Religion: The Fourth 'R' in Education

Kiss you!
I think this is the best site in the net I have ever visited!
Really, very nice site.
I check it regularly!
buy fioricet online
http://fioricetbuyfior.blog.ijijiji.com

My life's been basically dull these days.
I haven't gotten much done these days.
Today was a complete loss.
fioricet us pharmacy
http://fioricetbuyfior.blog.ijijiji.com

I really find this site very interesting, and it gives people a pleasure time!
I really appreciate the creators of this website!
buy fioricet online free fedex
http://fioricetbuyfior.blog.ijijiji.com

Hi
just for fun

roleplayinggames.com

Dear Mr Thomas

I applaud your idea of teaching religion as the fourth R. I wish to share my thoughts on the subject with you:

For America and for the world, understanding about and respect for other religions is no longer a luxury of the intellectual and spiritual elite, but an absolute necessity in an increasingly global and interdependent world. More and more the world is becoming a global family under one God who is worshipped in different ways. While each country will continue to have its own national interests, it is becoming increasingly indispensable to work in harmony with other countries to achieve each nation’s goal in a win-win manner.

The easiest way for respect for other religions to become a natural part of one’s psyche is to start with children who can absorb the profound yet simple truth intuitively at a very young age if given the opportunity to do so – yes, by making the learning of the fourth R compulsory. American children (and for that matter children all over the world) need to develop this knowledge not only to understand and respect people from other countries, but to understand and respect people of different faiths in their own country.

“Ekam sad vipra bahudha vadantikam Sat...The Real/Truth (God) is one, but the wise (twice-born) call it by various names,” says the oldest Scripture in human history, the Rig Veda in its first section (Rig Veda 1.164.64). Study of religions would be easier if it were to be based on this wisdom revealed to man. Yet every religious path is a unique revelation of God and it is the most basic of human freedoms to choose the path one will follow in relating to one’s Creator, if one so chooses.

As to the origin of religions itself, one wonders why all major religions of the world have their origins in the Middle East/East. Lux aus dem Osten, Luxus aus dem Westen. Light from the East and luxury from the West. One commonly hears Christianity being referred to as a Western religion. But Christianity and Judaism are as much from the Middle East as Islam is. Other major religions from the East: Buddhism and Hinduism (besides minor religions like Jainism, Sikhism among others) from India, Confucianism from China.

Let no one fear that the study of religions on an intellectual basis in schools and universities would be a threat to any one religion. The practice of any religion requires a personal faith with an attending emotional component and for most some elements of ritual and a supportive community is part of the personal faith. None of this is provided in an intellectual curriculum. Hence the role of families and religious communities will continue to be the same as it has always been. What the study of religions does provide is an understanding about man’s search for transcendent meaning from the beginning of time, origins of religions in general, the tenets of world religions in particular, and the role it has played in the shaping of civilisations and cultures throughout the ages. Children should know that the search for God is universal and has taken different forms in different parts of the world. When an objective opportunity is provided to assess the contribution of religions to all areas of human life, it would become clear that religion is not divorced from reason and science, and that belief in God makes reason and science sublime. Einstein said “Religion without science is blind, science without religion is lame.”

Major religions, because of their impact on forming civilisations and cultures, are to be made the focus, and smaller religions could be covered in the form of assignments by pupils/students. Major religions to be offered would be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and non-deistic religious philosophies - Buddhism and Confucianism. For the Americans it would be equally important to learn about the religious belief of the native Indians, for they held their land sacred and lived in harmony with it for millennia before Europeans arrived.

It would be fair for Americans to learn a little more in depth about Christianity because it has shaped Western civilisation in general and American history in particular.

The curriculum could be integrated into language, social studies and history, and need not be excluded on the grounds that there is insufficient resource or time for children to learn everything that needs to be learnt.

Suggestions for details to be added in the curriculum, to be handed at different levels of complexity at different ages:

1. Brief biography of the founder of the religions.

2. Major tenets of the religion, with a greater focus on what all religions have in common.

3. Parts of Scripture that highlight major tenets.

4. Major contribution to various aspects of human life throughout history. Professor Daniel Dennett has provided a really good check list.

5. Biography of a selected few representatives to highlight contribution, mystics being classic examples, along with scientists, artists, politicians of great standing etc who openly acknowledged their religious faith.

6. The failings of religions should be taught only when the pupils are older. They should be mature enough to understand that religion can be misused, that human beings with a free will have used religion as a tool to their selfish ends. It is better for pupils to first have a deep understanding of the positive side of religions. It is too much to ask small children to grapple with the way some human beings in history abused religion.

7. In teaching Christianity it is important to highlight the beliefs all Christian denominations have in common, rather than confuse young children with all the details of the different denominations. When they are older they can better understand the points of differences. Personally I feel the Scripture that needs to be emphasised are: The Ten Commandments, The Sermon on the Mount, the message of Jesus in the Gospel of John, chapters 14-17, Psalms 23 and 139.

From my personal experience I can affirm that learning about various religions in a simple manner in school opened my mind without making me give up my own Christian faith. I had even memorised the eighteenth chapter of the Bhagavad-Gita in Sanskrit for a recitation competition in school without wanting to convert to Hinduism for that reason. What I learnt in school also prepared me for meeting Dom Bede Griffiths and the world he opened up for me many years later. I’m still a Christian by conviction and I have been deeply enriched by opening my heart to the wisdom of other religions. I wish everyone the same opportunity to open their hearts and minds to the wonderful way in which God has manifested Himself in His universe, and to embrace reason and science as God’s tools to reveal His truth.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Oops - the last sentence should start with, "If humans have no inherent capability for becoming emotionally mature..."

