Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Creationism being taught i schools.
79 Answers
Ok call me stupid(many do) but if you WERE going to teach the above in schools....(me thinking aloud now) surely the lesson would be
"god made everything" the end?
Or is there a lot more in the bible that i dont know about?
"god made everything" the end?
Or is there a lot more in the bible that i dont know about?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sherminator. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Historically everything, everything we have is a product of religious organisations and cultures. Early scientists were motivated by the church to investigate the world around them. Everything up until a few hundred years ago was powered by the various churches and so many great people have achieved so many great things their faith. Darwin initially set out to "explore and catalogue God's wonders", Martin Luther King was motivated by his faith and his belief that God created all men equal.
Scientists and rationalists who constantly rail against religion are being just as extreme and irrational as the religious people they criticise, there is no real conflict just a few extreme groups on each side. Darwin, Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Hooke, Young the list of great scientists who had a strong faith is near endless they show that scientific reason is completely compatible with personal faith.
Can a single one of you give a reasoned logical argument why personal religion is wrong or bad. Not the actions of a few extreme religious people or the now obsolete laws from thousands of years ago but a modern religious system. I only argue that it gives believers an ethical and moral framework for their life and helps them to find a motivation, meaning and direction in life. Why is this an enemy of reason?
Scientists and rationalists who constantly rail against religion are being just as extreme and irrational as the religious people they criticise, there is no real conflict just a few extreme groups on each side. Darwin, Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Hooke, Young the list of great scientists who had a strong faith is near endless they show that scientific reason is completely compatible with personal faith.
Can a single one of you give a reasoned logical argument why personal religion is wrong or bad. Not the actions of a few extreme religious people or the now obsolete laws from thousands of years ago but a modern religious system. I only argue that it gives believers an ethical and moral framework for their life and helps them to find a motivation, meaning and direction in life. Why is this an enemy of reason?
Symetry claims that both religion and science are the same in that that change their stance on matters to suit the times.
However there is an important difference. Religions claims the postulates of the ancients who wrote the Holy Books are the ultimate truth and the word of their god. Indeed there are passage in the Bible which clearly state that the instructions give are to apply to all for ever.
Science works on hypetheses. We use these models while they continue to be consistent with observed reality but are prepared to discard or modify them when they no longer fit. Preparedness to change is the very foundation of science and had carried us to a remarkable understanding of the universe.
The pragmatic changes in the stance of the church are nothing more than a response to the pressures of reality and modern values. Faced with change or irrelevence the church quietly stops promoting the teachings which are no longer acceptable. Yet they are still ther written in the books they claim as God's Word and they continue to use other parts of the book as suits their current stance. The Bible is an old and outdated source. They just won't accept this and Symmetry's criticism of scientists for quoting from is disingenuous indeed.
Far from being the keepers of the moral framework the chuch had been dragged screaming into every change under pressure for secular morality. Their position on homosexuality and womens rights are just the cutting edge of their begrudging acceptance.
Compassion and ethics are not the forte of the church and never have been.
However there is an important difference. Religions claims the postulates of the ancients who wrote the Holy Books are the ultimate truth and the word of their god. Indeed there are passage in the Bible which clearly state that the instructions give are to apply to all for ever.
Science works on hypetheses. We use these models while they continue to be consistent with observed reality but are prepared to discard or modify them when they no longer fit. Preparedness to change is the very foundation of science and had carried us to a remarkable understanding of the universe.
The pragmatic changes in the stance of the church are nothing more than a response to the pressures of reality and modern values. Faced with change or irrelevence the church quietly stops promoting the teachings which are no longer acceptable. Yet they are still ther written in the books they claim as God's Word and they continue to use other parts of the book as suits their current stance. The Bible is an old and outdated source. They just won't accept this and Symmetry's criticism of scientists for quoting from is disingenuous indeed.
Far from being the keepers of the moral framework the chuch had been dragged screaming into every change under pressure for secular morality. Their position on homosexuality and womens rights are just the cutting edge of their begrudging acceptance.
