Quebec: Judge rules "Students must learn about other religions"

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

In usual terms, alright I'll give you that but throw a god that's able to do anything into the mix and it becomes not impossible... unless you're sitting on hard factual proof that god does not and has never existed.

"We have no proof of this story beyond a 2000 year old account that was received in a vision to a poor carpenter and was then passed down orally for about 100 years before being written down. We have no proof of such an event repeating itself since." That, IMO, is perfectly acceptable way of putting it. Maybe follow that up with a nice game of 'telephone' to see how a message can get lost being passed around a classroom... never mind passed around for 100 years.
Nobody took a side one way or another but simply laid out the facts we have regarding the story, however improbable it may be, and let the students decide for themselves.

I understand what you're saying. I suspect you are approaching this with a bias that would make study of this type difficult for you.

It's easy for me to say we should check our preconceived notions at the door, but it's something else entirely to actually be able to do it. Maybe this is why a study of religion in the manner I've described hasn't been done in a university in any major way to my knowlege.

[photon]

People complain all the time about teaching kids stuff that has no use beyond school, well seems like this would be something that would be very useful.. anything that teaches understanding and appreciation of others is a good thing.

[peter12]

No problem with the class, but I am very opposed to the courts forcing parents into a corner and making their children attend the class. We live in a free society and this decision serves to attack the basic notion of pluralism which attends the ideal of democracy.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thor

So your children are not exposed only to Christianity, you challenge them with the various world religions, you challenge their ideas of our universe, our evolution, etc..

I do see what your saying, but secular people welcome new ideas, religious people are defensive against any ideas that challenge their own worldview.

This statement is utterly ridiculous, some of the most "secular" people I know are also the most reductionist and ignorant people that I have ever met.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

In usual terms, alright I'll give you that but throw a god that's able to do anything into the mix and it becomes not impossible... unless you're sitting on hard factual proof that god does not and has never existed.

"We have no proof of this story beyond a 2000 year old account that was received in a vision to a poor carpenter and was then passed down orally for about 100 years before being written down. We have no proof of such an event repeating itself since." That, IMO, is perfectly acceptable way of putting it. Maybe follow that up with a nice game of 'telephone' to see how a message can get lost being passed around a classroom... never mind passed around for 100 years.
Nobody took a side one way or another but simply laid out the facts we have regarding the story, however improbable it may be, and let the students decide for themselves.

Oh sorry, I didn't mean to brush aside your rebuttal BTW. You're coming at this from the angle that god exists, therefore it's possible. That would be like walking into an astronomy class and knowing the sun orbits the earth, regardless of any evidence you were shown to the contrary. We can prove virgins can't give birth to anything, but you're not interested in that, which is okay. It just wouldn't be okay in a class dedicated to objective truths.

Or maybe it is possible - that is what the course would explore. I would be walking into the class thinking it's not possible, which is something I should be willing to set aside and look at the issue from a fresh perspective and objectively study the possibility.

[Royal Eagle]

Originally Posted by peter12

This statement is utterly ridiculous, some of the most "secular" people I know are also the most reductionist and ignorant people that I have ever met.

You might be shocked at just how spiritual the most profound atheists (Nietzsche being the best example) really are. The problem with atheism (and nihilism) is that in its healthy forms, it requires a good deal of intelligence, courage and effort to get the whole apparatus off the ground. Lazy atheists are as loathesome as the worst bible-thumpers.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Royal Eagle

You might be shocked at just how spiritual the most profound atheists (Nietzsche being the best example) really are. The problem with atheism (and nihilism) is that in its healthy forms, it requires a good deal of intelligence, courage and effort to get the whole apparatus off the ground. Lazy atheists are as loathesome as the worst bible-thumpers.

I wouldn't classify any philosopher as merely an atheist. Most philosophers are, in fact, atheists. It's how they view revelation and it's impact on the human spirit. Nihilism is despair, not matter how intelligent it may seem.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I understand what you're saying. I suspect you are approaching this with a bias that would make study of this type difficult for you.

It's easy for me to say we should check our preconceived notions at the door, but it's something else entirely to actually be able to do it. Maybe this is why a study of religion in the manner I've described hasn't been done in a university in any major way to my knowlege.

IMO, that's what my approach would be doing. The prof could simply lay out the facts that we have for and against the argument, story or issue without adding his own bias and let the students decide. The difference in my wording is it sticks strictly to the facts. Yours adds a bias in that you believe that the story is false and that you'd have to be stupid to believe it.

To take away the religious aspect of this, a comparable example would be something like string theory:
Is it a provable fact? No.
Is it provable to be false? No.
Is it useful to teach the current theory and lay out the facts (for and against) that people have gathered regarding it in a university setting? Yes.
Would it be appropriate for the prof to say for sure that it is true or false? I don't think so - perhaps weigh in with "I believe/don't believe this theory is correct and here's why..." but to say for certain? No.

[FanningTheFlames]

Why not forget all this crap and just embrace the everlasting ideology of meism? I am me, you are not me, therefore me must battle you.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

IMO, that's what my approach would be doing. The prof could simply lay out the facts that we have for and against the argument, story or issue without adding his own bias and let the students decide. The difference in my wording is it sticks strictly to the facts. Yours adds a bias in that you believe that the story is false and that you'd have to be stupid to believe it.

