On November 20 2012 09:16 WirelessWaffle wrote: Wait wait wait...
In that picture where it says god is the correct answer for the second question doesn't that mean that the first answer would not be 4.6billion and that the 3rd question shouldn't exist?
If someone could enlighten me to what the bible says (i'm not religious) on the matter of the earths maximum age it would be appreciated. Or is the test a hybrid of "current science states this" and "god made everything including current science"?
If I recall it was never specified but a scholar went back through the text to approximate.
Also the 4.6 billion days is now being placed into the "7 day creation cycle" because god never made the sun until somewhat past the 2nd or 3rd day so since light dictates length of day it could have been infinite.
Anywho, that's my take on it I could be completely wrong
I've never heard that one before. Not sure why it would be necessary for a religious person to also believe in the big bang given how much must be taken non-literally to begin with.
Also don't see how it would be sufficient given that it doesn't make any sense. First, the length of a day is related to the earth's rotation, and only indirectly related to the presence of light.
Second, my speaker intuitions side strongly with 'day' generally rigidly designating the actual length of a day rather than being synonymous with the description 'length of time it takes the earth to rotate on its axis'. Hence our ability to say, 'If the earth had a different rotational momentum, it could take 2 days to rotate on its axis'. We can talk about how old the universe is in days and years even though earth hasn't existed for most of them.
Third, that account wouldn't work at all for the days of creation after the sun.
On November 20 2012 09:16 WirelessWaffle wrote: Wait wait wait...
In that picture where it says god is the correct answer for the second question doesn't that mean that the first answer would not be 4.6billion and that the 3rd question shouldn't exist?
If someone could enlighten me to what the bible says (i'm not religious) on the matter of the earths maximum age it would be appreciated. Or is the test a hybrid of "current science states this" and "god made everything including current science"?
Many denominations are cool with a big bang type of scenario that was created by God. Catholicism, for instance, has been quite explicit about the consistency of these positions.
So many people forget that Georges Lemaitre, the originator of the Big Bang theory, was a priest, astronomer, and physicist. And oh yeah, the father of genetics, Gregor Mandel, was a hardcore Augustinian. Even when it comes to evolution, the Catholic Church has seen no conflict between science and the Catholic faith for many years, and the major Protestant denominations (Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, and Episcopalian) follow a similar suit.
It's not always forgotten, it's very much appreciated. It's a workable compromise in which religion just addresses the abstract questions without factual answers.
On November 20 2012 09:16 WirelessWaffle wrote: Wait wait wait...
In that picture where it says god is the correct answer for the second question doesn't that mean that the first answer would not be 4.6billion and that the 3rd question shouldn't exist?
If someone could enlighten me to what the bible says (i'm not religious) on the matter of the earths maximum age it would be appreciated. Or is the test a hybrid of "current science states this" and "god made everything including current science"?
Many denominations are cool with a big bang type of scenario that was created by God. Catholicism, for instance, has been quite explicit about the consistency of these positions.
So many people forget that Georges Lemaitre, the originator of the Big Bang theory, was a priest, astronomer, and physicist. And oh yeah, the father of genetics, Gregor Mandel, was a hardcore Augustinian. Even when it comes to evolution, the Catholic Church has seen no conflict between science and the Catholic faith for many years, and the major Protestant denominations (Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, and Episcopalian) follow a similar suit.
It's not always forgotten, it's very much appreciated. It's a workable compromise in which religion just addresses the abstract questions without factual answers.
I agree with you, though I would argue that an "abstract" question's response to both those with and without factual answers appears very much the same, if not in spirit then in tangible conclusion.
On November 20 2012 09:16 WirelessWaffle wrote: Wait wait wait...
In that picture where it says god is the correct answer for the second question doesn't that mean that the first answer would not be 4.6billion and that the 3rd question shouldn't exist?
If someone could enlighten me to what the bible says (i'm not religious) on the matter of the earths maximum age it would be appreciated. Or is the test a hybrid of "current science states this" and "god made everything including current science"?
If I recall it was never specified but a scholar went back through the text to approximate.
Also the 4.6 billion days is now being placed into the "7 day creation cycle" because god never made the sun until somewhat past the 2nd or 3rd day so since light dictates length of day it could have been infinite.