Compassion and ethics are not the forte of the church and never have been.
Please excuse the poor grammer and spelling. I'm in a hurry to go out.
The reason the church was behind many endeavours in the Renaissence is that they held the power and wealth. Their expection of research was to prove the granfure of God. Those who found otherwise were promply defunded.
Those who worked independently and contradicted the church were ruthlessless persecuted. Galileo was told in no uncertain terms to retract his claim at pain of death.
No, the church held back the development of both science and morality.
Religion philosophy is fascism based on the obsolete laws of thousands of years ago. That is good enough reason to call it bad.
Religion is an enemy of reason by definition. Faith and reason are incompatible.
I have no belief in a God yet I am motivated, moral and have meaning in my life. As I said before, religion is not the keeper of morality but an inhibitor in its development.
The reason the church was behind many endeavours in the Renaissence is that they held the power and wealth. Their expection of research was to prove the granfure of God. Those who found otherwise were promply defunded.
Those who worked independently and contradicted the church were ruthlessless persecuted. Galileo was told in no uncertain terms to retract his claim at pain of death.
No, the church held back the development of both science and morality.
Religion philosophy is fascism based on the obsolete laws of thousands of years ago. That is good enough reason to call it bad.
Religion is an enemy of reason by definition. Faith and reason are incompatible.
I have no belief in a God yet I am motivated, moral and have meaning in my life. As I said before, religion is not the keeper of morality but an inhibitor in its development.
Not true, the msot orthodox Judeo-Christian religions state that the Holy books are the ultimate truth but most mainstream variants of those faiths accept a very wide range of religious writings as being true. There is far more to Christianity than the bible for example and the many different variants of each faith show the diversity and the level of interpretation in the faiths, they are not as immutable as a lot of people think. History is full of schisms and changes of doctrine. The vast majority of believers in all faiths treat their scripture as metaphor and guidance with a varying level of dedication. To pick a simple example some Christian groups believe God is three very separate entities others that he is one and the trinity just describes three different roles. Individual doctrines and branches of a faith do not change very well but new breakaway groups are constantly forming and adapting to society while the most outdated die out and disappear.
belated thanks for your answer, jake, but I wasn't meaning to imply that there was a time before the big bang. However, Christians say, in exactly the same way, that there wasn't a time before God; that time and space were created together. I was just taking issue with your suggestion that creation shouldn't be taught 'until a creationist comes up with an explanation of where God came from'. If science can proceed without knowing how big bang came about, creationism ought to be able to proceed without having to explain how God came about. There may well be arguments against creationism, but I don't think that's one of them.
LazyGun, that applies to you too: my comment was strictly in response to jake's and not intended to imply that big bang was related to evolution.
Symmetryigr8: yes, I quite agree. Non-believers seem to have a far more rigid idea of the 'meaning' of the Bible than believers do; the god they berate isn't actually the one most Christians worship, as far as I can see.
LazyGun, that applies to you too: my comment was strictly in response to jake's and not intended to imply that big bang was related to evolution.
Symmetryigr8: yes, I quite agree. Non-believers seem to have a far more rigid idea of the 'meaning' of the Bible than believers do; the god they berate isn't actually the one most Christians worship, as far as I can see.
Symmetry, //Can a single one of you give a reasoned logical argument why personal religion is wrong or bad.//
But this question isn't about personal religion. People are free to believe as they will, but the problem is they don't keep it personal. They impose their belief upon others, which is why this thread began with a question on teaching Creationism in schools.
jno, So if the God of the bible isn't the one most Christians worship, which one do they worship? Or are you saying most Christians only believe the bits of the bible they like and imagine this God to be something he clearly was not?
But this question isn't about personal religion. People are free to believe as they will, but the problem is they don't keep it personal. They impose their belief upon others, which is why this thread began with a question on teaching Creationism in schools.
jno, So if the God of the bible isn't the one most Christians worship, which one do they worship? Or are you saying most Christians only believe the bits of the bible they like and imagine this God to be something he clearly was not?
