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

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

I'm still not seeing the irony.

Pluralism depends on the free and spontaneous actions of individuals within a community. The attempt to create more pluralism through top-down state action is ironic.

[FanningTheFlames]

I don't see science as a religion, but more as a human endeavor to get past direct teachings and discover reality. It has been very successful so far, so Vishna, Buddha, Yahwey, Christ, and Mohammed, (oh, and that scientology guy) I'm very sorry, but from our best efforts at understanding the universe as it is, somehow don't include you. It's not unfair, it's the truth. The truth will set you free, right?

[FlamesAddiction]

Religions are one of the major social and economic drivers of the world, whether people like it or not. In particular, the 5 major religion (Hiduism, Islam, Buddhism, Christianity and Judaism).

To not learn about them puts anyone with a career interest in global business or politics at a huge disadvantage.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by FanningTheFlames

I don't see science as a religion, but more as a human endeavor to get past direct teachings and discover reality. It has been very successful so far, so Vishna, Buddha, Yahwey, Christ, and Mohammed, (oh, and that scientology guy) I'm very sorry, but from our best efforts at understanding the universe as it is, somehow don't include you. It's not unfair, it's the truth. The truth will set you free, right?

Your understanding of the universe didn't include these people?
Siddhārtha Gautama probably existed. Mohammed probably existed.

You may choose to believe that their teachings as they've been handed down and exist in their present form can't be interpreted as literal truth... that's fine (in fact can't blame you for coming to that conclusion at all). But your universe doesn't include some historical figures?

Sorry George W. Bush since I disagree with some of what you said, my universe doesn't include you. The truthiness will set you free.

[Sliver]

So because these people are real their teachings must be true? Is that the point you're trying to make?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by FanningTheFlames

I don't see science as a religion, but more as a human endeavor to get past direct teachings and discover reality. It has been very successful so far, so Vishna, Buddha, Yahwey, Christ, and Mohammed, (oh, and that scientology guy) I'm very sorry, but from our best efforts at understanding the universe as it is, somehow don't include you. It's not unfair, it's the truth. The truth will set you free, right?

There's nothing wrong with science. It's just collecting and analyzing data, from a methodological perspective it's been around ever since Aristotle said we should measure things with our senses, rather than just our imagination.

The interpretation of scientific data is become very "religious," in my opinion. Fervently so, in fact. Natural events should have no impact upon our human understanding of the truth.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Sliver

So because these people are real their teachings must be true? Is that the point you're trying to make?

What? No. Just pointing out that saying a historical figure doesn't exist in my universe because I disagree with their teachings is asinine.

Example: Saying Allah doesn't exist... ok fine that's your belief. Saying Muhammad didn't exist... not ok... there's enough historical proof to infer that he probably did exist.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

What? No. Just that to say a historical figure doesn't exist in my universe because I disagree with their teachings is asinine.

Example: Saying Allah doesn't exist... ok fine that's your belief. Saying Mohammed didn't exist... not ok... there's enough historical proof to infer that he probably did exist.

He didn't say that though. The poster was basically saying "all of our scientific evidence points in one direction and that direction is not the direction you [religious founders] pointed us in." That's how I read it anyway. Didn't seem like a comment on whether or not these people were actual historical figures.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Sliver

He didn't say that though. The poster was basically saying "all of our scientific evidence points in one direction and that direction is not the direction you [religious founders] pointed us in." That's how I read it anyway. Didn't seem like a comment on whether or not these people were actual historical figures.

This is what he said:

but from our best efforts at understanding the universe as it is, somehow don't include you

He's saying 'you', not 'your teachings' or 'your divinity', implying (at least how I'm reading it) that the gods/people he mentioned didn't even exist.

[Sliver]

I think a literal interpretation of his words are less valuable than the point he is trying to get across.

[FanningTheFlames]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Religions are one of the major social and economic drivers of the world, whether people like it or not. In particular, the 5 major religion (Hiduism, Islam, Buddhism, Christianity and Judaism).

To not learn about them puts anyone with a career interest in global business or politics at a huge disadvantage.

I disagree, you can spend four months studying or just be transferred to a country and learn in a few days. Why should I learn about a religion, so I can pretend to know what I'm doing but not believe a damn thing? Sure, religious conflicts are one thing -- and very real -- but if religious people can be lead by books thousands of years old, who's to say to say they can't be lead by a charismatic leader with his own interpretation and backed by THE HOLY WORD OF GAWD!!!! This doesn't belong in public schools, except in a very abstract way.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I think a literal interpretation of his words are less valuable than the point he is trying to get across.

Well, at least we can agree on that then. Sometimes the message as a whole is more important and more valuable than finding minor flaws with the literal interpretation.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Well, at least we can agree on that then. Sometimes the message as a whole is more important and more valuable than finding minor flaws with the literal interpretation.

lol

[FanningTheFlames]

Originally Posted by peter12

There's nothing wrong with science. It's just collecting and analyzing data, from a methodological perspective it's been around ever since Aristotle said we should measure things with our senses, rather than just our imagination.

