Ban religion from schools

Discussion in 'Politics' started by iskander323, Feb 11, 2010.

  1. Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. As science delves into these subjects it makes it a religion for more than just some people.

    I do not know alot about science and I do not know alot religion. What I do know about science is that a small particle exploded and in that particle was the universe. When it exploded the universe was created.. With that came stars and rocks. the rocks hit eachother and then form planets. The planets orbit around giant stars and are nothing more than poisonus gas and what not. Then somehow a little micro organism survived all that on a rock that hit earth. After countless years the earth's poisonus atmosphere became liveable and that little organism eventually evolved into all the animals we have today...


    Religion basically says all that just w/o the "scientific detail". Essantially God created the universe and than he created us. So IMO science just fills in the gaps in religion...

    This is just an extremely dumb downed.....scenario of course.
     
  2. #42 Stoli, Feb 12, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 12, 2010
    .. except that science EXPLAINS, JUSTIFIES, and ACCEPTS CRITICISM.

    It doesn't fill in the gaps; it replaces the old ideas because the they had no established evidence or method.

    edit: all i'm suggesting is that when science contradicts religion, whose opinions have some basis in evidence?
     

  3. niether
     
  4. Science has replaced religion with regard to its relationship with the state.

    Church and state were separated, but science was adopted in the church's place.

    Take drug prohibition, as a for instance--justified by state-sponsored 'science'.

    Instead of the Papacy, we have the DEA. Instead of the Pope, we have the Drug Czar. Instead of witch hunts and crusades, we have the 'War on Drugs'.

    We see this same thing with regard to climate change propaganda as well.
     
  5. If I may, perhaps this thread should be moved to a different forum?

    It's being carpet bombed by those that insist they know all about religion and obviously are totally ignorant on the subject. There is already a forum for that type of ignorance to intellectually masturbate.
     
  6. #46 H4Z3, Feb 12, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 12, 2010



    religious insight is as crucial to this thread as political insight.............
     

  7. I don't disagree.

    However, many of the posts in this thread lack any insight into religion. Which is why there is a forum for people who lack that insight to pat each other on the back.
     
  8. Religion still has a far greater influence on politics than science. I agree the replacement has begun to some extent, but the origins of drug prohibition are puritanical blue laws and racism; sometimes tenets of most major religions.
    I also think science plays a different role in this relationship; it's not the dictator as religion is and was, instead I think the science is sometimes manipulated and used to justify the state as you say.. climategate is the only example I can think of this, whereas there are literally countless examples of religions negative oppressive influence.

    We still have a strong religious right advocating against (for example) stem cell research. We also have many scientists advocating the end of drug prohibition, for example the controversy with the UK.

    So.. yes, science is used as justification to promote an agenda, but nothing is safe from that, and religion still plays a far greater role in dictating policy.
     
  9. This is simply not true. Religion no longer justifies mandates imposed by the state, 'science' does.

    If religion was so influential to policy, gays wouldn't be able to marry anywhere, abortions would be completely outlawed, there would be no freedom of religion, public schools would be teaching Christianity, etc.

    This is not to say religion does not influence society, which may then, in turn, influence politics--but this does not equate to a direct connection between church and state, as there now is with science.
     
  10. The only thing I see them having in common is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" (Wiki), the similarities end there.

    A lot of the things people say Science can't prove are, in fact, only theories. An example is the Big Bang. Lots of people love to say 'Oh science is full of shit, they can't prove that', the thing is no one claimed that it's concrete. The Big Bang is simply the most supported and, with today's technology, most accurate theory. But that is what it is - a theory. Whereas, regarding religion, there is no room for theories. God did this, Allah did that and so on.

    Another major difference I see is knowledge - The whole point of Science is to gain knowledge. When someone comes up with a new theory, it's celebrated and experimented with. Being around when someone comes up with a mind blowing new theory is one of the things I hope to see in my lifetime.

    With religion, when something new is brought to the table it's hushed up and hidden - what the book says goes and that is that. There's no room for improvements or changes, and that just isn't a belief system I can welcome into my life
     
  11. Not really sure about the drugs connection as the science is quite plain about the facts on drugs in the uk at least, just the state chooses to ignore them.
    I think it's more likely that the state cherry picks information (or generates it) for propoganda supporting whatever message they want to give out today. Don't forget it was less than 10 year ago that bush denied that global warming existed.

    Politics is oppertunist and will use science (with the left) or religion (with the right) if it serves a purpose and use is the key word there.

