It should also be noted that when talking about supposed Christian revelations like the Genesis story, they are not their own stories and most likely not fact. The VAST majority of Creation fables were either borrowed or outright stolen from Pagan or Babylonian cultures.
One think I think that is being missed here by many of the athiest is that most christians do not believe in a literal word for word interpetation. Contextual interpatation of the bible has been pretty standard since I belive Vatican II
One think I think that is being missed here by many of the athiest is that most christians do not believe in a literal word for word interpetation. Contextual interpatation of the bible has been pretty standard since I belive Vatican II
Most Atheists honestly are fully aware of that fact, our becoming more outspoken isn't due to the average Catholic, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc.. Its the work of the literalists, the ones fighting to over turn Abortion, to stop gay marriage rights, those who want to blow up buildings, turn politics into theocracy, etc..
Since moderates and normal happy believers aren't that upset at the fundies or just don't want to take up that counter argument side, thats where we have taken up that job for you
This sounds like "I don't know what is wrong with the theory of evolution, but there must be something because it disagrees with how I'd like the world to work."
Doubt is a good thing, but used selectively it is just another way to close the mind by doubting only that which challenges one's convictions. That isn't intellectual freedom, that is being ruled by indoctrination. Freedom is where you put a different interpretation upon facts, not where they are rejected as being suspect because they don't fit into a pre-existing interpretation you've inherited from whatever authority guides your thinking.
There is a superficially modern idea that one's "opinion" is as valid as anyone else's even when it is directly contradicted by fact. This is evil and needs to be vigorously opposed. If your opinion is based on what you believe as opposed to what is known to be true, you aren't "different" or "steadfast" or "alternative" or "pious", you are just... wrong.
Yes, I've been accused more than once of 'moral relativism' as though it was the worst thing in the world I could be when debating religion vs. atheism. On the other hand, I have yet to stoop to calling an opponent an intellectual relativist, applying different standards of evidence/proof to arguments depending on how well they agree with personal convictions.
__________________
onetwo and threefour... Together no more. The end of an era. Let's rebuild...
In Alberta, teaching kids creationist fairy tales as an alternative to real biological science is even paid for with our tax dollars. Last summer, the province quietly began shipping more of our dough to private and religious schools by upping their per student grant from 60% to 70% of the total instructional cost.
Our tax dollars are underwriting ignorance in religious schools peddling myth as science throughout the province, some of which have attached themselves to public boards in a bid to receive full funding.
The principal of Airdrie's Koinonia Christian school is proud creationism and its more sophisticated offspring, intelligent design, is part of his school's science instruction, even though Alberta Education says it forbids creationism being taught as science.
"When I was in school in the 1970s, creationism was not considered science, it wasn't even considered a scientific theory," says Driedger.
It still isn't, but Driedger clearly thinks education has come a long way -- and the future is bright.
"Intelligent design is certainly taking off due to the lack of evidence in evolutionary science," he says.
The province states only schools meeting "increased accountability measures" -- certain standards, in other words, are eligible for the 70% funding level.
Under the banner of "flexibility" and "choice," those standards don't exclude pseudo science being taught at taxpayers' expense.
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
Well to play devil's advocate if the funding is 70%, and the standard curriculum is required to be taught (i.e. they can't "replace" evolution), you could say that the flaky stuff is being taught with the 30% remaining funding the school would raise itself (presumably from religious sources if the school is a religious school).
I guess I'm torn, in theory I'm not against private schools and if a group of people want to get together and fill their kids' minds with misinformation then, hey it's a free country.
In practice, I highly doubt the evolution portion of the curriculum would be given the proper presentation.
But if the students pass standardized testing, what else can you do? Have secret students that sit in class and rat out teachers who give a slant to the curriculum?
If you are going to have private schools, this is part of the consequences. Unless you had a standard curriculum that couldn't be added to, but that defeats the whole point of a private school.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I was in Catholic schools for all my elementary, junior high and high school. I recall evolution being discussed during science class, and the idea of God creating us in religion class. I don't recall the two ideas mixing by way of the teacher. Usually, if the two crossed each others' path, it was students who brought it up.
It's not the catholic schools I'd be concerned about, they've got practice teaching evolution and keeping the religious ideas separate.
It's the evangelical schools that concern me, the ones where reality exists only in their minds. Notice the quote from the guy that's supposed to be leading the place:
"Intelligent design is certainly taking off due to the lack of evidence in evolutionary science," he says.
So his agenda is clear, providing a good education is secondary.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Well to play devil's advocate if the funding is 70%, and the standard curriculum is required to be taught (i.e. they can't "replace" evolution), you could say that the flaky stuff is being taught with the 30% remaining funding the school would raise itself (presumably from religious sources if the school is a religious school).
I guess I'm torn, in theory I'm not against private schools and if a group of people want to get together and fill their kids' minds with misinformation then, hey it's a free country.
In practice, I highly doubt the evolution portion of the curriculum would be given the proper presentation.
But if the students pass standardized testing, what else can you do? Have secret students that sit in class and rat out teachers who give a slant to the curriculum?
