Yes, asking you to back up your claims is indeed stupid.Quote by: Questatement
So getting back to the OP, that's exactly why the Bible doesn't belong in the science classroom, it's not verifiable. If you want to include it in history classes, by all means do so, but taught as mythology, not as reality.
Christopher Lasch on Horace Mann: "Like many other educators, Mann wanted children to receive their impressions of the world from those who were professionally qualified to decide what was proper for them to know, instead of picking up impressions haphazardly from narratives (both written and oral) not expressly designed for children. Anyone who has spent much time with children knows that they acquire much of their understanding of the adult world by listening to what adults do not necessarily want them to hear--by eavesdropping, in effect, and just keeping their eyes and ears open. Information acquired in this way is more vivid and compelling than any other since it enables the children to put themselves imaginatively in the place of adults instead of being treated simply as objects of adult solicitude and didacticism."
What lack of understanding? I do not exclusively blame the institution of public education for mass stupidity (although it hasn't helped). I thought I was explicit on this point. If public education is not the complete cause of the problem, reforms of the institution can not completely solve the problem.
Thank you for insulting my country. Very classy. But, you somehow manage to steer back on point:
The first two would be acceptable, the last is not. The Bible has nothing to do with science.
But everyone seems to miss the main point. I see the main educational use of the Bible as a means to an end: namely, to introduce our kids to the great religious controversies of history. These sectarian disputes are one of the main engines of history. America was settled by a Puritan religious fanatics. Why did they break away from the C of E? What was Cromwell up to? What about Calvin? What caused the original schism between Protestants and Catholics? These questions cannot be resolved without some reference to the Bible.
To my contention that religious education should not be left to religions, you said:
Where does science come in? I am talking about the Bible, and the history of religious controversy.
When I suggested that the state should appropriate religious education from religious organizations, because these organizations have an agenda, you said this:
Well, the religionists have failed miserably at this task. Specifically, they teach the Bible according to the principles of apologetics. Everything that lines up with their current doctrine, they emphasize, and everything that doesn't line up is neutralized by a complicated web of pseudo-scholarship.
This is because the Christian sects, Protestant and Catholic, have an incorrect view of the Bible: "The inerrant word of God!" They seem to be under the impression that the Bible is a kind of sleeping pill, that it is meant to comfort the troubled mind, to neutralize all doubt, to soothe the conscience, to tranquilize the agitated spirit, and above all else, to answer the important questions of life.
Wrong. The Bible isn't designed to neutralize trouble; it causes trouble. I think the history of sectarian warfare in Christendom proves that. It isn't meant to soothe the conscience, but instead vigorously attacks man's sense of moral superiority. It creates doubt where none existed before. And it doesn't provide the answers to questions, but poses profound and deep questions.
If it was up to me, the Bible would be taught primarily as literature. Samples would be studied in every literature class. But, the emphasis would be placed on specifically those points that have caused the most problems. The racism and sexism would be emphasized. Particularly, the streak of intolerant, exclusive monotheism that runs throughout the text, which has led to so many wars.
I don't think so. Some of the main points of controversy, the things that really piss people off and stir up trouble, are to be found in the NT. Our kids should be most educated on precisely those points.
Which things? The New Testament, of course, disagrees with almost all 'Christian' societies now do, but there is no argument that I can see, unless you use the Old Testament. Please explain.
And how does this explain how changing their education will stop them from learning outside of a school setting?
Ad you feel t he best way to address this is by teaching the Bible?
Thank you for insulting my country. Very classy. But, you somehow manage to steer back on point:
There are many controversies without needing to jump into Religion.
And who are we to judge how they teach it? It is their religion.
Again it is their religion and their book. It seems odd for you to claim they all have it wrong.
Spoken like a true theologian.
The storys been told a million times,
but it's different when it's your life
But why these things? Why piss people off and stir up trouble? Surely that will not help the educational process. In collage I took a course on comparative religion and ideology and a huge number of people who had signed up for the course walked out due to the neutral way the course was to be taught. If this was attempted in public school it would cause riots. If it was a course or courses that focused so much on the bible you would have almost everyone upset.
I see no significant merit to this and certainly not enough to warrant that trouble.
The storys been told a million times,
but it's different when it's your life
Is this nonsense relevant in any way? Some ridiculous philosophy of teaching from the past that has been discarded as false many years ago
I have already stated that the education system has a philosophy of teaching kids how to learn and here you are bringing up some crap about a guy who still thinks we should be teaching them what to learn. Are you not even bothering to trying to understand what the education system is?
