Seperation of Church & School

[Freecare Spiritwise]

If most people believed that 1+2 = 4 then what danger is there telling your kids that most of the world's population believes this?
If most people on earth believed that Obama isn't a citizen or that Jews caused 9/11 then even that should be addressed and openly debated.

I'm not sure what you're little collage is implying here. Are you saying the facts should be presented and not subject to open debate? If you're so confident that the world is round then you should have no problem debating that.

Maybe there's a flying spaghetti monster who disrupts all our scientific instruments to give us misleading results about the shape of the world and many other things, possibly for its own amusement. If most people on earth believe this then there should be discussion!

[Jarochai Alabaster]

If most people believed that 1+2 = 4 then what danger is there telling your kids that most of the world's population believes this?

That would belong in a sociology class, not a math class.

If most people on earth believed that Obama isn't a citizen or that Jews caused 9/11 then even that should be addressed and openly debated.

These would belong, again, in a sociology class, not a government or history class, respectively.

Are you saying the facts should be presented and not subject to open debate?

If every single item of established fact were debated in high school classrooms, there would be very little time for presenting actual facts as the class would sit around debating germ theory, gravity, heliocentric theory, the holocaust and would simply never get to even touch upon other subjects.

If you're so confident that the world is round then you should have no problem debating that.

There's a reason geologists don't make a habit of debating flat-earthers - it gives them undeserved credibility.

Maybe there's a flying spaghetti monster who disrupts all our scientific instruments to give us misleading results about the shape of the world and many other things, possibly for its own amusement.

Sure, it's possible, but extraordinarily unlikely.

If most people on earth believe this then there should be discussion!

Not in the science room.

Edit: High school science classrooms aren't the place for debate. University classrooms are a much better place for this, and even then they aren't that great of a place. Scientific debate takes place among the scientific community in a process called "peer review." High school is where the foundations are laid - we present the leading theory (or theories), explain what observations were made and how those conclusions were reached, and move on to the next subject. Proving heliocentrism, for example, would take months of observation on the part of the students (And hours of after-dark homework requiring telescopes). It is simply NOT feasible for debate on established scientific and historical consensus to take place in the high school classroom - there simply isn't enough time for it.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

I agree with you to keep math to math and science to science but not having any appropriate venue telling our kids a word about something that most adults on earth believe is doing them an injustice. Why should a 12 year old be excluded from debates like the one we're having here. Because they're controversial?

I don't think we teach our kids enough about philosophy, religion, ethics. We focus on having them parrot back basic information but we're not creating great thinkers.

This isn't a personal attack but I'm curious how many children you've raised to adulthood. It almost seems like none of these debates have a good showing of stakeholders, which is strangely ironic.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

There's a great mystery to life. Pascal said that every man has a God-shaped vacuum. Many of us feel this great mystery, this great force that can be felt but not explained /defined / quantified. But we feel it all the same. Again, to deny our children even token acknowledgement of this powerful mysterious feeling that most people feel is not giving them a well rounded education.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

not having any appropriate venue telling our kids a word about something that most adults on earth believe is doing them an injustice.

Social Studies, world culture studies, comparative religion studies. All courses available in my high school, and all appropriate venues for explaining and comparing the various beliefs of the various cultures here on earth.

Why should a 12 year old be excluded from debates like the one we're having here. Because they're controversial?

I never said they should be excluded from debate and discussion. But those "debates" don't belong in a science classroom when there exists overwhelming evidence for one particular model, especially when such debate would eat up valuable time that could be used to impart other scientific truths.

Regarding children, I'm 32 and gay. I have no children (Yet, we are discussing the possibility) and certainly wouldn't have had the opportunity to raise any to adulthood. However, this is a non-sequitur.

Pascal said that every man has a God-shaped vacuum.

Pascal was wrong. I personally feel no such vacuum, and I know a great many people who also feel no such vacuum.

Again, to deny our children even token acknowledgement of this powerful mysterious feeling that most people feel is not giving them a well rounded education.

Philosophy classes exist for a reason.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

And, of course, nothing I said above removes the role of the parents in imparting these questions (Or their perceived answers) to their children. Heaven forbid parents teach their children from an early age about morality, or discuss the world's various religions. There is a time and a place for everything. The math class is not the place for discussing philosophy any more than the science class is the place for discussing various creation myths. That's all I'm saying, and you seem to be suggesting we should discuss philosophy in every other subject while insisting there's no philosophy class available. If I've misunderstood I apologize, but that really seems to be the crux of your argument.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

Hmm are we actually mostly in agreement? My point isn't that we should be telling kids about religion in science class, or any unrelated class. It's that these subjects should at least be touched on at some point in a child's public education. These are different subjects. The concrete shouldn't be mixed with intangible in my opinon. But room should be made nonetheless.