The interpretation of scientific data is become very "religious," in my opinion. Fervently so, in fact. Natural events should have no impact upon our human understanding of the truth.

Science is not a religion, nor do scientists claim that their findings are the word of god to be worshiped for all eternity. That a few people mistake scientific knowledge as absolute truth (rather than a best approximation at the present moment) does not give religion an equal footing at all.

The beauty of science is the idea that any statement must be disprovable. A non-scientist practioner of this idea, forced to use logic and experience instead of a microscope, might be just as opinionated as any religious person -- perhaps even moreso. But at least they can admit they're wrong. A religious person won't because that would require a total change in their world view. What? Wrong about that... but that must mean my belief system is not absolutely true and ... GAGH CORE DUMP UNEXPECTED INPUT BLARGHHHHH 0x234454556 ... REBOOTING

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

There's nothing wrong with science. It's just collecting and analyzing data, from a methodological perspective it's been around ever since Aristotle said we should measure things with our senses, rather than just our imagination.

The interpretation of scientific data is become very "religious," in my opinion. Fervently so, in fact.

Maybe the interpretation of scientific data just seems like it's religious because it keeps pushing into the realms that were formerly the realm of religion?

Rolling a ball down an incline and determining the relationships of the forces is something easy to disassociate from god/spirituality/however you want to define religion and describe and understand scientifically. Things like morality, origins, consciousness, and meaning are far more difficult, but are still natural phenomenon and are still subject to scientific inquiry.

Or am I missing your meaning?

Originally Posted by peter12

Natural events should have no impact upon our human understanding of the truth.

Now I really don't understand what you are saying here, what do you mean by "the truth"?

Natural events are the only things that have an impact on human understanding. If it is determined that free will is an illusion that will (and should!) have a significant impact on our understanding of ourselves, society, morality, etc.

[WesternCanadaKing]

It was a course like this that I took in high school that made me realise that Christianity probably isn't correct about much of anything. Even with just a rudimentary study of how religions develop (coupled with a moderately developed understanding of science), its almost impossible to think that theres any way that they got it right.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Maybe the interpretation of scientific data just seems like it's religious because it keeps pushing into the realms that were formerly the realm of religion?

Rolling a ball down an incline and determining the relationships of the forces is something easy to disassociate from god/spirituality/however you want to define religion and describe and understand scientifically. Things like morality, origins, consciousness, and meaning are far more difficult, but are still natural phenomenon and are still subject to scientific inquiry.

Or am I missing your meaning?



Now I really don't understand what you are saying here, what do you mean by "the truth"?

Natural events are the only things that have an impact on human understanding. If it is determined that free will is an illusion that will (and should!) have a significant impact on our understanding of ourselves, society, morality, etc.

What does it mean to be natural? As moderns, we interpret natural man through the eyes of the liberal theorists, Hobbes, Descartes etc... We reduce ourselves to mean creatures who operate in a mechanical fashion almost entirely around the basis of avoiding pain and propagating our genes.

Who says this is correct? Science? When Dawkins wrote "The Selfish Gene" think about the theoretical and political assumptions he made as he interpreted the science.

Humanity is not subject to the natural sciences, but to the human sciences, ie. philosophy, a subject which as almost been entirely lost to us in this age post-Darwin, Freud, Weber etc...

I don't know where I am going without erupting into a full-scale post about philosophy and the background of the humanities endeavour, but suffice to say that there are more rich and complete views of humanity buried into our past.

Maybe instead of Darwin we should be reading Plato, Shakespeare, Rousseau etc...

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

Maybe instead of Darwin we should be reading Plato, Shakespeare, Rousseau etc...

Instead of? We should read all of it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

Instead of? We should read all of it.

I can read Darwin once and understand exactly what he is saying. I can read Plato 1000 times and still not understand much. One is a scientist, the other is a philosopher.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by peter12

What does it mean to be natural? As moderns, we interpret natural man through the eyes of the liberal theorists, Hobbes, Descartes etc... We reduce ourselves to mean creatures who operate in a mechanical fashion almost entirely around the basis of avoiding pain and propagating our genes.

Who says this is correct? Science? When Dawkins wrote "The Selfish Gene" think about the theoretical and political assumptions he made as he interpreted the science.

Humanity is not subject to the natural sciences, but to the human sciences, ie. philosophy, a subject which as almost been entirely lost to us in this age post-Darwin, Freud, Weber etc...

I don't know where I am going without erupting into a full-scale post about philosophy and the background of the humanities endeavour, but suffice to say that there are more rich and complete views of humanity buried into our past.

Maybe instead of Darwin we should be reading Plato, Shakespeare, Rousseau etc...

Shakespeare isn't going to provide any great insight into anything relevant that science covers, IMO. I have an English degree and I learned a lot of interesting things studying the guys you've listed above, but at the end of the day Shakespeare was just writing plays and poems. I don't think he contributed much of anything to humanity. I know I'll get flamed for that, but somebody like Alexander Flemming (inventor of penicillin) is much more valuable to humanity than a story teller.