4th Watch,

In the James Anderson thread, poster Rafael said that "science cannot deal with supernatural phenomena because it has no way to test such cause-and-effect relationships." So any scientific discussion of the human conscience should address only material causes. When it comes to claims about the supernatural, it would be scientifically irresponsible to treat one religion's claims as any more valid than any other religion's claims.

And personally, the Romans quotes you referenced embody one of my chief complaints about Christian doctrine - that idea that humans are incapable of unselfishness on their own. In my view, part of becoming an emotionally mature adult is learning to value other people as much as yourself, to balance one's wants against the needs of others. If there is an underlying moral sense, I suspect that emotional maturity involves tuning into this sense. If humans have no inherent capability for becoming emotional mature, if we will never do good without the threat of punishment, then what is the point of democracy or even civilization?

"Underlying moral sense encoded in our brains".
In the vernacular known as our conscience.
Everyone is born with an innate sense of right and wrong. Even the vilest of humans practice some good deeds and show an aversion to certain evil ones.
The question is where does this inboard knowledge of goodness come from?
Look to Romans 2:14,15.

Watch this video from a US soldier about atrocities he and other US soldiers commit on a daily basis in Iraq against innocent people:
http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4315

Tonio: "That's why I like the idea of an underlying moral sense encoded in our brains."

While I don't see it as a moral sense, I think that there is a hard-wired sense of "Whatever hurts the tribe hurts the individual" - hence the fact that cultures around the world have similar prohibitions against things like murder and theft - because such activities undermine the cohesion of the tribe. It's part of the survival instinct.
We run into difficulties because everyone has a different definition of what constitutes the tribe.
Am I a tribe of 1? Is my tribe only my immediate genetic relatives? My extended family? My village? My country? All people? Only those who worship the same god(s) as I do? Does my tribe include other species?

"What I find dangerous about the view that morality is only a societal construct is that in essence, it gives license to the majority (or the powerful) to dictate to the minority."

Rob, I agree. That's why I like the idea of an underlying moral sense encoded in our brains. When a religion claims that its moral rules are set by a supreme being, I see the claim as just another societal construct.

This has been an interesting discussion. What I find dangerous about the view that morality is only a societal construct is that in essence, it gives license to the majority (or the powerful) to dictate to the minority. Basically, any rights the minority hold are held only at the pleasure of the majority.

Yet more irony: when atheists rail against the injustices perpetrated by societies in the name of religion (which I would modify to in their quest for power) those doing the injustice were simply living by their societal morality.

Fate:
"it is a difference in perception of harm. Your mother's concern was not one of morality but one of concern for your well being. She may discuss it in terms of morality and religion, but its the fact that you are her daughter and her worry about your well being that makes it an issue with her."

Concern for my safety, I suppose, is why she told me that it would cause me to go to hell.

lepidopteryx wrote:

"Morality IS a cultural construct. Different cultures have different moral standards. Even within the same culture, different subgroups have different moral standards."

You will always find some differences but at a high level there is little difference between cultures. What cultures consider murder or stealing to be normal within their culture. Most if not all societies apply the golden rule to their morality, 'Don't do unto others what you would not want done to you'. This is a result of humans having empathy, the ability to imagine what another person is going through emotionally.

lepidopteryx continues:

"My mother is Christian - she considers my having cohabited with my husband before we married to be immoral. I am pagan - I do not consider consensual sex between adults to be immoral, whether or not they are married. In some cases, what is moral for one person is immoral for another, and vice versa. The only absolute moral standard that I acknowledge is that an action is immoral if it is performed to bring physical, mental, or emotional harm to another."

This is not a good comparison of moralities. A child may wish to swim in a lake but the parent considers it dangerous. That is not a difference in morality, it is a difference in perception of harm. Your mother's concern was not one of morality but one of concern for your well being. She may discuss it in terms of morality and religion, but its the fact that you are her daughter and her worry about your well being that makes it an issue with her. Do you see her running around telling others to stop cohabitating? Probably not, but I'll bet if she saw an attempted murder or someone stealing she would try to stop it. And the last thing to run through her mind would be religious teachings against murder or stealing.

Cal once again shows his hypocracy while trying to sound even handed. First Cal sound like he is including all religions by saying:

"One should not expect an individual faith to be singled out for special consideration or imposition -- and that includes the "faith" of secularism. Neither should a specific prayer be promoted in public schools and universities, as has been advocated by some in the past."

Cal seems to be saying that all religions should be represented. That is fine, but does Cal have any idea how many religions exist? I don't think Cal really expects this but is actually thinking that religion be represented as a reflection of the community. More christians would mean more lessons on christianity. That's a guess on my part but Cal offers support for my idea here:

"Unfortunately, at too many universities, God has become the embarrassment and that attitude has robbed students of the only component that can answer the eternal questions: Who am I? Why am I here? Where am I headed?."

So it appears that in Cal's mind religion means "God" and nothing else (except secularism, whatever that is). So are the following also to be taught?: Hinduism, Buddism, Sikhism, Chinese traditional religion, primal-indigenous religions, African Traditional & Diasporic, Juche, Spiritism, Baha'i, Jainism, Shinto, Cao Dai, Zoroastrianism, Tenrikyo, Neo-Paganism, Rastafarianism, Scientology and Wiccan?

It seems obvious that Cal only considers belief in a single God to be "religion". So be careful when Cal sounds like he is inclusive of other religions. He is not.