Anywho, that's my take on it I could be completely wrong
I've never heard that one before. Not sure why it would be necessary for a religious person to also believe in the big bang given how much must be taken non-literally to begin with.
Also don't see how it would be sufficient given that it doesn't make any sense. First, the length of a day is related to the earth's rotation, and only indirectly related to the presence of light.
Second, my speaker intuitions side strongly with 'day' generally rigidly designating the actual length of a day rather than being synonymous with the description 'length of time it takes the earth to rotate on its axis'. Hence our ability to say, 'If the earth had a different rotational momentum, it could take 2 days to rotate on its axis'. We can talk about how old the universe is in days and years even though earth hasn't existed for most of them.
Third, that account wouldn't work at all for the days of creation after the sun.
No you need light for their to be a day, you should really check that out... It's based on the earths rotation aligned with the sun shining on the earth. This is why "daylight savings" exists and why we run a 24 hour cycle instead of a X hour cycle that varies on other planets.
The idea (though I don't agree) is that because light wasn't created until some day after the first 3 and that "day" had no conceptual meaning until we invented it's meaning that the days before light was created could have been infinitely long since light is required for our day to make any sense.
And yes I do understand that the rotation of the earth does dictate (or rotation of any planet) it's day cycle but its directly related to the sun, just check that out it's true T.T
Anywho that's that, take it for what you will but it explains why 4.6 billion years is believable but "big bang" might be a falsehood.
On November 20 2012 09:16 WirelessWaffle wrote: Wait wait wait...
In that picture where it says god is the correct answer for the second question doesn't that mean that the first answer would not be 4.6billion and that the 3rd question shouldn't exist?
If someone could enlighten me to what the bible says (i'm not religious) on the matter of the earths maximum age it would be appreciated. Or is the test a hybrid of "current science states this" and "god made everything including current science"?
Many denominations are cool with a big bang type of scenario that was created by God. Catholicism, for instance, has been quite explicit about the consistency of these positions.
So many people forget that Georges Lemaitre, the originator of the Big Bang theory, was a priest, astronomer, and physicist. And oh yeah, the father of genetics, Gregor Mandel, was a hardcore Augustinian. Even when it comes to evolution, the Catholic Church has seen no conflict between science and the Catholic faith for many years, and the major Protestant denominations (Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, and Episcopalian) follow a similar suit.
It's not always forgotten, it's very much appreciated. It's a workable compromise in which religion just addresses the abstract questions without factual answers.
I agree with you, though I would argue that an "abstract" question's response to both those with and without factual answers appears very much the same, if not in spirit then in tangible conclusion.
You can't really used "religion" as a basis of discovery... Like other then perhaps "purpose" it wasn't the bible that dictated the numbering system etc, it may have spawned ideas which lead to the event but the scientific method is what discovers.
For instance most discoveries are done by religious people, but why is this? Well because for the better part of the 2000 + years since Jesus and LONG before that the entire earth with the exception of a few % (probably in the 0.01 ranges) were believers so you CANT make the argument that science can't move forward with religion but you also can't make the argument that religion causes science to move forward either (IE Stephan Hawking) so it's kinda a toss, a better way to look at this is "does religion slow progress" and that is highly debated but it's not for sure.
On November 20 2012 09:16 WirelessWaffle wrote: Wait wait wait...
In that picture where it says god is the correct answer for the second question doesn't that mean that the first answer would not be 4.6billion and that the 3rd question shouldn't exist?
If someone could enlighten me to what the bible says (i'm not religious) on the matter of the earths maximum age it would be appreciated. Or is the test a hybrid of "current science states this" and "god made everything including current science"?
If I recall it was never specified but a scholar went back through the text to approximate.
Also the 4.6 billion days is now being placed into the "7 day creation cycle" because god never made the sun until somewhat past the 2nd or 3rd day so since light dictates length of day it could have been infinite.
Anywho, that's my take on it I could be completely wrong
I've never heard that one before. Not sure why it would be necessary for a religious person to also believe in the big bang given how much must be taken non-literally to begin with.
Also don't see how it would be sufficient given that it doesn't make any sense. First, the length of a day is related to the earth's rotation, and only indirectly related to the presence of light.