And yeah, if your kid doesn't have a strong family environment then it doesn't really matter what he's leraning in school. He's fucked and so is society when he steals your car and runs someone over. It all begins and ends at home, but in the middle our kids spend lots of time getting what I consider to be a mostly crappy education. When they actually do seem to get quality education it's usually in spite of the system not because of it. The great teachers aren't really following the guidelines. That and they're giving a lot more than 9 to 5.

But yet, I think religion should be covered in some form as part of every child's public education. What I'm not suggesting is that it be presented as fact. I'm also not suggesting that it be presented as linked to any other subject. I know a lot of people are so I wanted to clarify that.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

Pascal was wrong. I personally feel no such vacuum, and I know a great many people who also feel no such vacuum.

So the great phlilosopher / mathemeticians and were all right about mathematics and wrong about philosophy? How convenient

It's ironic that the foundation of math, science, law and just critical thinking in general was laid mostly by folks that believed in a higher power...

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Ok, I think we're agreeing here for the most part. I should also clarify (Because I think I failed to do so before) that the history of a subject is necessary for proper education in the subject. That includes false beliefs (Geocentric model as the leading theory prior to Galileo's observations proving the heliocentric model, for example), or the history of a subject outside the scope of the subject's applications (Historical mathematicians and the methods they used to prove various concepts).

I tend to agree with you on the crappy quality of public education, and consider myself poorly educated but still more knowledgeable than the average high school graduate. This would be in spite of the system, and I find great satisfaction in learning about science in general, and cosmology and biology in particular. I'm looking forward to returning to school (Eventually) so I can study these subjects in greater depth. But, for example, I had no idea "algebra" was an arabic word until recently, through my own inquiries, despite having taken several algebra classes through high school and into college. I had no idea where the elements came from until recently, (Again, my own inquiries) despite having learned about chemistry throughout my public education.

I've found the lack of foundational knowledge I received in high school staggering in recent years as I begun educating myself. I even found the community college I attended to be barely more educational than my public schooling, as they seemed more interested in passing students than actually educating them. Hopefully if/when I begin taking classes at an actual university, that will change.

The first step is wanting to learn, and I think that's one of the most important things parents can impart to their children. If we want to learn, we'll find ways to do it even in the face of the ineptitude of our educators. My biggest beef with creationism is that it's the antithesis for the thirst for knowledge. Creationists seem to think they already know everything they need to, and rail against any method for attaining knowledge other than their preferred religious text. If they want to remain ignorant, that's their call. But keep that shit out of the classroom because when I have kids, I want them to not only want to learn, but have the information available to them without mucking it up with mythology presented as an alternative "theory."

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Hey, by my own report I don't have a God-shaped vacuum, therefore the claim that all men posses such is clearly false. Besides, Pascal's wager is bullshit for obvious reasons - he only applied it to his preferred religion.

Sure, great philosophers and scientists believed in God or Gods or higher powers. That says nothing for the validity of such beliefs, and any appeal to authority will be summarily dismissed.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

Hey, by my own report I don't have a God-shaped vacuum, therefore the claim that all men posses such is clearly false. Besides, Pascal's wager is bullshit for obvious reasons - he only applied it to his preferred religion.

Maybe the vacuum is there but it's something for whatever reason that you're not connecting with?

And I think you just hit on the techniques of control used by powerful institutions who have a vested interest in capitalizing on this vacuum to their own ends. This mystical connection most of us feel is and has been traditionally used against us. Our desire to connect with this mysterious force has been used to control us (and our children) and that is wrong. But we don't throw the baby out with the bath water do we? We don't throw the creator out with the bath water just because people are doing fucked up things in his/her/its name.

It's a Buddhist belief that everything in the universe contains the seed of its opposite. Every lie contains a little bit of the truth. Just enough to trigger our "truth detectors".

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Maybe the vacuum is there but it's something for whatever reason that you're not connecting with?

In that case the claim would be completely unresolvable, and just as useless as the claim for the existence of God.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

So you believe that when George Washington had 2 horses shot out from underneath him and 4 bullets pierce his coat but had no bodily injury during the French Indian War that it was just luck? That there was no sort of Divine intervention because of the role he would play in the American Revolution?