While I don't understand the apparent need of religious appologists to unrelentingly defend the indefensible might I point out that the further you depart from the basic underpinnings of their respective religions the more 'evidence' you've been able to muster in defense of your case. Not that I entirely object to the fable of original sin. I thank God daily, well almost daily, for providing the snake, that enticed Eve to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and the subsequent 'curse' God imposed, that we would henceforth be required to reproduce like the animals. Sex is the closest thing by far I've found yet as supporting evidence for 'intelligent design' . . . Yeah baby!
yes, naomi, that's pretty much what I am saying. I've never heard any Christian actually quoting Leviticus as a template for their life. No doubt some do, in backwoods Mississippi or Uganda; but nobody I've ever met. Most Christians seem quite comfortable with big bang theories, and see God as a loving father figure. When you say 'he quite clearly was not' you appear to be quoting the Bible as your authority - which is the sort of thing that led me to observe that non-believers quote the Bible more zealously than believers do.
Oh dear jno. Yes, since the bible is the only authority that any of us have, I have no alternative but to quote that. However, if you say that Christians do not use that as their authority, then it appears that we are for once in agreement in that Christian beliefs are indeed - dare I say it? - delusional.
well, there again you are quoting the Bible as authority when you don't believe in it. But rather than coming to your own conclusions about the nature of a god whose existence you don't actually accept, why don't you try asking some Christians just what sort of god *they* believe in? Obviously this won't persuade you that they're right, but you might find you've misunderstood what goes on in their minds and that perhaps the language of mental ill health isn't as appropriate to them as you imagine.
If you take religion across its entire spectrum from Taoism, Buddhism through polytheistic religions like Hinduism to western monotheistic religions like Christianity then they vary on almost everything. Inside each faith there are many different groups each with different interpretations of one set of literature often leading to widely divergent views. The only common factors are the strong cultures and civilisations that grew around them, the moral guidance and issues are all common suggesting a fundamental human predisposition or need being realised and the many splits and revisions in the faiths. Religions all split and bud, they have to, they are not rigid by any means.
Most Christian groups accept and state in their official doctrine that current scientific thinking and evolution is probably correct but state that that was never really the point of God.
Beyond how things got started the bible doesn't conflict with science, the bible says nothing about electromagnetic radiation or gravity because that is not its aim. It is not a big book of how everything is, it is a book of how you should be. Ask any Christian about Newton's laws and they'll accept them even though the bible doesn't explicitly agree. Because most Christians don't use the bible to tell them everything just the religious stuff. The fight between religion and science is a pointless one, both are attacking shadows, scientists seem to miss what Christians really find important in the bible, not a literal history of how things started but that there is a plan, a greater guiding force, a powerful loving entity to watch over us and a life after death.
Most Christian groups accept and state in their official doctrine that current scientific thinking and evolution is probably correct but state that that was never really the point of God.
Beyond how things got started the bible doesn't conflict with science, the bible says nothing about electromagnetic radiation or gravity because that is not its aim. It is not a big book of how everything is, it is a book of how you should be. Ask any Christian about Newton's laws and they'll accept them even though the bible doesn't explicitly agree. Because most Christians don't use the bible to tell them everything just the religious stuff. The fight between religion and science is a pointless one, both are attacking shadows, scientists seem to miss what Christians really find important in the bible, not a literal history of how things started but that there is a plan, a greater guiding force, a powerful loving entity to watch over us and a life after death.