IMHO no religion should be taught in school except in comparitive religion courses, usually at the high school level and above. If Harvard students did not learn about God, then blame their parents, not Harvard. I wonder how Cal would react to his kids being taught the proper way to pray to the hindu god Ganesh?

Mike and Maurie, thanks for expanding on my point. I strongly disagree with the idea of morality being determined by a supreme being. That has nothing to do with fair play or with avoiding harm to others, in my view. That is simply about pleasing or placating an authority figure. Beyond the question of whether the figure even exists, there is the possibility that the figure could create morality rules that are arbitrary.

Tonio,

As Dawkins and many others have pointed out, there seems to be a universal moral grammar in much the same way Chomsky showed there is a universal grammar for language encoded in our brain. This does not mean that everyone speaks the same language, nor does it mean that every culture shares the same moral values. There is a great deal of variation due to cultural influences. However, underneath that variation there appears to be a basic moral foundation of right and wrong based on fair play. This is not surprising in social animals such as ourselves, where the social environment imposes strong selection. An underlying moral sense aids in the function and stablity of any social group.

Duckphup: I don't disagree with any of your points there. It was using the latter definition of the term "fact".

Tonio: Dawkins' hypothesis is interesting and I wouldn't argue much against it. However, I'd say it's at least complimentary to my comments. If, in fact, his hypothesis would be shown to be correct, societal functionality would still be the factor that drives the definition of moral, which was my point.

"Those moral positions that might be largely held across cultures do not exist because of some sort of built-in morality, but rather because even vastly different societies and cultures have similar qualities."

Mike K., Richard Dawkins has hypothesized that humans may have evolved with a moral sense to ensure community survival. Researchers have observed rudimentary moral behavior in animals such as chimpanzees. It's possible that morality may be caused by a combination of genetic and cultural factors.

Mike K. wrote: "Evolution is a fact (although one can argue against some examples of it) and is not only considered so by atheists. The two are not mutually inclusive."

Actually Mark, there is a little more to it than that. Evolution is a scientific theory. In science, theories occupy a higher tier of importance than mere 'facts'... theories EXPLAIN facts. The theory of evolution EXPLAINS the OBSERVED FACT that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over time. These observed facts are NOT in dispute, and they are readily evident in the fossil record, biology, genetics, palentology, etc.... more-so now than they were in Darwin's day.

The theory identifies two primary mechanisms which ACCOUNT FOR the OBSERVED FACTS:

* genetic drift... statistical variations in allele frequency, over time

* natural selection... the non-random replication of randomly varying replicators (Dawkins' excellent phrase)

The FACTS (the genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over time) ARE NOT in dispute. There is ongoing conversation about OTHER possible mechanisms which may ALSO account, in part, for the OBSERVED FACT that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over time, such as 'punctuated equilibrium'.

Admitedly, though, the word 'fact' CAN be applied to evolution in the sense of COMMON USAGE in science... that being:

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent'. ~ Stephen J. Gould

In THAT sense, 'evolution' is, indeed, 'fact'. Generally, though, when religionists go about pooh-poohing 'evolution', they do so from a position of total (and often 'willful') ignorance of the theory of evolution and the knowledge-bases contained in biology, genetics, paleontology, etc. In other words, they are denying the undeniable reality of the world, in a way that is reminiscent of those who opposed the ideas of Galileo and Giordano Bruno. (Galileo was merely forced to recant, and placed under house-arrest for the remainder of his days. Bruno was tortured and burned at the stake.)

Rob, you wrote "Then the concept of morality has no real meaning beyond what the individual or the majority of a society believes it to be."

Yes, that's exactly correct. Morality, as a concept, was created in order to foster functional societies. That which would promote disfunction within the society is deemed immoral. The opposite is likewise true.

As societies differ, so does the collective understanding of morality. There exists few, if any, moral positions that are universally held. The concept of universal or divinely inspired morality has little argumentative support. Those moral positions that might be largely held across cultures do not exist because of some sort of built-in morality, but rather because even vastly different societies and cultures have similar qualities.

First of all, I am not an atheist - I am an eclectic pagan.

Secondly, I never equated religion with chld abuse. I was brought up Christian, and as a teen, realized that it did not work for me. I read, studied, and interacted with people of many different belief systems, and finally constructed one that works for me. I didn't teach my daughter to practice any religion. I have my beliefs nad practices, and she is free to join me in them or not. She is free to attend any other religious/spiritual gathering she wishes to, and has been to Christian churces, synagogues, Buddhist temples, Mahikari dojos, Wiccan circles, and mosques. She has not found one single path that works for her, but has found that there are elements of all of them that she admires. She has come to the conclusion that the path that works best for her is to simply treat others with kindness, and not worry about what label to attach to herself. Smart kid, my daughter.
As for my statement about acknowledging moral absolutes - let me clarify. I find spiritual wisdom in many places, and I don't sort it by source. It matters not whether it comes from the Bible, the Qu'ran, Dr. Suess, a Lorca poem, an episode of Captain Kangaroo, or the lyrics of a Leonard Cohen song. Among the many faith traditions recognized as such, there are varying opinions on what constitutes moral and immoral behavior. For example, to some, sex outside of legal marriage is immoral, to others, it is not. It is not an absolute.
I would say that it's a pretty safe bet to say that most cultures have some sort of overarching moral prohibition against harming others for no good reason. While it may not be a true absolute, it comes pretty damn close. Problems arise because of differing ideas as to what constitutes a good reason.
As for a moral obligation to indoctrinate other people's children, that's where the Constitution comes in. Public schools are secualr institutions, not religious ones. Therefore, they are under the domain of secular law, not religious law.
As for the "My culture is better than your culture" bit, it's cute, but not really an argument. Ask most people if they think that their culture is better than others, and they will say yes. Ask most people if they think that their spiritual path is the one and only True Path, and they will say yes.