To take away the religious aspect of this, a comparable example would be something like string theory:
Is it a provable fact? No.
Is it provable to be false? No.
Is it useful to teach the current theory and lay out the facts (for and against) that people have gathered regarding it in a university setting? Yes.
Would it be appropriate for the prof to say for sure that it is true or false? I don't think so - perhaps weigh in with "I believe/don't believe this theory is correct and here's why..." but to say for certain? No.

Okay, that sounds like a reasonable way to have an interesting discussion/debate. But to actually study the claims of religion, we're going to have to be more analytical and look at things with an empirical lens.

Should we ask the Cree what stars are? They have stories that have been handed down orally for centuries that explain what stars are and I believe stars can talk in Cree lore. Or if you were interested in factual information about stars, would you ask an astronomist who studies space empirically.

Sure you could always come back and say well maybe some stars do talk to some people sometimes. It has happened in our past and could happen again. You can't disprove that.

Well, no, I can't disporve that, but based on empirical evidence it is logical to dismiss it.

[arloiginla]

Originally Posted by peter12

This statement is utterly ridiculous, some of the most "secular" people I know are also the most reductionist and ignorant people that I have ever met.

Agreed. For someone who believes in the scientific method of testing, experimenting and proving hypotheses, theories, beliefs or predictions; to make a sweeping, general blanket statement like that is ignorant in itself.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Okay, that sounds like a reasonable way to have an interesting discussion/debate. But to actually study the claims of religion, we're going to have to be more analytical and look at things with an empirical lens.

Should we ask the Cree what stars are? They have stories that have been handed down orally for centuries that explain what stars are and I believe stars can talk in Cree lore. Or if you were interested in factual information about stars, would you ask an astronomist who studies space empirically.

Sure you could always come back and say well maybe some stars do talk to some people sometimes. It has happened in our past and could happen again. You can't disprove that.

Well, no, I can't disporve that, but based on empirical evidence it is logical to dismiss it.

It opens up a whole can of worms that's for sure and there's more questions than could possibly be answered here about the nature of the course and how to go about an investigation such as that.

One issue that obviously comes up is the nature of these stories and religious texts... are they meant to be taken as 100% literal? Do the Cree who keep up on that lore you mentioned believe in a literal sense that their ancestors talked to stars or is there symbolism involved here?

Perhaps some of it is 100% made up - the Jesus character in the bible was known to make up stories to teach a moral or a lesson - they're called parables. If the 'son of god' can do it why couldn't any other 'divinely inspired' biblical authors do it. Not everyone that believes in the bible takes it as literal truth.


There are simply too many interpretations to religion/religious text to try to scientifically debunk them like you proposed especially when completely disproving even the most strict and literal interpretations of the stories is impossible as you mentioned. Good luck at getting all that into a university course - its easier (and arguably better) to stick strictly to the facts.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

its easier (and arguably better) to stick strictly to the facts.

Couldn't agree more.

[FanningTheFlames]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

IMO, that's what my approach would be doing. The prof could simply lay out the facts that we have for and against the argument, story or issue without adding his own bias and let the students decide. The difference in my wording is it sticks strictly to the facts. Yours adds a bias in that you believe that the story is false and that you'd have to be stupid to believe it.

To take away the religious aspect of this, a comparable example would be something like string theory:
Is it a provable fact? No.
Is it provable to be false? No.
Is it useful to teach the current theory and lay out the facts (for and against) that people have gathered regarding it in a university setting? Yes.
Would it be appropriate for the prof to say for sure that it is true or false? I don't think so - perhaps weigh in with "I believe/don't believe this theory is correct and here's why..." but to say for certain? No.

Any competent "prof"/ HS Social Science teacher would be poking holes in every religion, especially in regards to creation stories but also to how the invisible gods manipulate every day life to the benefit of their believers. It's ridiculous. You turn the fine lens of science to any religion and you know what you'll find. What, does the Catholic (oops, meant Quebec) want a generation of atheists? No, but that's what they'll get.

And we all know that when Quebecors lose their religion they become nationalists.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by FanningTheFlames

Any competent "prof"/ HS Social Science teacher would be poking holes in every religion, especially in regards to creation stories but also to how the invisible gods manipulate every day life to the benefit of their believers. It's ridiculous. You turn the fine lens of science to any religion and you know what you'll find. What, does the Catholic (oops, meant Quebec) want a generation of atheists? No, but that's what they'll get.

And we all know that when Quebecors lose their religion they become nationalists.

What will you find? Science isn't philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by peter12

We live in a free society and this decision serves to attack the basic notion of pluralism which attends the ideal of democracy.

Ironic considering that the class is teaching pluralism.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Ironic considering that the class is teaching pluralism.

Even more ironic that the courts are using state power to enforce pluralism.

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by peter12

Even more ironic that the courts are using state power to enforce pluralism.

What's ironic about a pluralistic state teaching pluralism?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

What's ironic about a pluralistic state teaching pluralism?

More like it's ironic that a pluralistic society depends upon its state apparatus to force others to learn about pluralism.

It's strange to me why people worry about what others think at all. I'm too busy challenging my own views on things and becoming more aware of myself to worry about making Christian parents change their beliefs.

[Pastiche]

I'm still not seeing the irony.