Second, my speaker intuitions side strongly with 'day' generally rigidly designating the actual length of a day rather than being synonymous with the description 'length of time it takes the earth to rotate on its axis'. Hence our ability to say, 'If the earth had a different rotational momentum, it could take 2 days to rotate on its axis'. We can talk about how old the universe is in days and years even though earth hasn't existed for most of them.
Third, that account wouldn't work at all for the days of creation after the sun.
the religiosu theorist just says, relativistic time. boom
On November 20 2012 08:15 oneofthem wrote: when the teacher tells you, the earth is n billion years old, that is not a negotiable position. if you don't 'believe' it, you fail. that's about it.
otherwise it would be discriminating against different religions.
Correct. But you can't go one step further and tell the kid that believing otherwise is wrong outside of the science class as well.
The most charitable interpretation I can make of this post is that you're equivocating on 'wrong'. The belief that the earth is 6000 years old has the same content inside and outside of a classroom and that content cannot magically change its truth value in the interim.
So, if by 'wrong' you mean 'false', then to tell them that their belief is wrong inside the classroom just is to tell them that their belief is wrong outside of the classroom. But if by 'wrong' you mean something like, 'immoral or forbidden for anyone to hold', then no one is arguing against you.
Sorry you are way off base. The original scenario was that a child was told that his mother was retarded for believing that the Earth is 6,000 years (or whatever) old. Aside from the harsh language the comment went well beyond correcting an answer and into the realm of denigrating a religious belief.
Teachers should both teach the appropriate material as well as promote tolerance. They are not mutually exclusive!
She's retarded is a shortened version of "she is either stunningly unaware of all the scientific material regarding the age of the world or incapable of understanding it, draw your own conclusions as to why this might be but either way, don't trust anything she says".
KwarK, if you think that's an appropriate answer to give a child than I have to question your own intelligence.
I'm sure there is a diplomatic way of saying it.
Why say it at all? Drawing a distinction between science and religion isn't hard. Once you do that you can restrain the class discussion to only scientific thought and end the problem there. Harming the child - which would happen if you publicly insult the mother - is unnecessary.
On November 20 2012 08:15 oneofthem wrote: when the teacher tells you, the earth is n billion years old, that is not a negotiable position. if you don't 'believe' it, you fail. that's about it.
otherwise it would be discriminating against different religions.
Correct. But you can't go one step further and tell the kid that believing otherwise is wrong outside of the science class as well.
The most charitable interpretation I can make of this post is that you're equivocating on 'wrong'. The belief that the earth is 6000 years old has the same content inside and outside of a classroom and that content cannot magically change its truth value in the interim.
So, if by 'wrong' you mean 'false', then to tell them that their belief is wrong inside the classroom just is to tell them that their belief is wrong outside of the classroom. But if by 'wrong' you mean something like, 'immoral or forbidden for anyone to hold', then no one is arguing against you.
Sorry you are way off base. The original scenario was that a child was told that his mother was retarded for believing that the Earth is 6,000 years (or whatever) old. Aside from the harsh language the comment went well beyond correcting an answer and into the realm of denigrating a religious belief.
Teachers should both teach the appropriate material as well as promote tolerance. They are not mutually exclusive!
She's retarded is a shortened version of "she is either stunningly unaware of all the scientific material regarding the age of the world or incapable of understanding it, draw your own conclusions as to why this might be but either way, don't trust anything she says".
KwarK, if you think that's an appropriate answer to give a child than I have to question your own intelligence.
I'm sure there is a diplomatic way of saying it.
Why say it at all? Drawing a distinction between science and religion isn't hard. Once you do that you can restrain the class discussion to only scientific thought and end the problem there. Harming the child - which would happen if you publicly insult the mother - is unnecessary.
when the mother is disputing a factual claim, you can't distinguish religion or science unless you think reliigous language does not reference the same world, or there are different worlds.
On November 20 2012 09:16 WirelessWaffle wrote: Wait wait wait...
In that picture where it says god is the correct answer for the second question doesn't that mean that the first answer would not be 4.6billion and that the 3rd question shouldn't exist?
