New US textbook aims to teach Bible as knowledge

Just the two cents of of someone, who had had [Catholic] religion classes for more than a dozen years at school (compulsory , as Thomas earlier pointed out) :

I really don't recall anything about bible teaching than that it isn't to be taken as scientific accurate or written with complete historical precision.

But I do remember what I learnt about the Koran, the Norse mythology or - more general - how various religions differ. (And of course, Catholic/Protestant church history, but that was more my own speciality.)

0 Replies

Does anyone here, besides MA, have any spiritual or religious beliefs?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Does anyone here, besides MA, have any spiritual or religious beliefs?

yes

0 Replies

Yes.

0 Replies

Well, yes.

0 Replies

Just as a thought: the taxpayer dollars of religious people (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, etc. taxpayer dollars) are going to support a system that tells them what they believe is wrong.

Do you think that people of faith (which, if not composing the majority of Americans, make up a very large minority - trying to find the statistics on that) are very happy about it?

Just describing the opposite side of the picture here. I'm not arguing that the public school system or the government should tell one or all religions that they are right. What I'm saying is that many people strongly protest when they feel that their tax dollars are being used toward something they don't agree with. But someone always gets trampled, regardless.

0 Replies

Redeemed

I somewhat agree with you. Science, IMO, deserves the support of public funds because it is vitally important to promote reason.
But I believe science has become a source of faith for many who claim to have none. That may be why it is seen as an attack by members of different faiths.
I also think scientists sometimes rush to the wrong conclusions based on limited data, and those conclusions, if presented as facts, should not have the backing of our tax dollars.

0 Replies

Echi:

I agree with you. Science definitely deserves public funds, and there would be an enormous gap in students' education if it were taken out just because some people of faith don't agree with it.

Echi wrote:

Quote:

I also think scientists sometimes rush to the wrong conclusions based on limited data, and those conclusions, if presented as facts, should not have the backing of our tax dollars.

I certainly agree with you here. Science is a discipline of careful, sometimes tedious observation. Teaching what could very well be false (but is presented as true because of laziness or just hastiness in reaching a conclusion) goes against the principles of education. I also think that, for the integrity of science, theories should be noted as theories, not taught as fact.

0 Replies

difficult bar to cross there, define "facts".

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I did not slander you, Setanta. I made a statement of how I felt based on what you have posted in these threads.

Yes, you won't accept compromise. You continually point out that Christians are doing this and that, and what our motives appear to be. Yet, when we offer to compromise to show that we are trying to be fair and accomodate everyone, you are the one that will not accept the compromise.

I find that very puzzling.

Your puzzlement derives from your selective blindness. My point about no compromise refers both to the insinuation of a religious agenda into the public trust and the particularism of a bobble study class. You do not address the issue of this particularism, and how it excludes those who do not adhere to christianity, or even to your particular flavor of christianity. As for motives, as i have continually pointed out--mostly to the name-calling echi--is that i specifically referred to a quote of the original post--something else which the imaginary friend superstition crowd here have avoided addressing directly.

It certainly must make the world puzzling to wander around willfully seeing less than half of it.

0 Replies

Redeemed wrote:

Just as a thought: the taxpayer dollars of religious people (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, etc. taxpayer dollars) are going to support a system that tells them what they believe is wrong.

Do you think that people of faith (which, if not composing the majority of Americans, make up a very large minority - trying to find the statistics on that) are very happy about it?

Just describing the opposite side of the picture here. I'm not arguing that the public school system or the government should tell one or all religions that they are right. What I'm saying is that many people strongly protest when they feel that their tax dollars are being used toward something they don't agree with. But someone always gets trampled, regardless.

Scientific conclusions are the result of observations and tests, and are the product of adherence to a method involving replication, falsification, and the assertion of the least number of most direct causes. Such conclusions do not appeal to the supernatural, or any other forms of magical operation. If there are egregious errors of science being taught in school--the preposterous contention made by echi in the post which succeeds yours--then the fault lies not with science, but rather with the text book companies, and those responsible for selecting textbooks. But to assert an equivalence between science and superstition, and then assert that acceptance of one necessarily unjustly deprives a statement of the other is absurdity of the highest order. Theism does not rely upon observation and cannot provide observable phenomena; theism is not testable, and provides no data resulting from replicable tests; theism is the antithesis of a principle of falsification--absolutely no questioning of dogma is permitted in organized religion.

This is not a comparison of apples to oranges, it is a comparison of the living to the dead.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

But, I am afraid I just don't understand how you could equate pornography with the Bible in any way at all. So, if you wouldn't mind, could you explain a bit more what you mean to me? I don't want to make assumptions. It often gets me in trouble.

Ok, the short answer is, No, I didn't equate the Bible with pornography.

I proposed an analogy between two situations.

Teaching sex ed with pornography is *like* teaching religion with the Bible.

Pornography does have to do with sex, but it's a bit overboard and contentions to be used as the appropriate tool for source material. And I would be suspicious of anyone who wanted to use it that way as trying to get the camels nose under the tent for some reason.

Likewise, The Bible does have to do with religion and history, but it's very contentious in today's environment, and very unilaterial in its view of things, and I'm suspicious of anyone who thinks that it is the proper material, as trying to sneak its nose under the tent.

It's an analogy (or is it a metaphore... I can never remember, anyway that's the meaning).

Make more sense now?

0 Replies

Hmmm, good question, Dyslexia...

I looked at Merriam-Webster online, but the definition didn't help very much.

For myself, I would say that a fact in science is a theory that has been tested and found to hold true in all applicable instances, while all other theories are unsupported. Every other theory must have been tested thoroughly and completely disproven.

For instance: the existence of gravity and its properties can be presented as facts. Its existence was first a theory, but after experimentation and overwhelmingly positive indicators, we conclude that such a force does exist. The available evidence doesn't support any other theory that might explain why we are so firmly attached to the ground Smile

.

0 Replies

Setanta

I agree with the content of your post, but I have to object to its tone.

0 Replies

Tough tittie . . .

0 Replies

Rosbourne,

Yes, thank you. That makes much more sense to me and I appreciate you taking the time and effort to explain it.

Setanta,

You do such wonderful things for my faith. You, more than anyone I have run across in these threads, makes my faith grow stronger and stronger, though I sincerely doubt that is your intent. Laughing

0 Replies

Setanta

Will you agree to stop sending me posts and stop referring to me in posts to others if I agree to the same for you?

0 Replies

I've sent you nothing.

0 Replies

So can we agree on that, then?

0 Replies

MOAN, the state of your willful belief in a superstition without plausible basis is a matter of indifference to me. I don't care if you believe, what you believe or why you believe. You may be assured then, that it certainly is not my intent--you may also be assured of my indifference, which is to say that diminishing your "faith" has never and will never be an end for me.

0 Replies

New US textbook aims to teach Bible as knowledge

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know