Atheism

[Djevv]

I'd just tell the child that science doesn't know exactly how the universe began but various possibilities have been suggested and that various religions have various theories, all of which are not scietifically testable at this point.

So we avoid the question - when it is staring the students in the face. And we DO have evidence for how the universe began. Also a purely naturalistic view of science does have metaphysical implications that all students can understand. There would be something wrong with them if they didn't ask questions on these matters - and something wrong with our schooling system if we didn't attempt an answer.

There's quite a bit of evidence to suggest we are pattern seeking creatures and that we are descended from apes, isn't there. That's one assertion that's not at all blind.

But is that all we are?

 

[Disco08]

So we avoid the question - when it is staring the students in the face. And we DO have evidence for how the universe began. Also a purely naturalistic view of science does have metaphysical implications that all students can understand. There would be something wrong with them if they didn't ask questions on these matters - and something wrong with our schooling system if we didn't attempt an answer.

It's not avoiding the question at all. It's a completely honest answer.

Why is it so crucial that a child be given an answer? If so many of the world's best scientists admit they don't know the answer, why tell children any differently?

Your evidence is Genesis I presume?

But is that all we are?

He didn't assert a complete synposis, just that he believes these two facts.

Again, there's nothing wrong with not claiming to have all the answers.

 

[Djevv]

It's not avoiding the question at all. It's a completely honest answer.

Why is it so crucial that a child be given an answer? If so many of the world's best scientists admit they don't know the answer, why tell children any differently?

Your evidence is Genesis I presume?

All I'm saying is that the topic shouldn't be a closed one. This idea of compartmentalising knowledge runs counter to modern educational theories.

He didn't assert a complete synposis, just that he believes these two facts.

Again, there's nothing wrong with not claiming to have all the answers.

He didn't :hihi? I think he did. Surely in claiming something like that your claiming that we should expect to behave just like apes aren't you? If we are apes why should any civilised standards apply to us?

 

[Disco08]

Of course not. Remember evolution?

All I'm saying is that the topic shouldn't be a closed one. This idea of compartmentalising knowledge runs counter to modern educational theories.

Telling children that there is no definitve answer isn't closing the topic at all. How exactly is outlining theories while stating they are not scientifically provable compartmentalisng knowledge? Would you prefer we teach them that one of these theories is the truth?

 

[Djevv]

It has something to say about the truth of the Christian God's word though no? Surely God creating all the creepy things that creepeth yada yada doesn't imply that he created single cell beings and allowed them to evolve into today's flora and fauna?

I think nature is God's word too. There are plenty of different interpretations of Genesis 1.

 

[Disco08]

Fair enough. Why would God's inspire someone to relate instantaneous creation of the earth's species if it was in fact far from that? Doesn't differentiating groups as He does in Genesis quite clearly imply that these creatures were indivually created?

 

[Djevv]

Of course not. Remember evolution?

OK, so we are definitively not apes then? We have evolved beyond that stage? Can you please tell me what the statement is about then? Why make it if we are really Human beings.

Telling children that there is no definitve answer isn't closing the topic at all. How exactly is outlining theories while stating they are not scientifically provable compartmentalisng knowledge? Would you prefer we teach them that one of these theories is the truth?

You could certainly say that, but in saying it the students would want to give their opinions and should be able to. So should the teacher. At the end of the day I agree with you that it shouldn't be part of the science curriculum, but there should be no banning of all discussion of this sort of thing.

In any science course ethics and the moral dimension is always on the table for discusssion. This is part of a rounded science education.

 

[Tiger74]

I'd just tell the child that science doesn't know exactly how the universe began but various possibilities have been suggested and that various religions have various theories, all of which are not scietifically testable at this point.

I like this, and its what I would be hoping for. No agenda, just acknowledgement of the facts and possibilities.

Well expressed Disco

 

[Djevv]

Fair enough. Why would God's inspire someone to relate instantaneous creation of the earth's species if it was in fact far from that? Doesn't differentiating groups as He does in Genesis quite clearly imply that these creatures were indivually created?

I really don't think Gen 1 says anything definitive on how God created. I just makes it clear that He did in a way that any person can comprehend. I personally (I'm not speaking for all Christians here) think there may be layers of meaning in the text, like there are in much of the Bible. If you want to know more, there are plenty of websites on the issue.

 

[AngryAnt]

I really don't think Gen 1 says anything definitive on how God created. I just makes it clear that He did in a way that any person can comprehend. I personally (I'm not speaking for all Christians here) think there may be layers of meaning in the text, like there are in much of the Bible. If you want to know more, there are plenty of websites on the issue.

Is that an admission that Genesis just might be metaphorical? As I and others have been saying all along?

 

[Djevv]

I agree.But david Irving is in the field of social sciences/humanities.That is indeed a grey area.

In fact maybe you could point this out to Djevv.He seems to think subjects like morality and history can be objective,like the spped of light,or Pi, or 2 + 2=4, or something

Irvings theories are not analgous with theories like 'irreducable complexity' though, which are scientific propositions, and which BTW have been well and truly debunked--the news just hasn't reached the Southern Baptists yet(and Djevv)

Heh heh heh. Cute little stawman your burning there Evo. I suggest you get Panther to explain to you what we were talking about a few pages ago though.

It will never explain it mate.It's not a scientific question.
Fine.

In philosophy classes.

So we only do science in the science class then, Evo? We shouldn't worry about morality and ethics and all that inconvenient stuff.

 

[Djevv]

Is that an admission that Genesis just might be metaphorical? As I and others have been saying all along?