If you are going to have private schools, this is part of the consequences. Unless you had a standard curriculum that couldn't be added to, but that defeats the whole point of a private school.
I hear ya photon...but really the issues begin once they graduate a bunch of ignorant Creationists! How do you then re-program them to try and at least see it for what it really is after 12 years of school and perhaps another 4 years of Christian University?
I think its child abuse...teaching your children lies is abhorent and these parents should lose their right to breed.
I hear ya photon...but really the issues begin once they graduate a bunch of ignorant Creationists! How do you then re-program them to try and at least see it for what it really is after 12 years of school and perhaps another 4 years of Christian University?
I think its child abuse...teaching your children lies is abhorent and these parents should lose their right to breed.
Yeah, the question is how much input should society have in that kind of thing, to intervene in what a parent can and can't teach their own child... it's a difficult thing.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Having society dictate what's right thinking and banning everything else is sure a dangerous road to travel down.
I'm sure many people who committed horrible things believed the logic, facts and/or science behind their thinking was sound and justified slavery or genocide or any number of horrible things. If you stop people's ability to question norms (for better or for worse) you can get a pretty nasty situation which is damn near impossible to change.
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese
I hear ya photon...but really the issues begin once they graduate a bunch of ignorant Creationists! How do you then re-program them to try and at least see it for what it really is after 12 years of school and perhaps another 4 years of Christian University?
I think its child abuse...teaching your children lies is abhorent and these parents should lose their right to breed.
Child abuse? Lose thier right to breed?
Good grief!
So you want to interfer in the lifes of others and dictate what they can and cannot do?
Communist Russia would have loved you.
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dion For This Useful Post:
Having society dictate what's right thinking and banning everything else is sure a dangerous road to travel down.
I agree, and there's a big difference between having society dictate what's taught in schools to children and enforcing what's right thinking for society in general.
The question is does society have any right at all to interfere with what parents teach their children? Society DOES interfere with what parents DO to their children, even something like emotional abuse. I can think of things that a parent could teach a child that I would consider abuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dion
Child abuse? Lose thier right to breed?
Good grief!
So you want to interfer in the lifes of others and dictate what they can and cannot do?
Communist Russia would have loved you.
I personally wouldn't suggest that parents should not be allowed to teach their children creationist nonsense on their own time. I guess I wouldn't say that parents should not be allowed to teach their kids that the earth is flat either. But what about teaching their kids that gays are evil? Teaching their kids that blacks are inferior? Teaching their kids that the holocaust was a good thing that didn't go far enough? Teaching their kids that women need a good smack now and then to keep them in line?
Some of those things I would consider child abuse if a parent taught to their child. The problem is quantifying it, if you can't define it, can't quantify it, you can't make decisions and actually do anything about it.
Is it just the cost of living in a free society? Parents are free to transfer the evil ideas (and thus evil behaviours) to the next generation just like the good ones.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
...but really the issues begin once they graduate a bunch of ignorant Creationists! How do you then re-program them to try and at least see it for what it really is after 12 years of school and perhaps another 4 years of Christian University?
I think its child abuse...teaching your children lies is abhorent and these parents should lose their right to breed.
I think that we have been down this road before, Cheese, and while I share your disdain for religious fundamentalism, I cannot agree that simply because certain people choose not to develop any effectual critical thinking skills they should lose any parental rights.
As for the question of "how", perhaps my own upbringing presents a source for hope:
• I was born into and raised in a thoroughly fundamentalist evangelical home.
• While I am a proud product of the CBE public school system (Fowler class of '91!), I somehow managed to learn nearly nothing about biology. I opted for Physics 10/20/30, and barely squeaked through; avoided chemistry because I was terrified of the periodic table, and I think I avoided biology out of religiously conditioned paranoia, but I don;t remember for certain.
• I spent a full year in a "discipleship training centre" in Auckland, NZ, where I felt that God was "calling" me into "church ministry".
• I spent one year at Rocky Mountain College in Calgary, but left because the school was too soft in it's commitment to biblical inerrency, and Reformed theology.
• I spent a full year as a "pastoral intern". In case you don't know, this was a P/T paid position in a local church in which I essentially apprenticed under the senior pastor. My intent was to return to this church upon completion of my undergraduate degree, and work full-time as a bona-fide Baptist minister.
• I spent two full years in the now defunct Northwest Baptist Theological College in Langley, BC; a centre that was renouned for its iron-clad commitment to biblical literalism, reformed theology, and a strong commitment to expository preaching. Fortunately, because of its close proximity to Trinity Western University, I took a few courses there out of my growing interest in biblical languages and history. The university had just opened the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute, which provided early exposure to some of the most highly respected experts in the field.
* While I was still a student at the college, my university experience was something of a watershed in my own intellectual upbringing. My own theological and philosophical presumptions were obliterated by—well, reality, and I decided in light of the crisis of faith that I was experiencing that I could no longer—in good conscience—continue to pursue a career in "ministry" (That, and I was quickly discovering in my own "pastoral" experiences how much I loathe whining, sniveling and meddlesome parishioners). I shifted my focus purely onto academics, transfered to the University, graduated, went to Graduate School and earned my MA, and eventually entered Ph.D. studies at the University of Manchester in the UK, where I will be finishing this summer.