[Jarochai Alabaster]

I believe it's far more likely that the scenario was the product of natural events than any "divine intervention," yes. I didn't read the entire wiki article, so if you'd like to quote the relevant parts I may comment, but otherwise I really can't speculate.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Braddock lost several horses, and eventually went down with a mortal wound. Washington was one of the few of Braddock's aides to emerge relatively unscathed, despite being significantly involved in the fighting. He had two horses shot out from under him, and four bullets pierced his coat. He sustained no injuries and showed coolness under fire.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Assuming the account is accurate, all it proves is that bullets pierced Washington's coat without piercing Washington himself. If, for example, his coat was unbuttoned or became loosened in some other fashion, this is hardly evidence of divine intervention - it's evidence of the chaotic nature of the battlefield.

And horses have significantly more surface area than people, so it's not unlikely or even surprising that a horse would get shot while its rider would not.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

I don't think you're accounting for the odds of Washington being pinned by one of the horses or otherwise injured when they were shot beneath him.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

I don't think you're accounting for the odds of Washington being pinned by one of the horses or otherwise injured when they were shot beneath him.

Is it guaranteed that he would have been pinned or otherwise injured? Has no one ever fallen off (Or with) a horse without sustaining injury?

Washington was involved in a battle. His horse was killed. His clothing was damaged. These are not uncommon occurrences in battle, and Washington is almost certainly not the only combatant to survive an intense firefight unharmed while his clothing was damaged by bullets. You're presenting an extraordinary situation, suggesting that it cannot be explained, then assuming an explanation (God did it). Simply put, your conclusion doesn't logically follow the scenario. "I can't explain it, therefore I CAN explain it."

It could have just as easily been alien intervention as divine intervention. Or extraordinary telekinetic abilities that Washington chose to keep secret. Or a glitch in the Matrix.

Of course, far more likely than any of those scenarios is that it was a perfectly natural convergence of chaotic events leading to damaged clothing and dead horses, but a surviving Washington.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

I don't think you're accounting for the odds of Washington being pinned by one of the horses or otherwise injured when they were shot beneath him.

Is it guaranteed that he would have been pinned or otherwise injured? Has no one ever fallen off (Or with) a horse without sustaining injury?

Of course its not guaranteed, nothing is. One would think the odds of coming through a horse being shot out from underneath you unscathed twice would be significantly lower than if it only happened once.

No I'm saying, was Washington extremely lucky or was there some outside force acting in protecting him?

To be shot at 6 times, having 2 horses shot out from underneath you and 4 go through your clothes without being injured or harmed in anyway is either extreme luck or some sort of force acting favorably on your behalf.

From your response I guess you lean more on the side of luck while also hardening your stance that you do not believe in any sort of God and you don't even want to think about why Washington would've been so lucky.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

From your response I guess you lean more on the side of luck while also hardening your stance that you do not believe in any sort of God and you don't even want to think about why Washington would've been so lucky.

If I win the lottery, is it more likely that I got "lucky" (I don't believe in luck either, at least not in the traditional meaning of the word) or did God rig the game in my favor?

I don't want to think about why Washington would be so lucky? That doesn't even make sense. He survived the battle unharmed because he survived the battle unharmed. Clearly you don't want to compare scenarios and honestly address which situation is more likely. Our universe is a complex system. Unusual convergences of events are guaranteed to occur.

Here's a personal story.

When I was a child there was a tree that I and many of my friends liked to climb. It was quite tall, and we could easily climb above the height of the streetlamp nearby and view the entire surrounding neighborhood. One of the higher branches that we used as a foothold was dead, but had always supported us. Even so, I used caution whenever I stepped on that branch, especially if I stepped onto it far from where the branch met the trunk. One day I was climbing the tree alone - no one else around. As I was coming down, I set one foot down on this branch, then the other. I suddenly heard a very audible voice tell me "hold on," and just as I wrapped my arms around the trunk the branch snapped beneath my feet, leaving me hanging there as it tumbled through the branches below, finally crashing to the ground and splintering into several pieces.

I was understandably terrified - if I hadn't grabbed onto the trunk when I did I would have almost certainly been seriously injured if not killed. I got my feet on the remaining stump from the broken branch, caught my breath and let my heart slow back down, then climbed down - very carefully.

Can you guess as to some of the possible explanations I worked through in the following days, which one I ultimately decided was most likely, and why?