Definitely agree. I'm in the "yay information" camp not the "yay indoctrination" camp is all I'm saying. Been there, done that and resent it for not being given the choice to stop at an earlier age, because it held nothing for me that I wasn't getting out of a book in the religious studies class.
As an old faith school pupil my experience of it where horrible. I only attended for a short while when I was very young but the memories I have of it are not good. Being told as a very young child that you have the blood of Christ on your hands can be very diturbing. We even had to parade past the open casket of the head master when he died. I am glad my parents pulled me out of that school and stuck me in a non-faith school. I totaly believe in faith and the part is has to play in our lives. That said I do not believe in the way organised religion has twisted it for its own gain. I have nieces that attend faith schools and I am shocked at the blinkered and one sided teaching that goes on in these schools. I believe all faith schools should do more to teach about other faiths and that they are as valid as their own.
Thing is, honestly, I think Nexxo makes a good point. I'm not a parent, but when I hopefully get to be, how difficult is it going to be for me to remain COMPLETELY objective about every single issue/belief known to man?? It's surely virtually impossible and so on some level parents indoctrinate their kids. As with everything awareness is key. If you're aware that as a parent/teacher/adult, children around you are consciously (AND more importantly) unconsciously looking to you for information, you can at least do your best to behave accordingly.
That's a good way of putting it. But you have to consider how much information you can give a young child before you have to start relying on indoctrination; how much you can get a child to understand before you just have to tell it that this is how it is because, well, you're the parent and you know best. Of course we should always try the information --> understanding route first, and as a child grows up we should resort to the latter less and less. Children should be raised to be wise, not obedient; to question and think, not to follow orders unquestioningly. But especially when they are young their very lives may depend on just taking your word for it. As okenobi says: On to Booga's experience: That would be the rational approach. But religion is cultural, and culture, when you get down to it, is about tribalism. Unfortunately where there are the nice, cohesive in-group dynamics, there are also the nasty, hostile out-group dynamics.
I do see the point that inevitably the line between information and indoctrination could be easily crossed, and it may end up being something else entirely instead, which could have its own downsides. I'll always known I want to take the "stop, and think about it, if you're not sure, get more information, then act, and if that turns out wrong, stop and think some more" route .... but how many of us live in such an idyllic open-minded and reasoned world anyway? Most humans have emotional knee-jerk reactions which override common sense and due to ingrained character flaws, are left unable to back down or change opinions. One lives in hope.
Meh, I went to a CofE primary school. An amazing school to be honest. Our class was one of the best in the region and topped SATs results. I never felt like belief was forced upon me, yeah we went to Church and the like. We were also taught about many other religions. Do I believe in religion now because of what I was taught? No. Does anyone who was in my year I still speak to believe in religion? Not that I know of.
I'm sorry, what? You're saying that because it's been a social norm for a good while now (almost certainly not one million years), that it is something we should keep a good hold on to? While yes, faith does tend to work wonders for a sense of tribe and community, it doesn't work so well from a humanist standpoint, or an out-group situation. Religion is, historically, a dictatorship without a (visible) dictator, and we all know how well those governmental systems work! Organized religion is the antithesis of science, reason, and humanism, to say otherwise is to ignore religious history, theology, practise, and doctrine. As well, human history has been exceptionally bloody, but almost exclusively due to group dynamics as defined by a common doctrine pitting those of your in-group directly against those of an out-group. Religion is the name we put to this doctrine. It is no more required to be human than belief in faeries.