If someone could enlighten me to what the bible says (i'm not religious) on the matter of the earths maximum age it would be appreciated. Or is the test a hybrid of "current science states this" and "god made everything including current science"?
If I recall it was never specified but a scholar went back through the text to approximate.
Also the 4.6 billion days is now being placed into the "7 day creation cycle" because god never made the sun until somewhat past the 2nd or 3rd day so since light dictates length of day it could have been infinite.
Anywho, that's my take on it I could be completely wrong
I've never heard that one before. Not sure why it would be necessary for a religious person to also believe in the big bang given how much must be taken non-literally to begin with.
Also don't see how it would be sufficient given that it doesn't make any sense. First, the length of a day is related to the earth's rotation, and only indirectly related to the presence of light.
Second, my speaker intuitions side strongly with 'day' generally rigidly designating the actual length of a day rather than being synonymous with the description 'length of time it takes the earth to rotate on its axis'. Hence our ability to say, 'If the earth had a different rotational momentum, it could take 2 days to rotate on its axis'. We can talk about how old the universe is in days and years even though earth hasn't existed for most of them.
Third, that account wouldn't work at all for the days of creation after the sun.
No you need light for their to be a day, you should really check that out... It's based on the earths rotation aligned with the sun shining on the earth. This is why "daylight savings" exists and why we run a 24 hour cycle instead of a X hour cycle that varies on other planets.
The idea (though I don't agree) is that because light wasn't created until some day after the first 3 and that "day" had no conceptual meaning until we invented it's meaning that the days before light was created could have been infinitely long since light is required for our day to make any sense.
And yes I do understand that the rotation of the earth does dictate (or rotation of any planet) it's day cycle but its directly related to the sun, just check that out it's true T.T
Anywho that's that, take it for what you will but it explains why 4.6 billion years is believable but "big bang" might be a falsehood.
My post was explicitly addressed at the most common use of 'day' as a unit of time, which I continue to see as clearly rigidly designating a specific length of time rather than being attached to any actual motions of the earth. There are other uses, but if there wasn't also my use then we couldn't use the sentences I described in my post. This use existing is enough for the theory not to make sense. And even your use requires the existence of both the earth and the sun, so the sun's existing isn't enough for it to work.
"that "day" had no conceptual meaning until we invented it's meaning"
We invented its meaning a long time after the sun came into existence. Though I don't mean to lend credence to the nonsense view that our words only apply to times after they were given meanings. And that's not even to reiterate my third point, which still obviously removes any possibility making the creation story consistent with scientific knowledge.
Look, I know you're not actually defending this craziness, but I find it nearly impossible to believe that you've taken it from a remotely legitimate representative of a major religion. It has too many obvious flaws that would be immediately spotted by anyone who was interested in making Christianity consistent with the actual age of the earth.
On November 20 2012 08:15 oneofthem wrote: when the teacher tells you, the earth is n billion years old, that is not a negotiable position. if you don't 'believe' it, you fail. that's about it.
otherwise it would be discriminating against different religions.
Correct. But you can't go one step further and tell the kid that believing otherwise is wrong outside of the science class as well.
The most charitable interpretation I can make of this post is that you're equivocating on 'wrong'. The belief that the earth is 6000 years old has the same content inside and outside of a classroom and that content cannot magically change its truth value in the interim.
So, if by 'wrong' you mean 'false', then to tell them that their belief is wrong inside the classroom just is to tell them that their belief is wrong outside of the classroom. But if by 'wrong' you mean something like, 'immoral or forbidden for anyone to hold', then no one is arguing against you.
Sorry you are way off base. The original scenario was that a child was told that his mother was retarded for believing that the Earth is 6,000 years (or whatever) old. Aside from the harsh language the comment went well beyond correcting an answer and into the realm of denigrating a religious belief.
Teachers should both teach the appropriate material as well as promote tolerance. They are not mutually exclusive!
She's retarded is a shortened version of "she is either stunningly unaware of all the scientific material regarding the age of the world or incapable of understanding it, draw your own conclusions as to why this might be but either way, don't trust anything she says".
KwarK, if you think that's an appropriate answer to give a child than I have to question your own intelligence.
I'm sure there is a diplomatic way of saying it.