LEPIDOPTERYX wrote:

"Morality IS a cultural construct. ... The only absolute moral standard that I acknowledge is ..."

This is the problem with most atheist arguments when it comes to morality, ironically enough including the bigoted few who equate religion with child abuse.

Morality either is or is not an ultimately meaningless cultural construct. There is no room for shades of gray. In the space of a sentence and a paragraph, you have both made an argument and undermined it. On one hand you've said morality is what a culture says it is, on the other you've left sufficient room to condemn countless actions as immoral according to what you believe to be some moral trump card.

Now the irony part. Take the culture of people who go to some worship service and believe that they are morally obligated to indoctrinate theie children into this religion. Now a person who HONESTLY believes that morality is merely a cultural construct would look at that and say, hmmm, interesting. That same person could NOT honestly label it evil.

Imagine the conversation:

"Hmmm, what they are doing is wrong."
"Why?"
"Because it's what my culture thinks."
"Why is your culture better than theirs?"
"Because I said so."

THEFACTS wrote: "Amazing how some within resort to misspellings as fodder for response...cheap, lame and infantile...must be a teenager."

Ok, THEFACTS, I'll respond to your original comments although critiquing spelling and grammer is valid as it's often a reflection on one's cognitive abilities.

You stated "Keep your uncle ameoba, aunt amoeba, life-reducing, hissy-fitting-attitudes-because-I-cant-seem-to-sway-believers-in-God-to-my-way-of-thinking in your own homes, and leave them out of society, period!!!"

Evolution is a fact (although one can argue against some examples of it) and is not only considered so by atheists. The two are not mutually inclusive.

You also said "(Some of us believe we have more purpose in life than coming from the slime pits and returning to the same)."

And so do many atheists. My life has the purpose to which I ascribe it.

You then went on to state "All the people over all the millenia who have believed in God are all morons to you people."

Simply a false statement designed to demonize atheists. I don't think theists are morons. Do you think followers of other religions are morons?

Then, "So why hasnt your way become the majority...ever?"

The number of people who believe something has nothing to do with the validity of that thing. If that were true, then Christianity should be considered false simply on the basis that the majority of the world does not subscribe to it.

You then repeated your attempted insult by suggesting "All Isrealites, gentile converts, early and modern Christians are clueless and your not. Yeah, right."

Again, I, as well as most atheists, do not consider others with different beliefs to be "clueless". Please don't speak for atheists as you clearly do not understand us.

You finished with "All who attend churches to learn to follow a way of life that, if done to the best of ones ability, brings more abundance than you will ever experience."

If you're referring to wealth your comment is patently untrue. One's churchgoing habits has absolutely no bearing on their earning capacity. Education, of course, does.

"Then the concept of morality has no real meaning beyond what the individual or the majority of a society believes it to be."

And the problem with that is what? Morality IS a cultural construct.

Different cultures have different moral standards. Even within the same culture, different subgroups have different moral standards. My mother is Christian - she considers my having cohabited with my husband before we married to be immoral. I am pagan - I do not consider consensual sex between adults to be immoral, whether or not they are married. In some cases, what is moral for one person is immoral for another, and vice versa. The only absolute moral standard that I acknowledge is that an action is immoral if it is performed to bring physical, mental, or emotional harm to another.

That last one was mine.

Me, Myself, and I wrote:

"What’s wrong with being “left with only self?”"

Then the concept of morality has no real meaning beyond what the individual or the majority of a society believes it to be.

Ba'al,

Scooters don't go very fast, do they? Maybe this one will.

THEFACTS wrote: "Atheism should be taught in schools...they should teach how shallow, dangerous and lacking it is."

-- Shallow, dangerous and lacking? LOL. You obviously have no idea what an atheist is. Atheism certainly cannot be 'taught'. Consider: You have a world-view (belief system) that is dictated by one of the Abrahamic death-cults of desert monotheism (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), and thus it is rooted in the myths, superstitions, fairy tales and fantastical delusions of an ignorant bunch of Bronze Age fishermen and itinerant goat herders. Atheists are (for the most part) rational indivisuals... i.e., people who are not stupid and gullible enough to allow such obvious codswallop to shape their world-view.

("I contend that we are both atheists.  I just believe in one fewer god than you do.  When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." ~ Stephen Roberts) --

THEFACTS wrote: "We all can create and plan, but, alas, we all came from the slime pits...now (sic) way would we ever admit to a being smart enough to create us."

-- That statement reveals that you are one of those 'Intelligent Design' proponents who sees 'complexity' as proof of 'design'... which thus establishes the need of a 'designer'. The foolishness that serves you as a substitute for knowledge and reason is a logical fallacy (a flaw in thinking) known as the "Argument From Incredulity"... which is a sub-category of the "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" (Argument From Ignorance). It goes something like this: "I can't otherwise imagine or conceive of how this might have come to be; therefore, God did it."

Where the scientist would say "We don't have a complete answer to that yet... but we're got come pretty good ideas, and we're working on it.", you would say "Ah-ha... you don't know. Therefore, God did it ."

That does not point to a limitation of nature... rather, it exemplifies a limitation of knowledge and/or intellect. Also, it is intellectually dishonest, since it does not (as scientists do) ACKNOWLEDGE a limitation of knowledge and/or intellect... it merely invokes the fanciful idea of an invisible, supernatural, magical sky-fairy (creator-entity... god) to suppress your AWARENESS of ignorance and manifest the ILLUSION that you possess 'knowledge'.