Considering that the Jesuits fund almost as much astronomical research as NASA, I have to think that there are starting to be made comments based on bias, not on fact. There is nothing inherently antagonistic to science in the Christian faith, simple fact. What we have are people who abuse their position to keep people in the dark simply because they don't think that people are intelligent enough to make a decision for themselves. Those people are without a doubt 100% wrong, and I hate to see anyone like that ever get on TV or in print. Happens all too often because people love to dog religion. Same with out-group dynamics. Have you ever seen me label anyone as an out-group? I believe I have said more than once that even if you were a Satan-worshiping crack-whore lesbian feminazi that ran a porn shop and hated everything that moved if you needed something that I could provide, I would do so. To do any less is to literally deny the tenets of my faith. Yes, people do this. But they're wrong there as well. We're told if we're Christian that yes, the unsaved go to hell, but that means we're supposed to care MORE about them, and show them WITH OUR LIVES, not by beating people about the face ad shoulders or ostracizing them that we have found a better way to live. We're also told that we don't have the ability to tell if they are or are not saved, and so we're exhorted to treat everyone as we would want to be treated. Someone is directly ignoring the Sermon on the Mount again. When science stops lying, and religion gets its act together, we might find they were perfectly compatible. I know for myself I can integrate the two seamlessly, without having to deny any part of either side. In fact, the more science I learn, the more I believe that there has to be a Creator, because entropy does not produce ordered results, such as life or pizza. Simply kicking over a celestial trash can and letting the innards arrange themselves as they will does not sound like a tenable solution. Especially as the rules of physics that dictate that formation would by necessity come into being at the instant of expansion. Science doesn't have every answer. Nor does religion. Together, they don't answer everything, but they get a lot closer. But it seems to me that the problem here is not faith schools, it's militant atheism and a lack of knowledge about the inner workings of faith (atheists have faith, it's faith in science-and you all are proving that over and over) as well as apparently a large failing in the teachings that happened in those schools. Nexxo's more right than many of you believe. If something happened tomorrow that suspended a critical law of physics-say, water boiled at 55C instead of 100C, what would people do then? Their entire system of belief would have to be reexamined and you'd have to see if everything else still worked right as well. It's an issue of faith just as much as Christianity. To me, the proofs are just as solid on either side. I know not everyone sees that, but then again, it looks like faith has been very poorly defended by the people you've come in contact with. In summation (it's pillz time again!) I can see the issue with much of this, but it's degenerating into abusive ad hominem arguments, a few straw men and a lot of disinformation. If the school sucks, it sucks. If the person is a prat, call them so. But lumping it all together paints with too broad a brush-do you equate me with them? I don't equate each of you with each other-how can I, you're all individuals with your own personalities and life experience. Sounds to me like all sides in this arguments need to pick up a book. That book might differ from person to person, but it would seem that most of the arguments I hear are still founded on outdated or simply wrong beliefs. It's late stateside, but if anyone would like to further that argument I'll be on in the morning.
There is nothing inherently antagonistic to science in the Christian faith, simple fact. I'm sorry, but do you happen to be forgetting about the dark ages? There were a few years there where those whom interpreted and implemented biblical scripture equated scientific method (or even just the pursuit of knowledge - any knowledge out side the bible that is) with evil incarnate. This is not a fault with religion as such, just a fault with those that made and used the religion. But this is all well too focused on one blemish. More to the point: all religious or dogmatic belief is antithesis to science. This is not singling out any specific religion, or pointing a finger towards the three big monotheisms (though they're really all the same, just with a slightly different interpreter). The scientific method is the direct opposite of faith or belief. It is the very simple, basic idea of repeatable, demonstrable properties of our physical world. Faith is the suspension of literal truths for those of which you believe based upon very little, or no evidence. These two concepts are not compatible in any way, shape, or form. Very little bothers me quite like people calling the scientific method "faith", so please stop this, as it only shows your ignorance towards the subject. (this is not directed towards anybody in particular, just the handful of people who have brought it up in this thread - you're just the last one to bring it up, Kayin) ...even if you were a Satan-worshiping crack-whore lesbian feminazi that ran a porn shop and hated everything that moved... I kind of like how you say that as though it was a bad thing! So what if I was? Would that make me any less of a human in your eyes? I would sure hope not, but it does belay your prejudice towards those you consider outside of your world-view. Of the multiple intentionally distasteful labels provided, only two should ever be specifically "bad" (from a humanist viewpoint), and even then they're both religions, and incompatible with each-other! Satanism (circa 1800's) is a rather nasty thing, but is rather divergent from the decidedly christian regime of Hitler's rule (if in doubt, do the slightest bit of research). But this is all a bit silly, and detracting from