Why say it at all? Drawing a distinction between science and religion isn't hard. Once you do that you can restrain the class discussion to only scientific thought and end the problem there. Harming the child - which would happen if you publicly insult the mother - is unnecessary.
What possible distinction could you draw that doesn't basically say "what she believes is nonsense". It is nonsense, there's no way for an educator to describe the belief in something clearly, provably untrue and utterly irrational in any other terms unless you start using "that's religion" as a synonym for "that's total and utter horseshit". If you keep doing that eventually they'll catch on that whenever you mean to call a belief retarded you call it religious and you won't have gotten anywhere. Even if you describe how scientific beliefs are based in observation of things that happen and religious beliefs are based on the lack of observation of things which don't happen it won't be long before the children begin to work out that one of these systems works better than the other.
You can't really used "religion" as a basis of discovery... Like other then perhaps "purpose" it wasn't the bible that dictated the numbering system etc, it may have spawned ideas which lead to the event but the scientific method is what discovers.
For instance most discoveries are done by religious people, but why is this? Well because for the better part of the 2000 + years since Jesus and LONG before that the entire earth with the exception of a few % (probably in the 0.01 ranges) were believers so you CANT make the argument that science can't move forward with religion but you also can't make the argument that religion causes science to move forward either (IE Stephan Hawking) so it's kinda a toss, a better way to look at this is "does religion slow progress" and that is highly debated but it's not for sure.
I don't know why you even bother responding to my posts, we've been over this tired thing before. You presume some sort of historical prescience that allows you to artificially separate and diagnose issues of humanity as though you were playing a game of Operation. Religion is a basis of discovery by mere virtue of the fact that it operated in the periphery of so many great minds. "Does religion slow progress" is not a good way to look at things at all, as it immediately runs into fundamental issues of linguistic representation a la the difficulties of defining "progress" with enough rigor to make conclusions satisfactory, not to mention the almost certainly fallacious application of temporal standards to historical analysis (in other words, you are going to have to a lot of footwork if you want to reliably affix words like "slow" to the genesis of historical events or trends). Instead of regarding religion as some historic relic of a once primitive mankind, it would behoove the atheist/agnostic to instead attempt to better understand the people that make up the faith. Don't go off of surface level, major media outlet portrayals of insane evangelists, as that sort of directed information only leads you along like a dog. Instead, look to those in history who have married immense acts of intellectual accomplishment with a strong belief system or faith, or if you have the benefit, those around you who live "good" religious lives. Believe it or not, some will have immensely interesting things to say.
On November 20 2012 08:31 Souma wrote: Coincidentally, my friend posted this oh-so-relevant picture on his Facebook today:
I'm not sure if it was his test or something he just found off the internet haha (he goes to a Christian university, although most students aren't Christian).
... The fact... That this is allowed... "shutters" absolutely disgusting.
What is bizarre to me in this picture is that it would appear that they believe that God created the earth 4.6 billion years ago. That is like a cross between science and religion, what a stupid test.
You can't really used "religion" as a basis of discovery... Like other then perhaps "purpose" it wasn't the bible that dictated the numbering system etc, it may have spawned ideas which lead to the event but the scientific method is what discovers.
For instance most discoveries are done by religious people, but why is this? Well because for the better part of the 2000 + years since Jesus and LONG before that the entire earth with the exception of a few % (probably in the 0.01 ranges) were believers so you CANT make the argument that science can't move forward with religion but you also can't make the argument that religion causes science to move forward either (IE Stephan Hawking) so it's kinda a toss, a better way to look at this is "does religion slow progress" and that is highly debated but it's not for sure.
I don't know why you even bother responding to my posts, we've been over this tired thing before. You presume some sort of historical prescience that allows you to artificially separate and diagnose issues of humanity as though you were playing a game of Operation. Religion is a basis of discovery by mere virtue of the fact that it operated in the periphery of so many great minds. "Does religion slow progress" is not a good way to look at things at all, as it immediately runs into fundamental issues of linguistic representation a la the difficulties of defining "progress" with enough rigor to make conclusions satisfactory, not to mention the almost certainly fallacious application of temporal standards to historical analysis (in other words, you are going to have to a lot of footwork if you want to reliably affix words like "slow" to the genesis of historical events or trends). Instead of regarding religion as some historic relic of a once primitive mankind, it would behoove the atheist/agnostic to instead attempt to better understand the people that make up the faith. Don't go off of surface level, major media outlet portrayals of insane evangelists, as that sort of directed information only leads you along like a dog. Instead, look to those in history who have married immense acts of intellectual accomplishment with a strong belief system or faith, or if you have the benefit, those around you who live "good" religious lives. Believe it or not, some will have immensely interesting things to say.