Naomi - Almost all Christian faiths accept the bible as metaphorical and a set of stories for guidance with different degrees of literalness, they have to see it as such to allow their different interpretations. The simple but large split between Unitarians and Trinitarians demonstrates that Christianity as a single entity can't agree on what exactly the trinity metaphor in the bible refers to. The bible isn't the only literature Christianity treats as canon, again different groups have different views on which writings are pertinent. Most famously the Church of Latter-Day Saints believe in the book of Mormon shown to Joseph Smith in the 1820s. The bible is not the only authority Christians have and even if you consider all the writings then that is still not the only authority Christians have as it can be interpreted in many different ways. The only authority a Christian has is their own interpretation and belief of their faith and how that guides their actions. The cliche "What would Jesus do?" has a relevance, it is not necessarily what the writings of old say but what you think Jesus and God would see as being the right thing to do.
jno and symmetry, defending anyone's penchant to make it up as they go along, which is what you're doing, gives neither them, nor you, the right to advocate the imposition of unfounded beliefs upon anyone else - which is what this question is about.
Incidentally, jno, it's already been explained to you that 'delusional' doesn't necessary equate to mental ill health.
Incidentally, jno, it's already been explained to you that 'delusional' doesn't necessary equate to mental ill health.
doesn't 'necessarily'. But can do. So people should use it with care and deliberation - which is exactly what I think you're doing. It's the sort of 'coded' language politicians use.
I don't see anything in the question about the imposition of beliefs, founded or otherwise. It's a hypothetical question ('if you WERE...') and doesn't mention, or imply, 'imposition'.
Scientists used to accept the steady state theory. Now they accept the big bang theory. Christians' beliefs also change, as Symmetry sensibly points out. You call this 'making it up as you go along'. I'd just call it adapting their beliefs to changing circumstances; but then again I am preferring neutral language.
I don't see anything in the question about the imposition of beliefs, founded or otherwise. It's a hypothetical question ('if you WERE...') and doesn't mention, or imply, 'imposition'.
Scientists used to accept the steady state theory. Now they accept the big bang theory. Christians' beliefs also change, as Symmetry sensibly points out. You call this 'making it up as you go along'. I'd just call it adapting their beliefs to changing circumstances; but then again I am preferring neutral language.
My response to the original question is that creationist theories shouldn't be taught in science lessons as science. But that the philosophy and history of science should be, as well as an understanding of what theistic philosophies try and comprehend. They are both valuable to humankind and have both contributed hugely to our development. Everyone should have the right to believe whatever they want and I feel that the aggression 'rationalists' show towards religion is unwarranted, people need to understand that religion isn't about a set of rigid rules with one meaning, but a set of proposed ideals and ideas that are then open to interpretation and examination by everyone. To dismiss religion is against the spirit of science to investigate all which has an effect on the world around us.
So to answer the question, no the lesson would not be "God made everything the end" it could be anything between that and God is an intangible idea that can have no physical effect upon our universe and only takes meaning on a personal level, yet the existence of the belief alone can have a very strong effect upon a person. Both of these extremes are religious and both are actually positions for groups of Christianity.
So to answer the question, no the lesson would not be "God made everything the end" it could be anything between that and God is an intangible idea that can have no physical effect upon our universe and only takes meaning on a personal level, yet the existence of the belief alone can have a very strong effect upon a person. Both of these extremes are religious and both are actually positions for groups of Christianity.
jno, call it what you like if it makes you feel better, but by your own admission, Christians are making it up as they go along, and therefore they are deluding themselves. By the way, I'm not using the word with care and deliberation. I'm speaking as I find.
symmetry, an afterthought. No the bible isn't the only literature that Christianity, in its various forms, treats as canon, but it's the fundamental source of all other literature. You mention the Book of Mormon, but I have to wonder why Joseph Smith would have written it in such archaic biblical language. Can't help feeling he was somewhat influenced there.
symmetry, an afterthought. No the bible isn't the only literature that Christianity, in its various forms, treats as canon, but it's the fundamental source of all other literature. You mention the Book of Mormon, but I have to wonder why Joseph Smith would have written it in such archaic biblical language. Can't help feeling he was somewhat influenced there.
I think we agree the Bible is a hideous tome when taken literally.
However I would like someone to explain how it works metaphorically.
What is the metaphor for literal stories of numerous genocides?
What is the metaphor for the literal repression of women?
What is the metaphor for the literal hatred of gays?
What is the metaphor for literal stoning children to death if they are rude to their parents?
What is the metaphor for the literal instruction to not wear clothes made of blended fibres?
etc etc etc.
The concept of the metaphorical perspective is nothing but a pathetic attempt to justify the exalted status of the Bible by the faithful who cherry pick the parts they are comfortable with. Meanwhile they accuse those who reject the Bible as a load of hogwash of cherry picking the occasional poorly expressed concept.
The reality is that the Bible is a useless book utterly dominated by amoral philosophy written by arrogant, misogynist men who induldged in fantasies of their own divinity and used their "connection to God" to justify their bigotry.
The occasional uplifting stories of God's immense capacity for love are completely overwhelmed by the explanations of His wrath and the punishment He will inflict upon any who fail to faithfully adhere the doctrine.
However I would like someone to explain how it works metaphorically.
What is the metaphor for literal stories of numerous genocides?
What is the metaphor for the literal repression of women?
What is the metaphor for the literal hatred of gays?
What is the metaphor for literal stoning children to death if they are rude to their parents?
What is the metaphor for the literal instruction to not wear clothes made of blended fibres?
etc etc etc.
The concept of the metaphorical perspective is nothing but a pathetic attempt to justify the exalted status of the Bible by the faithful who cherry pick the parts they are comfortable with. Meanwhile they accuse those who reject the Bible as a load of hogwash of cherry picking the occasional poorly expressed concept.
The reality is that the Bible is a useless book utterly dominated by amoral philosophy written by arrogant, misogynist men who induldged in fantasies of their own divinity and used their "connection to God" to justify their bigotry.
The occasional uplifting stories of God's immense capacity for love are completely overwhelmed by the explanations of His wrath and the punishment He will inflict upon any who fail to faithfully adhere the doctrine.
symmetry, Everyone does have the right to believe what they want - they just don't have the right to impose their beliefs on anyone else and cry 'foul' when they meet with opposition. However, they do, so it's no surprise that non-believers feel aggrieved when other people's religion affects them and they are expected to say nothing and 'understand'. How arrogant! It's time the religious were asked to do the rest of us the courtesy of keeping their beliefs to themselves.
jno, actually, whether Sherminator is aware of it or not, this is not really a hypothetical question. Creationism is taught as fact in some British schools.
jno, actually, whether Sherminator is aware of it or not, this is not really a hypothetical question. Creationism is taught as fact in some British schools.
For starters none of that happens in the New Testament and I would be interested if you could give the passages you refer to. The bible is not utterly dominated by amoral philosophy, it can't be when you consider that the teachings from the bible manifest themselves as morals that everyone of all or no faith adheres to.
Quickly a metaphorical interpretation of stoning children is to chastise them when they misbehave, the bible does not preach a literal hatred of gays it argues it is a sin to engage in homosexuality but that Jesus and God forgive gays not hate them. The bible preaches no literal hatred as the main point is one of forgiveness and love for all regardless of whether they have sinned.
Quickly a metaphorical interpretation of stoning children is to chastise them when they misbehave, the bible does not preach a literal hatred of gays it argues it is a sin to engage in homosexuality but that Jesus and God forgive gays not hate them. The bible preaches no literal hatred as the main point is one of forgiveness and love for all regardless of whether they have sinned.
They do have the right to cry foul when others post some of the comments in this thread claiming that religion promotes hate and are "useless". This is just a rehashing of the conflict thesis which has widely been disregarded by the real scientific and religious communities, it is accepted that the two are easily compatible and are dealing with two separate domains of life and human experience.
It is the duty of the government to ensure the separation of church and state in the education system. Other people's religion has never affected me in real way beyond songs of praise on TV.
It is the duty of the government to ensure the separation of church and state in the education system. Other people's religion has never affected me in real way beyond songs of praise on TV.