• My senior year in University was an interesting one: I had chosen to complete many of my electives in my second and third years, and thus needed to fulfill my science component in my fourth year. I took a couple of semesters of biology and was fascinated. Simultaneously, I was also registered in a senior seminar on the philosophy of science, as well as another seminar on the philosophy of language (it was a busy year!) I knew almost nothing about biology prior to my 25th birthday, but what I learned in my biology classes, supplemented by the topics of discussion in my seminars hooked me: my appetite for scientific knowledge became voracious.
So, somehow I managed to "evolve" from a raging, fundamentalist fanatic to become one of science's biggest fans. My parents are still ultra-conservative, young-earth creationists, and they were both—and still are!—good parents. I can't realistically consider my own upbringing akin to "child abuse". Yes, a great deal of what I learned was misguided propaganda, but for the most part evangelicals remain a pretty harmless bunch. I still have good friends who are committed to doing whatever they can to protect their own kids from exposure to the "evil theory" of evolution, but they are good people in spite of this. They have three of their own kids, and somehow have managed to find the time and the reservoirs of love to give to three more very seriously challenged foster kids. They are better parents than I think I ever will be, despite their own ignorance. You forget, Cheese, that most parents who indoctrinate their children do so out of a sincere but naive desire to protect them. While I harbour a small amount of resentment for how I was raised, my own fundamentalist upbringing was mostly positive. Of course there are exceptions in every situation, but honestly, for the most part "child abuse" is the furthest thing from what occurs in an evangelical household.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
On a related note, debunking creationism is becoming something of a hobby of mine; I think largely because of my close connection to many of its proponents. I read what I can about the subject, and I also spend (probably too much time) perusing the internet for additional resources. I don't know if this has been posted before, but I recently found a very, very good critique of creationism on youtube: It is a series of fifteen ten-minute videos produced by a geosciences major at the University of Texas who calls himself "AronRa". his attack is positively withering, and should be considered essential viewing for anyone who ever doubted the strength of Darwin's theory.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I still have good friends who are committed to doing whatever they can to protect their own kids from exposure to the "evil theory" of evolution, but they are good people in spite of this. They have three of their own kids, and somehow have managed to find the time and the reservoirs of love to give to three more very seriously challenged foster kids. They are better parents than I think I ever will be, despite their own ignorance. You forget, Cheese, that most parents who indoctrinate their children do so out of a sincere but naive desire to protect them. While I harbour a small amount of resentment for how I was raised, my own fundamentalist upbringing was mostly positive. Of course there are exceptions in every situation, but honestly, for the most part "child abuse" is the furthest thing from what occurs in an evangelical household.
Thank you for your history, its good insight, I've often wondered how your faith evolved away from evangelical zeal.
I would say that good intentions don't excuse bad behavior, and I do agree the vast majority of people who teach that hellfire is real and to be feared, teach science is the enemy and to fight against evolution; that these people do truly feel they are doing the right thing for their children.
But obviously if we are to move forward into the future, we need to change awareness to parents that turning them against science would be bad for their future life, teaching fear of hellfire can be traumatic to children, teaching any for of absolutism can lead to a citizen that sees only in black and white.
Its a difficult issue, like Photon said there are parents raising their children racist, homophobic, etc.. I'm sure even in those instances they are loving parents and those children at adult age would usually I'm sure even if they realized the hate was wrong, that they would still love their parents.
I don't know how you stop the cycle, I know some of the fiercest debate is 'should we' even try, but obviously there needs to be debate about it and Religion has to be held fully in account for its actions, its behaviors, and be fully critically analyzed in our modern discourse.
Thats why I think these discussions are so key, because if nothing for the few religious that don't avoid our threads like the plague, there is hope that something can be learned and that awareness is raised.
Maybe someone will bring up their child christian like they were, but they'll teach them of other religions, tell them that science is wondrous and important in understanding the world and key to understand in your future employment no matter what field.
I'll give an example of 'awareness raising' by the king of intellectual debate, Christopher Hitchens, when debating a Rabbi on the topic of "Why do good things happen to bad people."
Its about a topic that still amazes me, circumcision. The Rabbi makes a flip joke about circumcision of his son and Christopher Hitchens goes off on him
On a related note, debunking creationism is becoming something of a hobby of mine; I think largely because of my close connection to many of its proponents. I read what I can about the subject, and I also spend (probably too much time) perusing the internet for additional resources. I don't know if this has been posted before, but I recently found a very, very good critique of creationism on youtube: It is a series of fifteen ten-minute videos produced by a geosciences major at the University of Texas who calls himself "AronRa". his attack is positively withering, and should be considered essential viewing for anyone who ever doubted the strength of Darwin's theory.
I admit that the creationist myths that were part of my upbringing are by far the least of the problems I think I can partially attribute to my upbringing. That's a whole different thread though.
And I don't blame my parents at all interestingly enough, I never really thought about it until now but I really don't. They were doing what they thought best, just like most people try to do.
But like I said there are some things parents could teach that would be considered child abuse, what's interesting to me is where is that line? Can we make a line at all?
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