That really didn't debate anything about slowing progress... Whatsoever... And I also never said it was my position that it does slow progress but as a form of rebuttal, in 200 years we've made faster advancements with a society that is more and more leaning away from religion than probably most of Human History combined. Now human achievement is exponential, we piggy back the ideas of the people before this so it could be argued we're just riding the current but it still represents a legitimate stance that perhaps religion and faith (at least the literal believing) slows progress.
And as I said, this isn't my stance but it is highly contested across the board in the science community.
You can't really used "religion" as a basis of discovery... Like other then perhaps "purpose" it wasn't the bible that dictated the numbering system etc, it may have spawned ideas which lead to the event but the scientific method is what discovers.
For instance most discoveries are done by religious people, but why is this? Well because for the better part of the 2000 + years since Jesus and LONG before that the entire earth with the exception of a few % (probably in the 0.01 ranges) were believers so you CANT make the argument that science can't move forward with religion but you also can't make the argument that religion causes science to move forward either (IE Stephan Hawking) so it's kinda a toss, a better way to look at this is "does religion slow progress" and that is highly debated but it's not for sure.
I don't know why you even bother responding to my posts, we've been over this tired thing before. You presume some sort of historical prescience that allows you to artificially separate and diagnose issues of humanity as though you were playing a game of Operation. Religion is a basis of discovery by mere virtue of the fact that it operated in the periphery of so many great minds. "Does religion slow progress" is not a good way to look at things at all, as it immediately runs into fundamental issues of linguistic representation a la the difficulties of defining "progress" with enough rigor to make conclusions satisfactory, not to mention the almost certainly fallacious application of temporal standards to historical analysis (in other words, you are going to have to a lot of footwork if you want to reliably affix words like "slow" to the genesis of historical events or trends). Instead of regarding religion as some historic relic of a once primitive mankind, it would behoove the atheist/agnostic to instead attempt to better understand the people that make up the faith. Don't go off of surface level, major media outlet portrayals of insane evangelists, as that sort of directed information only leads you along like a dog. Instead, look to those in history who have married immense acts of intellectual accomplishment with a strong belief system or faith, or if you have the benefit, those around you who live "good" religious lives. Believe it or not, some will have immensely interesting things to say.
That really didn't debate anything about slowing progress... Whatsoever... And I also never said it was my position that it does slow progress but as a form of rebuttal, in 200 years we've made faster advancements with a society that is more and more leaning away from religion than probably most of Human History combined. Now human achievement is exponential, we piggy back the ideas of the people before this so it could be argued we're just riding the current but it still represents a legitimate stance that perhaps religion and faith (at least the literal believing) slows progress.
And as I said, this isn't my stance but it is highly contested across the board in the science community.
This issue isn't for the scientific community to contest; it's for historians of science. There's no experiment that's going to tell you the answer.
Though the answer is, as has been pointed out, going to be extremely hard to pin down and context sensitive. There are a ton of ways in which a religious worldview can affect progress. Religion produced the basic metaphysical understanding of the early scientists and different metaphysical starting points could produce vastly different results. For instance, an Occasionalist about causation might be less likely to look for general laws of nature than someone with a different theistic perspective.
doesn't need to go that far. look at stem cell. separating roughly theory preclusion and inquiry preclusion. both have rather distorting effects on science throughout history.
alright, to be fair i guess we'll have to take the negative impacts of religion on a factual and case by case basis, rather than speak about religion as a general whole, whatever that means. because, religious organizations provided historical support for the establishment of abstract inquiry.
On November 20 2012 08:15 oneofthem wrote: when the teacher tells you, the earth is n billion years old, that is not a negotiable position. if you don't 'believe' it, you fail. that's about it.
otherwise it would be discriminating against different religions.