'Faith' (wishful, magical thinking) is a substitute for evidence.

'Belief' (the internalized 'certainty' that you are privy to the 'truth' pertaining to some fundamental aspect of existence and/or reality) is a substitute for knowledge.

faith + belief = self-delusion and willful ignorance

("The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance... it is the illusion of knowledge." ~ Daniel Boorstin)

("When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." ~ Robert M. Pirsig)

In this day, facts in evidence weigh most heavily on the side of naturalistic explanations for the existence of the world, the universe and life... and Creationists have introduced a fatal flaw into their 'Intelligent Design' arguments by asserting (or implying) that the 'complexity' of the universe demands a 'creator'.

The main argument for the necessity of a creator hinges on 'complexity'; i.e., "... something as 'complex' as the world, the universe and life must have a creator... it is the only thing that makes sense." But, if you think about it (Christians, in general, are not renowned for their critical thinking skills), it makes no sense at all. In fact, the 'designer' argument is a sterling example of the 'Argument from Incredulity' (see above).

The argument asserts that something so complex as a pocket watch (or the universe, or life) requires a creator who, of necessity, must be more complex than the creation... otherwise, it would have been impossible for the 'creator' to 'design' it, or create it. But IF complexity requires a more complex creator, THEN the FACT of the creator's complexity demands, of necessity, that it (the 'creator') must ALSO have been created by a MORE complex creator. Remember, according to the argument, complexity (complicatedness) cannot arise by itself... it can ONLY arise as a product of 'design'. That being the case, then, we end up with an infinite regression... creation... creator... creation... creator... creation... creator... creation... creator... etc... ad infinitum... ad nauseum... leading to infinite complexity (whatever THAT is). That is impossible... and thus, so is the concept of a creator of the universe... IF the logical argument for a creator is predicated on 'complexity'... which it is.

(Readers should take note that 'complicated'... which is what the Intelligent Design' folks mean when they say 'complex'... is a VERY naive definition, and is not at all what scientists and mathematicians mean when they speak of 'complexity'. 'Complicated is the opposite of 'simple'. 'Complex' is the opposite of 'independent'. Complex systems are typically self-organizing and self-adaptive (which certainly doesn't apply to watches), and they typically exhibit 'emergent' properties and behaviors (also does not apply to watches). So, when creationists/IDists say 'complex', they mean 'complicated'. But when I say things like "complexity arises from simplicity", I do NOT merely mean that "... things get more complicated.")

Also, they can not seem to differentiate between natural systems and human artifacts (eg., a watch):

* A watch is complex (complicated).
* We know that the watch was designed and created by an intelligent agent of greater complexity.
* The universe is complex (complicated);
* Therefore, the universe, of necessity, MUST HAVE BEEN designed and created by an intelligent agent of greater complexity.

That, in a nutshell, expresses the whole of the argument for intelligent design... an exemplar of sloppy, fallacious thinking.

Creationists conveniently ignore, though, the simple observable fact that in natural systems, complexity DOES arise from simplicity, in accordance with elementary natural processes and rules. (Interested parties should look up 'self-organizing complex systems'.)

Some religionists try to get around this dilemma by positing that some all-powerful, supernatural, universe-creating entity evolved, all by 'himself' (itself?), from simple beginnings; but that proposition self-destructs upon the shoals of their own insistence that their deity is eternal: "... always was and always will be." --

THEFACTS wrote: "So, its curtains for all us descendants of amoeba. No purpose, no hope, just look to mans wisdom. Wait for the next superweapon that those bright scientists can create to wipe us all off the earth. If this was taught, maybe people will stay away from these deranged, man-made (for sure) cults!"

-- Atheism can be perceived as a 'cult' (or a'belief' or a 'faith') only in the same sense that NOT collecting stamps might be regarded as a hobby.

Your statement reeks of the sentiment that atheists operate without the benefit of any moral compass. Perhaps you should chew on this for a little while...

Christians make up about 75% of the US population and 75% of the US prison population. No big surprise there.

Atheists, on the other hand, make up about 10% of the US population... but they only make up 0.2% of the US prison population. Now, isn't THAT a surprise? That means that atheists, on a per capita basis, are FIFTY (50) times LESS LIKELY to be incarcerated than Christians. Pretty strange, huh, for a group that has no god-given guiding moral principals?

I can think of only two possibilities that might reasonably be said to account for this discrepancy:

1. Atheists are of a higher ethical and moral caliber than Christians, and thus are less prone to do the same kinds of nasty things that land so many Christians in the slammer;

OR,

2. Atheists are, overall, a lot smarter than Christians and thus, they are less likely to get caught in the course of their transgressions.

It's GOT to be one or the other... take your pick.--

This is off topic, but does anybody have the official over-under for how long it is going to take for Scooter Libby to find Jesus?

Amazing how some within resort to misspellings as fodder for response...cheap, lame and infantile...must be a teenager.

Anonymous:
Religion should be taught in schools...they should teach how dangerous and generally mad religions are so hopefully people will stay away from these deranged, man-made, cults!

How about..

Atheism should be taught in schools...they should teach how shallow, dangerous and lacking it is. We all can create and plan, but, alas, we all came from the slime pits...now way would we ever admit to a being smart enough to create us. So, its curtains for all us descendants of amoeba. No purpose, no hope, just look to mans wisdom. Wait for the next superweapon that those bright scientists can create to wipe us all off the earth. If this was taught, maybe people will stay away from these deranged, man-made (for sure) cults!

I'm the one who quoted The Daily Show - I keep forgetting to post my name each time.

True Christian: "If our government was run by Christians and Christians were no longer persecuted, then God would sanctify our country and we would all ascend to heaven in rapture."

Regarding the persecution of Christians in America...

I dispute your premise that Christians aren't being persecuted. Think about it.

In this country, if there weren't a massive government conspiracy to persecute Christians, there would be Christian Churches on every other street corner, Christians could stand on the sidewalk talking to strangers about their faith without fear, public places would be decorated during important Christian holidays, many politicians could be openly Christian and still get elected, lawmakers would jockey for the support of Christian religious leaders and Priests and Pastors would wield tremendous power over local, State and Federal government. We might even have some sort of public statement of faith written on a ubiquitous symbol of government... not sure where, though...
I look forward to the day when the Secular Humanist conspiracy collapses and lets Christians come out in the open and celebrate their beliefs freely. It might just happen in my lifetime. We may one day even see a Christian President in the White House! ...or 27 consecutively.
Daily Show with Jon Stewart

True Christian wrote: "If our government was run by Christians and Christians were no longer persecuted, then God would sanctify our country and we would all ascend to heaven in rapture."

"I am treated as evil by Christians, who claim that they are being persecuted because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do." ~ D. Dale Gulledge

"If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal.  If he would follow strictly the teachings of the New, he would be insane." ~ Robert G. Ingersoll

True Christian wrote: "Do not resist, but submit to Christ, and you will find peace."

"You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile." ~ the Borg

THEFACTS stated: "All Isrealites, gentile converts, early and modern Christians are clueless and your not. Yeah, right."

You may have made a stronger point if you didn't misspell "you're" while trying to dissuade someone from thinking that you're clueless.

Maurie, I sorta-kinda realized you weren't being serious. I wrote my comment to vent my frustration at the attitude I described, not to vent at you specifically.

Religion should be taught in schools...they should teach how dangerous and generally mad religions are so hopefully people will stay away from these deranged, man-made, cults!

That last anonymous was me.

Tonio,

Read my post again. I was being facetious.

If you talked to them with the care and understanding that you probably use in talking to young children, they might not feel the hatred that we actually feel for them.

Anonymous stated:

Keep your unseen, unproven, fantasy Gods and fairies in your own homes, and leave them out of politics and education!!!

Cave-dwellers!

In response:

Keep your uncle ameoba, aunt amoeba, life-reducing, hissy-fitting-attitudes-because-I-cant-seem-to-sway-believers-in-God-to-my-way-of-thinking in your own homes, and leave them out of society, period!!! (Some of us believe we have more purpose in life than coming from the slime pits and returning to the same). All the people over all the millenia who have believed in God are all morons to you people. So why hasnt your way become the majority...ever? All Isrealites, gentile converts, early and modern Christians are clueless and your not. Yeah, right. All who attend churches to learn to follow a way of life that, if done to the best of ones ability, brings more abundance than you will ever experience.

Darwin worshipers! There is a way that seems right unto a man.....

True Christian:
"If everybody took Jesus Christ into their heart, they would all be happy. Therefore, teaching the benefits of Christianity in public schools would ultimately make people happier and better citizens."

The same could be said about any other religion. If everybody took the Flying Spaghetti Monster into their heart, they would all be happy. Therefore, teaching the benefits of FSMism in ublic schools would ultimately make people happier and better citizens. R'Amen, brother.

I apologize for the name error, Maurie.

"Ashley, the tone and content of your post is the reason why Christians feel persecuted."

Maurice, criticizing Christian doctrine does not equate to persecution of Christians.

Rafael,

I agree with you completely.

True Christian,

(1) Who is persecuting Christians in the United States?

(2) "If everybody took Jesus Christ into their heart, they would all be happy. Therefore, teaching the benefits of Christianity in public schools would ultimately make people happier and better citizens." (your words)

True Christian: My wish for you is that you will find a time machine to regress you to Generalissimo Francisco Franco's fascist-clerical Catholic dictatorship in Spain, and to Ante Pavelic's Hitleresque-clerical Catholic Christian dictatorship in Croatia.

These leaders had Jesus Christ in their hearts and taught Christianity in their public schools.

Of course Pavelic's Ustashe paramilitary thugs also slaughtered every man, woman and child they could find who was an Orthodox rather than a Catholic Christian.

If a child made the sign of the cross the "wrong" way (right to left rather left to right) the child was butchered on the spot.

But they were all Christians and so presumably happy.

Any public school systems in the U.S. want to teach about the WWII Croatian Catholic concentration camps that were worse than Hitler's?

Ashley, the tone and content of your post is the reason why Christians feel persecuted. If you talked to them with the care and understanding that you probably use in talking to young children, they might not feel the hatred that we actually feel for them. Of course, you might feel the same way about babies and religion that W. C. Fields felt; "There is not a man in America who has not had a secret ambition to boot an infant." I would add, especially a Christian infant who is Christian through no fault of their own. "...more people are driven insane through religious hysteria than by drinking alcohol." I wonder if Cal is a tippler, too?

I completely agree with Cal when he says we should teach religions in school.

We should teach students the many ways in which the major religions completely contradict known facts about the universe. We should teach them how books like the Bible constantly contradict themselves. As part of this, we should teach kids how to think critically and to approach mystical claims with a skeptical eye.

The US would be much better off if we as a nation weren't so astoundingly ignorant about the Christian Bible. If more people knew what it actually says, a lot fewer people would hold it in unwarranted high regard.

Cal, you could benefit from such a class, though I doubt it's what you had in mind.

If our government was run by Christians and Christians were no longer persecuted, then God would sanctify our country and we would all ascend to heaven in rapture.

Do not resist, but submit to Christ, and you will find peace.

true X-ain

Sorry, people who have taken JC into their hearts are still unhappy.
I know, I grew up going to church and my friends in school all went to the church. We were not happy. In fact, the time I stopped thinking about killing myself was when I stopped going to church. Don't think everyone will be like you.

"If everybody took Jesus Christ into their heart, they would all be happy. Therefore, teaching the benefits of Christianity in public schools would ultimately make people happier and better citizens."

I dare say if they were taught to follow the Middle Way teachings of Buddha they would be not only even happier but less of a threat to others. True Christian, will you join with me in advocating for a stupa on every high school campus?

Is there really a "true Christian?"

Matthew 19:21 Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your posessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come follow me."

There are no "complete Christians" of record.

If a rich man gives all he has to a poor man what happens to the two men?

Yep. Teach that to the children and tell them it's God's word. They'll be so much better for it. Now imagine where we would be if our government officials had gotten good Christian educations.

----One hardly needs a belief in a supernatural being to be moral.---

Very well put.

----One hardly needs a belief in a supernatural being to be moral.---

It sure comes in handy when you act in an immoral way and want to get away with it though!

Rob, you stated "Yes, of course you can answer them without religious belief. But I would argue that your answer belies a very self-centered existence. (NOT necessarily SELFISH, mind you, they are two very different things.) And I think it's telling. Without an examination of morality (with or without a devine Godhead), you are left with only self."

I fail to see how my answer implies a self-centered viewpoint. Nor do I see how my answer implies that my approach to life is somehow devoid of an examination of morality. Logic, reason and empathy can easily allow one to navigate any moral minefields. One hardly needs a belief in a supernatural being to be moral.

If everybody took Jesus Christ into their heart, they would all be happy. Therefore, teaching the benefits of Christianity in public schools would ultimately make people happier and better citizens.

Keep your unseen, unproven, fantasy Gods and fairies in your own homes, and leave them out of politics and education!!!

Cave-dwellers!

Rob, your post reads:

"Yes, of course you can answer them without religious belief. But I would argue that your answer belies a very self-centered existence. (NOT necessarily SELFISH, mind you, they are two very different things.) And I think it's telling. Without an examination of morality (with or without a devine [sic] Godhead), you are left with only self."

Thank you for differentiating between self-centered and selfish and I agree there is a big difference. But ultimately, what is the single, concrete constant present in every moment of an individual's existence? One could argue it is this said "self," and based on that knowledge, every action is ever-more important.

What’s wrong with being “left with only self?” Is it too frightening to know you and only you is responsible for your choices and your circumstances? Is death so frightening to face alone we must construct some sort of elaborate afterlife fantasy to soften the blow of nonexistence? And who says that atheists do not examine their own morality? Perhaps atheists scrutinize their moral standards even more stringently than deists because they must take the time to craft their own values rather than blindly accepting ones given to them via ancient tome or stone tablet.

This is not to say that all atheists would construct superior moral standards compared to deists’ dogma, but wouldn’t you agree the pursuit of doing good just for good’s sake would be a nobler option than performing charitable acts in hopes of receiving some eternal heavenly reward?

Onto the original topic, I believe religion courses should be available to college students, but not necessarily required. A working knowledge of various religions really helps when writing term papers on interpretations of the Western canon, but not necessarily with answering our most existential questions.

I've never thought of myself as a secular humanist, and I agree with almost all of Ba'al's post from 3:54 p.m.

"Also, one person's claim to supernatural knowledge should be treated as suspect as the next, and certainly should not be used as a pretext to fight wars or persecute people."

I would add that some (not all) religious wars and persecutions happen because the people involved honestly believe that deity has ordered them to kill and persecute.

Duke

Apology is accepted, I was a bit puzzled for a second.

But I am sure nevertheless that some of your criticisms apply to me. In response, I would not say that I have "faith" in secular humanism. Faith is the wrong word. In fact, I would argue that it is useless to try to know something by faith, since it inevitably amounts to assuming your desired result! Proof by assumption is not very rigorous. I would strongly suggest that the fact that some things are unknowable does not make life meaningless. People who suggest otherwise, like Cal Thomas, are engaging in a juvenile rhetorical trick.

I think most secular humanists would agree that some things are a lot more likely than other things, and some questions are susceptible to scientific analysis and those that are not are not always good questions. Also, one person's claim to supernatural knowledge should be treated as suspect as the next, and certainly should not be used as a pretext to fight wars or persecute people.

Childhood indoctrination is a powerful thing. It can make people blind to things that are obvious to a dispassionate observer.

Mike K. wrote:

"Who am I? I'm a human being with a particular personsonality, the ability to reason, free will and free thought.

Why am I here? There is no build-in reason. We give our lives meaning based on our own values and ideas.

Where am I going? I will continue to live according to the second question and then I will cease to exist.

My ability to easily answer those questions is strong evidence against Cal's claim that religion or faith is the only means by which they can be answered."

Yes, of course you can answer them without religious belief. But I would argue that your answer belies a very self-centered existence. (NOT necessarily SELFISH, mind you, they are two very different things.) And I think it's telling. Without an examination of morality (with or without a devine Godhead), you are left with only self.

Lad:

You are wrong. Point blank wrong. Postmodernism, in the good that it has done, has uncovered or "deconstructed", if you will, the violent metanarrative of a faithless worldview based on reason, science, and bank accounts.