And not only that but you appear to be suggesting that the best alternative is to have kids sneak around and listen through key holes if they want to learn anything interesting.
Perhaps we should clarify what this debate is about? Is it about modern 21st centuary education systems or is it about you desperately bringing up every bit of irrelevant piece of discarded thinking from the nineteenth centuary to back your claim. Is this argument about what a modern education system is or is it about you trying to demonstrate that the American education system is so lame and pathetic that they have not even managed to upgrade their thinking forover a centuary now?
Right! But that entails a discussion in reforms in health issues and other related issues such as crime , family violence and poverty. Your lack of understanding appears to be in the area of the philosophy of education. Perhaps where you are they are still a backward and primitive form of philosophy, but not everywhere. And that does not make it the systems fault but rather the fault of people who refuse to look for answers.What lack of understanding? I do not exclusively blame the institution of public education for mass stupidity (although it hasn't helped). I thought I was explicit on this point. If public education is not the complete cause of the problem, reforms of the institution can not completely solve the problem.
It's a well deserved insult if the best you can do to show the type of institution for education that you have is still one that thinks it is back in the nineteenth centuary.Thank you for insulting my country. Very classy. But, you somehow manage to steer back on point:
Yet is it not the main contetion of the theist to have ID taught as a science. Is it not the main contention that the bible deserves it's own class subject rather than be shared other books? You may be trying to present a reasonable argument for inclusion. One that no one here really disagrees with. The only point of disagreement is how it is to be taught.The first two would be acceptable, the last is not. The Bible has nothing to do with science.
They can't be resolved without some mention of politics as well. The bible is but one of many parts influencing those events and deserves no more credit than other events.But everyone seems to miss the main point. I see the main educational use of the Bible as a means to an end: namely, to introduce our kids to the great religious controversies of history. These sectarian disputes are one of the main engines of history. America was settled by a Puritan religious fanatics. Why did they break away from the C of E? What was Cromwell up to? What about Calvin? What caused the original schism between Protestants and Catholics? These questions cannot be resolved without some reference to the Bible.
The science was just a suggestion, you had not made your intention clear as to where it should be taught when suggested.To my contention that religious education should not be left to religions, you said:
Where does science come in? I am talking about the Bible, and the history of religious controversy.
I think what you are asking for is an appropriate class for university level teaching, it is a specialist knowledge. High schools do not need to delve that deeply into religion, just as they don't delve that deeply into other subjects such as psychology or law but leave it up to students to decide when they go on to further education.
Yes, well! religion is what it is. A bit of pseudo intellectualism.When I suggested that the state should appropriate religious education from religious organizations, because these organizations have an agenda, you said this:
Well, the religionists have failed miserably at this task. Specifically, they teach the Bible according to the principles of apologetics. Everything that lines up with their current doctrine, they emphasize, and everything that doesn't line up is neutralized by a complicated web of pseudo-scholarship.
Funny thing is I just heard a Protestant and Catholic say the exact same thing about whatever your religion is.This is because the Christian sects, Protestant and Catholic, have an incorrect view of the Bible:
It is, another term for the bible is "the opiate of the masses". Sports also works in a similar fashion. The bible is meant to do nothing more than calm the poor and force them to accept authority from any who claim to be there better. While giving a few elite rulers an excuse of a mandate to rule."The inerrant word of God!" They seem to be under the impression that the Bible is a kind of sleeping pill, that it is meant to comfort the troubled mind, to neutralize all doubt, to soothe the conscience, to tranquilize the agitated spirit, and above all else, to answer the important questions of life.
And the reason for this is that it gives those who claim they understand a reason to tell others what to do. That's why they write bibles in a mysterious way if it was easy to understand we wouldn't need others to interpret it.Wrong. The Bible isn't designed to neutralize trouble; it causes trouble. I think the history of sectarian warfare in Christendom proves that. It isn't meant to soothe the conscience, but instead vigorously attacks man's sense of moral superiority. It creates doubt where none existed before. And it doesn't provide the answers to questions, but poses profound and deep questions.