Correct. But you can't go one step further and tell the kid that believing otherwise is wrong outside of the science class as well.
The most charitable interpretation I can make of this post is that you're equivocating on 'wrong'. The belief that the earth is 6000 years old has the same content inside and outside of a classroom and that content cannot magically change its truth value in the interim.
So, if by 'wrong' you mean 'false', then to tell them that their belief is wrong inside the classroom just is to tell them that their belief is wrong outside of the classroom. But if by 'wrong' you mean something like, 'immoral or forbidden for anyone to hold', then no one is arguing against you.
Sorry you are way off base. The original scenario was that a child was told that his mother was retarded for believing that the Earth is 6,000 years (or whatever) old. Aside from the harsh language the comment went well beyond correcting an answer and into the realm of denigrating a religious belief.
Teachers should both teach the appropriate material as well as promote tolerance. They are not mutually exclusive!
She's retarded is a shortened version of "she is either stunningly unaware of all the scientific material regarding the age of the world or incapable of understanding it, draw your own conclusions as to why this might be but either way, don't trust anything she says".
KwarK, if you think that's an appropriate answer to give a child than I have to question your own intelligence.
I'm sure there is a diplomatic way of saying it.
Why say it at all? Drawing a distinction between science and religion isn't hard. Once you do that you can restrain the class discussion to only scientific thought and end the problem there. Harming the child - which would happen if you publicly insult the mother - is unnecessary.
in this debate, isn't she just a strawman (strawwoman?) though?
On November 20 2012 10:05 oneofthem wrote: doesn't need to go that far. look at stem cell.
Yeah, I get the obvious examples of religion screwing up progress like that, Bellarmine, and so on. And it certainly makes sense to say that in these specific instances religion has slowed progress.
But I'm talking (and think that the other two posters are talking) about a much larger thesis according to which religion's existence has been a net detriment to progress, conceived in terms of our increasing understanding of the world. This thesis is a lot messier and harder to make sense of.
Sure, if your conception of removing religion from our history involves replacing religious metaphysics with a modern mechanistic, atomistic, naturalism, then removing religion would presumably allow for vastly faster progress early in our history. But that's just to assume that religion is the only reason our current standpoint wasn't obvious, which seems pretty implausible.
On November 20 2012 10:05 oneofthem wrote: alright, to be fair i guess we'll have to take the negative impacts of religion on a factual and case by case basis, rather than speak about religion as a general whole, whatever that means. because, religious organizations provided historical support for the establishment of abstract inquiry.
On November 20 2012 09:16 WirelessWaffle wrote: Wait wait wait...
In that picture where it says god is the correct answer for the second question doesn't that mean that the first answer would not be 4.6billion and that the 3rd question shouldn't exist?
If someone could enlighten me to what the bible says (i'm not religious) on the matter of the earths maximum age it would be appreciated. Or is the test a hybrid of "current science states this" and "god made everything including current science"?
If I recall it was never specified but a scholar went back through the text to approximate.
Also the 4.6 billion days is now being placed into the "7 day creation cycle" because god never made the sun until somewhat past the 2nd or 3rd day so since light dictates length of day it could have been infinite.
Anywho, that's my take on it I could be completely wrong
Theres a growing religious theory thats name I cant remember right now that accepts everything that science teaches but says God has his hand in each part of it. Basically they dont take the Bible literally but they still believe the overall message of it.
Basically they believe that science is the way that god created and did everything. There isn't really anything in science that directly proves that god doesn't exist so there isn't a problem believing in any sciences that you want. Creationalism is an extremely vague thing and can any variety of things. You wouldn't really think this is an odd thing if you were into Christianity and knew all the wildly different interpretations of the bible and the different denominations and sects that believe different things.
On November 20 2012 10:05 oneofthem wrote: doesn't need to go that far. look at stem cell.
Yeah, I get the obvious examples of religion screwing up progress like that, Bellarmine, and so on. And it certainly makes sense to say that in these specific instances religion has slowed progress.
But I'm talking (and think that the other two posters are talking) about a much larger thesis according to which religion's existence...
ja i amended my post.
anyway here's steve keen (and more importantly lauren lyster) saying clever things that make me laugh.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iiFbv.jpg)