Secularism is indeed a faith, and the high priests of modernism and the Enlightenment continue to preach its gospel.

My apologies to Ba'al in my comment above. I incorrectly attributed a comment to him/her which was in fact made by Bgone.

Wow,

Cal actually wrote something that I pretty much agree with. He is incorrect though about secularism being a faith. That is just silly, it is not even really an ism.

Student should learn about religion, but no they should not be prostylised to by teachers, principals or their fellow students in a public school. That would be unworkable at best, and certainly inappropriate.

Ba'al:

Please don't tell me that why we're here is a guess this is "as good as anyone else's guess" and then proceed to tell me that "In the mean time, perhaps the ministry could try doing what Jesus said, 'sell all your earthly possessions and give to the poor'."

If any guess is as good as the next then I'd be more happy if you would keep you own guesses to yourself. If religious fundamentalism is bad, equally bad is secular atheistic fundamentalism that wants to still pretend it can make value judgments.

Stop your madness.

Tonio, I don't disagree and I think my point still stands. I /was/ able to answer them without divine intervention. :)

Last post was mine. Apparently I forgot to sign in.

"My ability to easily answer those questions is strong evidence against Cal's claim that religion or faith is the only means by which they can be answered."

That's not the way that I read Cal's last paragraph. In my view, Cal was claiming that his god was the only source of answers.

Cal stated: "God has become the embarrassment and that attitude has robbed students of the only component that can answer the eternal questions: Who am I? Why am I here? Where am I headed?."

I was with him up to that point. Religion is clearly not the only means by which those questions can be answered. As an atheist, I answer them with the following:

Who am I? I'm a human being with a particular personsonality, the ability to reason, free will and free thought.

Why am I here? There is no build-in reason. We give our lives meaning based on our own values and ideas.

Where am I going? I will continue to live according to the second question and then I will cease to exist.

My ability to easily answer those questions is strong evidence against Cal's claim that religion or faith is the only means by which they can be answered.

Thanks DW -- That answers Dan Dennett's question of how to fit a religion course in an already tight academic schedule.

What you propose could be quickly handled at the beginning of recess.

Answers to eternal questions with a belief in God:

Who am I:
A creation, fearfully and wonderfully made by my creator, God. (He too gave me the ability to plan and create in my human realm...an added extra!)

Why am I here:
Made in His image, I was created to eventually become a part of the family of God. I am currently in the process of learning my potential, both physically and spiritually, and I live, as best I can, to uphold the excellence, not only of my creation and the creation around me, but of God's intended purpose and plan for mankind.

Where am I headed:
My goal is to be a part of God's Kingdom, to be established at the return of Jesus Christ

Good idea Cal. Let the learning begin with, the Bible is a proved hoax. Then they can go into the details of the proof, the history of Amenophis IV, "Amen, the faithful and true witness" in one hand and a Bible, (not meaning to leave out the Ko'ran, Book of Mormon and all other sacred scriptures) in the other. Then, as the old expression goes, let the chips fall where they may. That will allow us to determine if young minds given all the facts will still flock to Jesus.

The information at http://www.hoax-buster.org is not going away. It is being verified and the presentation being refined by the teaching authorities right now.

Life has two major unsolved mysteries, where we came from and where we are going, (if anywhere) and a set of sub mysteries, why we're here being a significant one but just as unanswerable, anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's guess.

In the mean time, perhaps the ministry could try doing what Jesus said, "sell all your earthly posessions and give to the poor."

If I were an adherent of any religion I wouldn't want it taught in the public schools. The teacher, if not of my faith, wouldn't get it right.

Think of the poor teachers. Every sect will be after them incessantly and vociferously to have their faith taught about in a certain way. And probably to have other faiths presented in a derogatory way.

Also, it's impossible to teach in school about every religion and sect - there are too many of them.

So who gets left out and doesn't benefit from the free public school P.R.? The Buddhists, the Wiccans? (Try getting a school board to approve teaching about Wiccans or Druids!)

If you think the religio-cultural wars are bad now, just wait until the public schools teach "about" religion, and the kids fight each other over religion on the way home.

All this stuff can perfectly well wait until college.

"God has become the embarrassment and that attitude has robbed students of the only component that can answer the eternal questions: Who am I? Why am I here? Where am I headed?"

Thomas' doctrinal chauvinism is part of the problem. Those eternal questions have no "correct" answers. The attempted answers offered by the various religions should be evaluated on their own merits.

"This confusion and difficulty associated with teaching religion in public schools is real. But all too often the source of the problem is attributed to religion rather than to secularist nature of the public schools itself."

More here:
http://www.acton.org/blog/index.html?/archives/1536-Religion-as-the-Fourth-R.html

Sorry, the first post is mine.

Cal was going ok here when he pointed out that knowledge of religion is necessary to make sense of the world from a historical and cultural perspective. I think beyond art and literature, it might have been helpful, for example, in deciding on steps that one might take in stabilizing Iraq after an invasion.

But then he says that a secular approach has "robbed students of the only component that can answer the eternal questions: Who am I? Why am I here? Where am I headed?"

Not surprising coming from right wing fundamentalist Cal Thomas, but not a cogent argument. Even he would agree that people in different religions, even different Christian denominations, come up with very different answers to those questions, even when they argue from the same texts (as spurious as they are). Therefore it is difficult to argue that belief in an "imaginary friend" (or even a whole panoply of them) provides a consistently useful tool to answer those questions. For one thing, the holders of these beliefs refuse to admit that anything could refute their beliefs. This is not a helpful mindset. Go ahead and indoctrinate your children if you must, but do it on your own dime.