So does that mean you believe Gen 1? How do you interpret it?

 

[AngryAnt]

So does that mean you believe Gen 1? How do you interpret it?

I believe it's a fable that people of those times made up to attempt to explain their existence and the universe - in this case the historical Jews informed by all sorts of older cultures, traditions and stories. But my point (as I'm sure you appreciate) is that even if you believe God created the universe, he could hardly explain how to people of that time. More intelligent, non-fundamentalist Christians read most of the Bible as a metaphor for this precise reason and it doesn't challenge their faith.

Now, instead of answering my question with a question, is Genesis a metaphor for the creation? And I want an answer that is not a sidestep because you know how I hate intellectual dishonesty.

I really don't think Gen 1 says anything definitive on how God created. I just makes it clear that He did in a way that any person can comprehend

Is Genesis metaphorical?? Or is it the literal truth?

 

[jayfox]

This says nothing about the validity of your belief....just an idiosyncracy of Christianity.

If it validifies it for me then it is more than an idiosyncracy.

The New Testament authors wrote in full knowledge of the OT prophecies. Convenient eh?

So did Mohammed with the Koran and yet the prophecies were ignored and unfulfilled. What does that say about the Koran? Besides, you can take the skeptical viewpoint on the authorship and their previous knowledge and I will just have faith that the authors were genuine. You have no actual proof of any foul play, you are merely speculating without evidence.

And muslims would say that the Bible was written by man and subject to change over time, whereas the Koran is the transcribed word of God. What is wrong with their position compared to yours?

Again, it's about faith in the message of each. The Koran does not seem like the word of God to me. The Bible does and makes sense.

Again, muslims would disagree. Don't you find it a tad convenient that you, as a Christian, prefer the teachings of Christ?

If I had issues with the teachings of Christ then I would doubt whether He was God obviously. I have no such doubts. Which of His teachings do you have issues with, apart from loving and respecting God?

I just can't agree with some of the teachings in the Koran, and much of it does not sit well with the OT, so I don't believe it can be the word of God.

It gives me an idea that your beliefs are no more valid than those of other faiths.

Yeah but nothing I could've said would make a difference to you anyway, would it?

 

[Disco08]

much of it does not sit well with the OT, so I don't believe it can be the word of God.

The NT doesn't sit well with the OT either in many respects, at least in terms of a consistent message being delivered.

One thing that's always puzzled me is why did God wait until He did to send Jesus to earth? Sin was born into the world thousands of years prior so surely all those who lived BC needed saving too, didn't they?

 

[jayfox]

The NT doesn't sit well with the OT either in many respects, at least in terms of a consistent message being delivered.

One thing that's always puzzled me is why did God wait until He did to send Jesus to earth? Sin was born into the world thousands of years prior so surely all those who lived BC needed saving too, didn't they?

The OT was for simpler people in simpler times. As Djevv said a while back the OT was the time of the law. In OT times people sacrificed the prize stock of their flock etc. as a penance/sacrifice for their sins in order to get forgiveness. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for sin. That is why He is often referred to as the "Lamb of God". We now live in the times of the NT and it's teaching, which ends with the return of Christ.

 

[Disco08]

God actually forgave people of their sins if they slaughtered animals? Surely this would make things worse, not better? Did these sacrifices actually permit people into heaven?

Why not just send Jesus down to die for people's sin originally?

He is often referred to as the "Lamb of God".

I find the symbology associated with Jesus fascinating. Most interesting I think is that the sun (son) rises (is resurrected) from a 3 day death (crucifixion), rising (born) from the constellation Virgo (a virgin) at the exact point (Bethlehem: literal translation - 'House Of Bread', another name for the zodiac constellation Virgo) where a line drawn between the 3 stars of the constellation called the 3 kings (3 wise men) will land on earth if it (they) passes through (follows) the brightest star in the northern hemisphere winter sky, Sirius (a star in the east) on December 25th. Furthermore, the sun (Son) travels through (with) the 12 constellations (disciples) each year but resides in the sector of the southern cross (crux) every December 22-25 before being born again.

Even more amazing is that the centre of the ancient pagan symbolisation of the zodiac is the sun, and when drawn in it's most basic form, as it often was, looks like this (the one on the right):

 

[ronnit]

religion to me is not a good thing.....too many psychos do things in the name of their religion...


now..dont let me interrupt.....

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I don't think you get it. Telling a kid "nice theory, but fairy tales belong elsewhere and this is why because you have no evidence. Take this up with your priest or the philospohy teacher, because until you have something tangible it has no place in this roon" is not engaging in a discussion, its shutting it down. I'm not saying agree with the kid, or put it on the curriculum, but bans on the discussion are what create the fiasco we have in US schools.

Where did I say or insinuate I wanted a ban on the subject. As Djevv rightly points out there are no such bans (nor should there be) on open discussion in the classroom. However, teaching non-science as part of a science curriculum is damaging and runs counter to the aim of science education.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Being a teacher of science as far as I know there are no restrictions about what you can and can't say in the science class like there are in the US. However, given the tone of Panther and others on this thread it looks like their might be in the near future. T74 is correct in what he is saying, there will always be students wanting to ask questions along these lines, and so there should be. These are the most important questions in life. All Panther et al's repeonse does is confirm in the students minds the disconnect between the science classroom and real life. Bring on the questions I say! .

Having said that I think the teacher should attempt to be as unbiased as possible in their reponses.

Talk about misrepresentation (or perhaps misunderstanding) of my position. Where did say to stifle discussion?