Sounds like an english teacher teaching shakespeare to bored 15 year olds. the only way to get their interest is to emphasise the blood and sex.If it was up to me, the Bible would be taught primarily as literature. Samples would be studied in every literature class. But, the emphasis would be placed on specifically those points that have caused the most problems. The racism and sexism would be emphasized. Particularly, the streak of intolerant, exclusive monotheism that runs throughout the text, which has led to so many wars
Which things? You yourself point out that the practices of modern Christianity seem to diverge, sometimes widely, from the original teachings of the NT, the book they supposedly base themselves on. Perhaps there would be a better understanding of this fact, if we were more familiar with this book from childhood. Perhaps public education could fill the gap.
And why this prejudice against the New, in favor of the Old? It's all just a bunch of mythology, anyway. So Moses, David, and OT Yahweh are acceptable, but Jesus isn't? It's just a bunch of gods and legendary heroes; why favor one over the other?
But outside of Christianity, why would we care?
Even from an cultural/historical influence point of view teaching it is more important to understanding the various groups and beliefs than the source material.
The storys been told a million times,
but it's different when it's your life
We don't know the potential for many scientific fields until future events change to present better evidence or proof. How does not offering proof for the afterlife until a later time make it any less scientific? How is what I am offering not 'verifiable?'
“The heart has its reason which reason does not know.” - Blaise Pascal
"chewtabacachewtabacachewtabaca-spit" - Blake Shelton
Define evidence.
As I said, tens of thousands might, just might, be a little harder to explain than your 39. For instance, how long would it take you to round up 39 wackos as compared to 30k?
Hey, I don't make the rules for when proof is presented.
“The heart has its reason which reason does not know.” - Blaise Pascal
"chewtabacachewtabacachewtabaca-spit" - Blake Shelton
You demonstrate your ignorance here. Take a look at this list of ideas that can be traced to Horace Mann:
1. A system of common schools attended by all classes of society.
2. A rejection of the European model, which provided a liberal education for the children of privilege and vocational training for the masses.
3. Compulsory education, combined with an abolition of child labor.
4. Protection of the school from sectarian religious influences.
5. Professional training of teachers.
To continue my paraphrase of Lasch, now with direct quotation: "They followed Mann's advice to provide instruction not only in academic subjects but in the 'laws of health,' vocal music, and other character-forming disciplines. They even followed his advice to staff the schools largely with women, sharing the belief that women were more likely to govern their pupils by the gentile art of persuasion. They honored Man himself, even during his lifetime, as the founding father of their schools..."
Do you seriously want to defend the assertion that this is "some ridiculous philosophy of teaching from the past that has been discarded as false many years ago"?
I could ask you the same question, since you seem to be ignorant of Horace Mann's influence in forging this system. Do you also think that Henry Ford is "irrelevant" to the history of industrial manufacturing?
I'm not talking about an "alternative"; I'm talking about the facts of like as they exist in reality. The kid is going to "sneak around and listen through key holes" no matter what you do to him in the classroom. Unless your system of education somehow eradicates his natural curiosity (I hope that isn't what you mean, some kind of psycho-chemistry or chemical lobotomy). The brain of a child does not undergo some magical process of "education" the moment he step into the confines if a classroom. The brain is growing, learning, continually, all of the time. The most important lessons are not learned in the formal, structured setting of the classroom, but outside, in the real world.
Teach it as literature, mainly. I suppose you have that already in your own country's system of education, which is so much more enlightened than my own, apparently. But, the points of dispute and controversy should be emphasized. No country has ever had a civil war over different interpretations of Shakespeare. They have over the Bible. A basic knowledge of the Bible is necessary in order to understand these conflicts.
Wrong. For starters, the complete quote is "religion is the opium of the masses." Religion, not the Bible. I might be picking fly shit out of pepper here, but there is a difference. On the one hand, you have a religious organization, on the other hand, you have the book that they supposedly base their teachings on. Back in the day, the main organization (Catholicism) which spawned all the other organizations (Protestantism) was willing to assassinate people in order to keep this book from being translated into the vernacular language. This is one small piece of evidence that this book is subversive to big religious organizations. Anything subversive to such organizations is probably good for the cause of democracy.
Shouldn't be a problem. Look at Alex's enjoyment of the Bible in A Clockwork Orange. Of course, he preferred the Old Testament to the New, which seemed to him nothing but a bunch of "preachy nonsense."
Perhaps iolo is right when he suggests that the OT would be better suited for public school, versus the NT.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks