, doesn't mean the person is jumping blindly into acceptance. To me it means more that the person is accepting an explination that is outside thier ability or knowledge. That the explination might not be fully proven, but that there is enough evidence to support the idea within their understanding.

I think it's more that the person is accepting that the explanation is outside their ability or knowledge.

There's a subtle difference. In one, (what you stated), the person is accepting an explanation that is outside their knowledge. In the other (what I stated), the person is accepting that the explanation is outside their knowledge. In one, the person doesn't know the answer, but could discover it through observation and testing. In the other, the person doesn't know the answer, and the answer can't be discovered through observation and testing.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: However, taking a leap, doesn't mean the person is jumping blindly into acceptance. To me it means more that the person is accepting an explination that is outside thier ability or knowledge. That the explination might not be fully proven, but that there is enough evidence to support the idea within their understanding.

I think it's more that the person is accepting that the explanation is outside their ability or knowledge.

There's a subtle difference. In one, (what you stated), the person is accepting an explanation that is outside their knowledge. In the other (what I stated), the person is accepting that the explanation is outside their knowledge. In one, the person doesn't know the answer, but could discover it through observation and testing. In the other, the person doesn't know the answer, and the answer can't be discovered through observation and testing.

And the big bang can be observed and tested??? Come on now, you're being one sided on this.

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: However, taking a leap, doesn't mean the person is jumping blindly into acceptance. To me it means more that the person is accepting an explination that is outside thier ability or knowledge. That the explination might not be fully proven, but that there is enough evidence to support the idea within their understanding.

I think it's more that the person is accepting that the explanation is outside their ability or knowledge.

There's a subtle difference. In one, (what you stated), the person is accepting an explanation that is outside their knowledge. In the other (what I stated), the person is accepting that the explanation is outside their knowledge. In one, the person doesn't know the answer, but could discover it through observation and testing. In the other, the person doesn't know the answer, and the answer can't be discovered through observation and testing.

And the big bang can be observed and tested??? Come on now, you're being one sided on this.

As in any explosion, the aftermath can be observed and tested.

Funny, my understanding of the big bang is that it is interpretation of what is happening using mathematical models proposed by PhD scientists. I also understand that a vast majority of the world accepts the big bang theory. Am I to believe that a vast majority of the planet has a PhD understanding of mathematics and can understand physicists like Stephen Hawking?

fishguy190 wrote: Funny, my understanding of the big bang is that it is interpretation of what is happening using mathematical models proposed by PhD scientists. I also understand that a vast majority of the world accepts the big bang theory. Am I to believe that a vast majority of the planet has a PhD understanding of mathematics and can understand physicists like Stephen Hawking?

Hey, a load of people believe in spiritual bodies too, but aren't Doctors of Religious Studies either....

fishguy190 wrote: Funny, my understanding of the big bang is that it is interpretation of what is happening using mathematical models proposed by PhD scientists. I also understand that a vast majority of the world accepts the big bang theory. Am I to believe that a vast majority of the planet has a PhD understanding of mathematics and can understand physicists like Stephen Hawking?

No.....

What I am proposing, and what you haven't addressed, is this:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I think it's more that the person is accepting that the explanation is outside their ability or knowledge.

There's a subtle difference. In one, the person is accepting an explanation that is outside their knowledge. In the other, the person is accepting that the explanation is outside their knowledge. In one, the person doesn't know the answer, but could discover it through observation and testing. In the other, the person doesn't know the answer, and the answer can't be discovered through observation and testing.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: However, taking a leap, doesn't mean the person is jumping blindly into acceptance. To me it means more that the person is accepting an explination that is outside thier ability or knowledge. That the explination might not be fully proven, but that there is enough evidence to support the idea within their understanding.

I think it's more that the person is accepting that the explanation is outside their ability or knowledge.

There's a subtle difference. In one, (what you stated), the person is accepting an explanation that is outside their knowledge. In the other (what I stated), the person is accepting that the explanation is outside their knowledge. In one, the person doesn't know the answer, but could discover it through observation and testing. In the other, the person doesn't know the answer, and the answer can't be discovered through observation and testing.

And the big bang can be observed and tested??? Come on now, you're being one sided on this.

As in any explosion, the aftermath can be observed and tested.

The big bang theory isn't modeled after a regular explosion, and we do not have the capabilities to test it.

EdelBrock wrote: The big bang theory isn't modeled after a regular explosion, and we do not have the capabilities to test it.

I'm certainly no physicist, but it's my understanding that we have both the capability to observe the effects of the big bang as well as to test the theory to see if it's accurate. And both testing and observation have supported the theory to this date.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: The big bang theory isn't modeled after a regular explosion, and we do not have the capabilities to test it.

I'm certainly no physicist, but it's my understanding that we have both the capability to observe the effects of the big bang as well as to test the theory to see if it's accurate. And both testing and observation have supported the theory to this date.

I can't find anything that is a reliable source, whether either of us is right (without putting in too much time on this).

HOWEVER, the NASA website does state this, which is on the topic of leaps of faith:

"It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions. "

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

But again, religon and science answer two seperate questions. Science answers how the big bang happened; religon answers for what reason it did.

Being an atheist and "trying to destroy religion" are not the same thing.

I didn't try to differentiate between the two, this is what I'm talking about:

Richard Dawkins The God Delusion

I was simply pointing out that there is a group of scientists who have as much intolerance for religion as there are religious people with intolerance for science.

fishguy190 wrote:

Being an atheist and "trying to destroy religion" are not the same thing.

I didn't try to differentiate between the two, this is what I'm talking about:

Richard Dawkins The God Delusion

I was simply pointing out that there is a group of scientists who have as much intolerance for religion as there are religious people with intolerance for science.

But isn't that mainly just Mr Dawkins himsel? a guy who is so ferociously anti-religion he goes a bit far even for an atheist like me. From what I've read about that book it doesn't sound like the strongest of anti-religion arguments.

Personally I dislike religion because it seems a bit arrogant to believe one knows what God wants. And a bit selfish to belive things without evidence simply to make oneself feel better, when it always seems to end up with someone else paying thge price for those beliefs.
As far as I can see iif there is a God he has given us our rational minds and what our senses tell us of the physical world and everything else should be left as a mystery. If we have a God shaped hole that's something we have to learn to live with instead of trying to invent things to fill it.

fishguy190 wrote:

Being an atheist and "trying to destroy religion" are not the same thing.

I didn't try to differentiate between the two, this is what I'm talking about:

Richard Dawkins The God Delusion

I was simply pointing out that there is a group of scientists who have as much intolerance for religion as there are religious people with intolerance for science.

I read the reviews yesterday, after all of my previous posts. If the reviews are accurate, then yes, I see your point-- you're right about at least some scientists being anti-religion. From what I've read, most scientists who write on the subject don't take that adversarial stance, even if they themselves are agnostic or atheistic. One example would be E. O. Wilson's new one, The Creation.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

fishguy190 wrote:

Being an atheist and "trying to destroy religion" are not the same thing.

I didn't try to differentiate between the two, this is what I'm talking about:

Richard Dawkins The God Delusion

I was simply pointing out that there is a group of scientists who have as much intolerance for religion as there are religious people with intolerance for science.

I read the reviews yesterday, after all of my previous posts. If the reviews are accurate, then yes, I see your point-- you're right about at least some scientists being anti-religion. From what I've read, most scientists who write on the subject don't take that adversarial stance, even if they themselves are agnostic or atheistic. One example would be E. O. Wilson's new one, The Creation.

A new one by Mr. Wilson. On the "to be read" list. I've always liked his work.

404 error wrote:

But isn't that mainly just Mr Dawkins himsel? a guy who is so ferociously anti-religion he goes a bit far even for an atheist like me. From what I've read about that book it doesn't sound like the strongest of anti-religion arguments.

Personally I dislike religion because it seems a bit arrogant to believe one knows what God wants. And a bit selfish to belive things without evidence simply to make oneself feel better, when it always seems to end up with someone else paying thge price for those beliefs.
As far as I can see iif there is a God he has given us our rational minds and what our senses tell us of the physical world and everything else should be left as a mystery. If we have a God shaped hole that's something we have to learn to live with instead of trying to invent things to fill it.

I would say that your view on religion has been shaped by the fundamentalist Christian movement. I grew up in a very Catholic household. That being said, there is much that I don't agree with in the church and no longer practice. I do still consider myself a spiritual person. From my perspective on the Catholic opinion of God, he or she has given us rational minds and the power to think for ourselves. My family has never accepted the view that what humans do to each other is "allowed" by God to happen. Knowing what God wants? Well, that is something that is probably what causes so much turmoil in the church and the world.

That being said, I'm not here to turn atheists into Christians or Christians into scientists. The two can coexist and can work together.

Seems like a lot of worry about what other people think. This forum needs to be introduced to the phrase "Fuck 'em".

A Free-For-All On Science and Religion

give it a rest.

:rip:

*bump*

For the attention of Fishguy; if others ain't interested, you know the drill.