the point! When science stops lying... Two things. First: what? Second: stop saying that we shouldn't group all people of faith into one bucket with your right hand, while sweeping into a corner all the learned people of science with your left. It comes off as somewhat... schizophrenic? In fact, the more science I learn, the more I believe that there has to be a Creator, because entropy does not produce ordered results, such as life or pizza. K... And? The only people who would even fathom such a laughably simple concept are those that are unable to see past their own misunderstanding. Nowhere does any scientific theory say that things just sort of became as they are now. Nowhere. Rather, the prevailing theories are rather far and away from such childish thoughts of how things happened. What we see before us took a rather bewilderingly long time to happen (from our extremely limited perspective), with perceived complexity (to our infantile viewpoint) arriving rather late on the scene, only further building upon itself, gradually layer upon layer, complexity upon complexity. This isn't specifically against entropy. After all, how can you ever get to a state of low entropy without having high-entropy in the first place? Otherwise it would just sort of "be", and entropy wouldn't exist. We're still fresh off the big-bang here, cosmologically speaking, with very high-density clusters of particles, slowly moving towards a state of low-entropy by all sorts of fascinating chemical and physical processes. Matter has only been here for roughly sixteen billion years, so don't expect anything too grand to have happened yet, just lots and lots of really interesting (to us) stuff. And actually on this note: I love how the argument of "random chance never being able to create anything complex" is thrown about exclusively by those that protest for a supremely complex being to be the originator of the universe, without even batting an eye towards an explanation of how such a complex being would come about in the first place. Everything designed necessitates a more complex designer, right? To infinity, and beyond! Science doesn't have every answer. Nor does religion. I couldn't agree more! Though religion seeks to answer questions by the route of dogma, which tends to stagnate progress a bit in the long-run. The scientific process is a method by which we seek out repeatable, demonstrable properties of our physical world, which inherently is a dynamic, unbiased system. Though I will concede: there is no practical application for the scientific method within the realm of tribalistic tendencies of Homo Sapiens; it can only show us how to improve the quality of our lives, and expand our knowledge-base of the physical world. But this doesn't mean that dogmatic principals within a social system are of any use whatsoever. ...militant atheism... First: stop grouping together people with nothing in common other than their lack of belief in a dogmatic religious doctrine. Second: the only way forward is to remember the past, not repeat it. If something happened tomorrow that suspended a critical law of physics-say, water boiled at 55C instead of 100C, what would people do then? Get below sixty thousand feet, then try boiling the water again...? You're not understanding the point of the scientific method, and seemingly getting it confused with religious dogma: science is not rigid, and thus conforms to reality, and the physical properties therein. If water did start to boil at a lower temperature tomorrow, then those learned amongst us would start to look for a reason and cause for such a phenomenon. If it just happened to turn out that the physical constants were controlled by a being outside of our limited range of perception, then science would attempt to explain how such a complex entity could come about. That is kind of how the scientific method works, you know? But lumping it all together paints with too broad a brush-do you equate me with them? I don't equate each of you with each other-how can I, you're all individuals with your own personalities and life experience. This, in combination with several points outlined above, equates you to a hypocrite. I am not painting you with any sort of brush, nor do I think anybody else is. The brush belongs to you, my friend, and you've managed to paint yourself quite a colour! If some or all of the above doesn't make sense, then I apologise, as I'm coming off eight straight, fourteen hour days, and am kind of tired... Will try and clear up a point or two if necessary.
Kayin, Watch this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqh53RCkURQ (eerrrrrrr........ and the other 12 parts of it)
Let's be brutally honest here, those "frequently rather bloody" years can be largely attributed to being because of religion, not inspite of it. You can't exactly say the Palestine/Israel conflict is because of oil now can you. As for the child with cancer from some posts ago I can say this is the reason that my wife is an atheist now. Her brother died when he was 4 and she was 8 and the priest told her "It was God's will. He knows what is best for Robbie". After seeing the look in her eyes after being told this for the first time I can honestly say I would probably beat the hell out of any priest if I heard him telling this to anyone. It's cold, callous and just plain cruel. "I'm sorry young child who doesn't even know why it rains yet an imaginary spirit created by people who don't want to face the fact that people die decided that your brother wasn't good enough to be allowed to live, sorry about that, but hey chin up He knows what's best." By all means people can believe what they want but they should not be allowed to push it on to people in anyway or form, I personally would even go so far as to say that religious indoctrination ceremonies (such as baptism for example) should be banned until an age where the person can make an informed decision based on their own thoughts and choices (although in current society in the UK that would be about 30 since it seems most people aren't even close to being adults until then any more).
This is exactly how I think. Kids up until they are 14/15 don't have a sufficant understanding of whats around them for them to decide upon religion and beliefs.
Indeed, I guess I am a hopeless idealist. @Pieface you were lucky. Back in my day (early 70's) and at the Catholic school I was at, the Nuns practically beat it into you.
No, I'm saying that people obviously think so, against oppression of faith, against persecution, against science and technology appearing to have the better answers for daily life problems. To the extent that they are willing to die or kill for it (hence the reference to 'bloody'). It is obviously something that is highly valued by a lot of people. Perhaps you ought to ask yourself why. Understand before you judge, else your judgement is prejudice. And OK, half a million years if you want to get pedantic about it --which is when people developed fifth-order intentionality in their thinking and artefacts show communal spiritual practices. I'll address your other points later --I'm typing on an iPhone here and that rather cramps my style. And Pieface is not 'lucky'; his experience is that of many children who go to a Christian school. I went to a Catholic nursery (run by nuns), a Catholic primary and secondary school and even a Catholic University that still trains honest-to-God priests. Not because my parents were religious as such but because they simply offered the best education. I never felt that religion was crammed down my throat and I still have fond feelings for the nuns. Not all schools are bad.
That priest was just stupid. I've known secular people to say rather stupid things too when faced with such terrible tragedy. It is not something people feel terribly well equipped for. In fact, it takes a qualified psychologist or trained counsellor in palliative care to be able to contain such grief. Let me tell you from professional experience it can be tough. But our hospital chaplains are trained for this stuff and I'm happy to say respond a lot better. So some priest got it badly wrong. Does that dismiss the whole Christian philosophy? Doctors occasionally get it badly wrong too. Shall we ditch the whole of medicine? Some people do indeed do that. They are the patients who put their faith in homeopathy and spiritual healing after the doctor has let them down, the parents of Autistic children who accuse MMR jabs to be a conspiracy by Big Pharma to poison their children for instance. I can understand their grief, but their reaction is not rational, just a swing to the other extreme.
Does science lie? No, not any more than religion (or faith). Do some scientists lie? Yes - and again, no more so than religious figures in my experience. I think the key is in the way science, just like religion, can be twisted and used to effect change or maintain control, as was pointed out in another thread here in Serious Discussion. Here in the US, we see it manifested in the form of the climate change debate. It usually boils down to the right using bits of scientific information to make its claim that climate change is a myth to support increased taxes, while the left uses its scientific information to argue that climate change is indeed real, and something must be done to mitigate the effects. Whose science do you believe? In theory, it should all be the same science, right? For the masses, they have to put their trust - their faith - in scientists, because we don't understand all the very complex mechanisms of an infinite universe. For the same reason, a lot of people put their faith in religious beliefs - to help manage some of the complex moral questions in life.
A bit pedantic, but you're forgetting the side using snippets of facts to scare people into thinking global warming will be the immediate end of the world. My personal favorite, when you want to "prove" either side in a debate on climate change simply change your definition of climate. Say climate is based off of 100 years and our average temperature hasn't changed too much, cut it down to 10 years and you're not giving enough room to see alternative explanations (should they exist). I'd say, Does science lie? No. Anything that is outright false will be discredited by a different scientist or group of scientists. However, many will conveniently try their best on researching things that fall in line with their own beliefs or doctrines and heavily scrutinize anything that opposes them. It's just a matter of picking your poison, scientists who bend facts and truths into near-lies, or religious figures who just preach falsehoods (according to current scientific understanding) which border on lies.