    It was a risk, but it really isn't about the validity of science or religion but about whether the state should ensure impartiality in education.
     

  12. You're correct. I misunderstood the intention of the point you were making.

    My only question is the relevancy. Something has to justify state policy (during the transition to an anarchist society, ideally) and I would much rather it be science than religion.

    I think the problem is that science has been co-opted by other interests; not that science is not a valid justification for state policy. (again, i'm pretending stateless societies do not exist because they're simply not a realistic premise on the short term)
     
  13. I have to say your posts scare me because they are ludicrous and I hope nobody is taking in your statements. For you to say that cognitive psychology cannot be observed or experimented in any way has to be one of the most ignorant arguments I have heard against science. Sure, you can say science is not always correct and makes mistakes, but this? There are countless studies conducted on cognitive psychology, don't rebuke such a serious and important field.

    You say darwinism is not fact. Darwinism is to fact as "gravitism" is to fact. Yes, the theory of gravity is JUST a theory. The atomic theory is JUST a theory. Are you going to say the existence of atoms isn't a fact? What about gravity? Is the earth not round after all? The fact that you even said evolution is just a theory shows that you don't even have an understanding of what a scientific theory is, especially one accepted as fact by the far majority of the scientific community. Your example of string theory is erroneous, string theory has no where near the evidence and support that the theory of evolution has. Religion is nothing like these areas of studies.
     
  14. This is why I put 'science' in single quotations, because the government uses state-sponsored science in order to justify it's mandates on such things as drugs, or even climate change. I never said there wasn't contrary science on such issues--I'm well aware that there is, and often (if not always) it trumps any state-sponsored science.

    The point remains that science has replaced the church in terms of connection to the state. During the reign of the Papacy there were other religions too, but the Catholic church still held power by way of a direct relationship with the government. The tables are somewhat turned now, as it is the government which holds power by way of a direct relationship with it's 'chosen' science. But the connection is quite similar, regardless.

    I'm not suggesting science should be ignored by the state. All I'm suggesting is that, currently, science is not approached by the state with the purpose of discovering truth--the driving force of science. Science is instead exploited by the state to falsely justify the state's agenda--in effect conning the masses.

    Take climate change, for example. There are arguable sides to the issue which suggest contrary conclusions. The government chooses to ignore one side whilst adopting the other side--the side which suits its previously established agenda: more coercive control (cap-and-trade). Not only that but the government even goes as far as to patronize any opposition to its adopted science. Further, when that 'adopted science' is state-funded, there's even more conflict of interest to be addressed.
     

  15. 5char
     

  16. Yes, but they believe whatever they are told! So what's the benefit?
    The only subject I know of with many disagreements at the basic level like evolution is, is history, and that could actually be politically controversial.


    I see the value of learning about religion, but I see no reason it should be given any greater weight than the rest of learning about culture, politics, and history.

    Favoring one is not an issue because when science conflicts with religion, religion becomes a metaphor. At least for the rational Christian; obviously the fundamentalist is a different story.
     
  17. From what I can tell, the problem with Religion in school stems from the supposed "seperation of church and state" correct?

    Maybe instead of taking the church out of the school we take the state out. Wouldn't that solve the problem as well? Why is removal of religion from school the FIRST and only alternative to this problem?
     

  18. Read the thread;)

    It's about the fact that religion and science teach conflicting messages (in many areas) and in the original post where a religiously inclined science teacher taught his class with what can at best be called creationist spin.
     
  19. Religion isn't taught in school. So how can there be conflicting messages? How can the religion side have ANY message? The message is coming from schools and is extremely one-sided.


    If your talking pure "science" there is no way to prove either theory... that's why it's called a theory. But cmon, look at this from a realistic standpoint. WTF does it matter HOW the world was created? Maybe science should stick to the information that will be useful to students in the future.

    Religion + school = unnecessary squabbling. Seriously, what difference does it make if there is prayer in school or not? How will that effect the productivity of the school? Why are we worried about 2 minutes at the beginning of each day? Shouldn't we spend our time and money and effort on something more important? Maybe making sure our schools are actually educating our youth instead of just forcing useless bullshit down their throats?
     
  20. Religion doesn't conflict with science if they teach it as religion. Throw modern religions in with the other relics of human stupidity and call it Mythology. Nobody has a problem with schools teaching about zoroastrian or ancient greek religions.

    Keep it out of biology class, because the theory that 'we have no fucking clue' doesn't need to be addressed. Id be happy if they did address the theories of extra-terrestrial intervention when discussing abiogenisis though.
     

Share This Page