Neutral Education

Tim writes about Anthony Flew:

quote:

---

It likely a must read by atheists to try to understand how one of the foremost atheists on the planet could recant atheism.

---

Hold your horses there, Tim. Flew doesn't believe in god the same way you do. He's pretty much a Deist in conceptualization: God got it started and then abandoned creation. As he said: Flew rejects god as a source of either evil or good, claims there is no afterlife, rejects the "fine tuning" claim of creationists, and has actually recanted his recantation: He's not exactly the paragon of theism you make him out to be.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

And besides that, Flew didn't have anything to do with that book other than allowing his name to be put on it.

---

Few men and fewer women had the means or the desire to write a book on "How I failed to overcome my humble origins." -- Graham Robb

Not picking on Rrhain, but I think that when one is pulling information, quotes, etc. from any source, there should be a reference/credit/link to that source.Any discussion of this messages content should go to the "General discussion..." topic, link below.Adminnemooseus

---

References: A letter to Richard Carrier from December 2004. An interview with Duncan Crary of Humanist Network News from December 2004.

Googling those phrases led me to:
Antony Flew - WikipediaRrhain apparently got the quotes from that page, which in turn contained the references Rrhain supplies. I really would have preferred that the wikipedia link also had been included as a reference.Adminnemooseus

---

Um...I didn't get them from there, I don't use Wikipedia as a reference. It isn't reliable.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

What are you looking at the suggests that it seems to be working? A fine opinion, but unsubstantiated.What about those people who believe that they should be teaching their religion, like evangelicals?Simply expressing your opinion that they shouldn't be isn't doing much. WHY shouldn't they be evangelising?

Hi Reality man, If they are loyal followers of their beliefs, did they really believe them if they didn't teach you about them? Or did they teach you about them but tell you to look into everything? Do they believe in a god of any kind or do they believe that everyone has the same god? or do they believe there is no god? None of those are neutral -you have to believe something -maybe not with conviction but you must have a general idea of what's true. And what did you learn about what you're doing here? How did it all begin? Origins -what is your purpose on this earth or do you have none. Not judging don't worry - just trying to assess what you actually do believe for interests sake and for discussion's sake.

Personally I think both the creation story of the religous majority (of the city/town/province/district) and evolution should be taught at schools. However the creation story should be taught in a religion class and evolution should be taught in a science class. Also the unit on evolution as well as creation story should be optional and those not wanting to hear a specific side of the argument and should be able to opt out of the unit at any time. I also believe that these subjects should only be taught at a higher grade level when they can create their own intelligent opinion on the subject.Edited by Indecision, : Clarifying thoughts

This I disagree with. I think more time should be spent on Christianity for two reasons:1. It's the world's largest religion.
2. It's more culturally relevant. For the same reason that pupils from any given country spend a disproportionate amount of time studying the history of their country; the prevalent religion both currently and historically in that country deserves extra attention.I agree with your second point though, religious study should look at the practices, beliefs and history of a religion. I see no reason to spend much time at all on studying the Bible in religious study classes.

Every children have the right to get Neutral Education in this world. It is a basic education. Every children should know atleast reading and writing in this world.
============================================================
Advertising removed.Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

should we make the WWII and holocaust unit of history optional for the people who don't believe it happened?
should we cut out heliocentrism for those who thing the sun orbits the earth?a link to a relevant photo
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/...283462572_04f03bc220_o.jpg

Correction, Christianity is not a religion but an umbrella name for hundreds of religious denominations which the only thing that ties them together is a belief that Christ was the Messiah.Edited by bluescat48, : sp

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Welcome to EvC!Where do I start with what is wrong with this argument?First, what is a 'religious majority' of the city/town/province/district. Obviously someone will have to make the decision on the scale of what constitutes the appropriate geographic entity. For example, I suppose the majority of the people in Utah would choose to teach the Mormon explanation, the people in Minnesota the Lutheran, and the people in Texas the Baptist (whatever that is, as they don't agree among themselves).Would the people in Schliecher County around 100 miles south of where I am now be taught the wonders of polygamy, as that cult may actually constitute a plurality of the population in that unit. Should the people in Los Alamos County in New Mexico be taught the wonders of the natural sciences, while their neighbors in Santa Fe County are taught the wonders of crystal power, channeling, and screwing up any decent interpretation of American Indian religion, simply due to a plurality of woo-woo clowns that are often the target of Penn and Teller?More important, should any given majority of some fanatical fundamentalist Protestant sect be allowed to curse and condemn to hell all mainstream Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, Unitarians etc. and use taxpayer funds to foment their false 'religion' of hate and fear? (or their direct violation of the precepts of any major religion in presuming to speak for God?) Should the superiority of the Aryan race and holocaust denial be taught in northern Idaho, the stronghold of the Church of Jesus Christ Christian with forced taxpayer support essentially at the end of a gun barrel?Second, should anyone be allowed to ditch classes they don't agree with? Should prospective nurses that disagree with science be allowed to treat patients according to any so-called holistic principles of the witch doctor or whatever form of voodoo they may choose simply because they don't know any better due to that self-regulated curriculum? Should a prospective voter be taught only the principles of whatever political persuasion may hold sway in this arbitrary district, be it racial supremacy, gay-bashing, the sanction of torture, or indeed even dominionism (aka Christian Nationalism) in opposition to basic civics and world history?If you ask me, perhaps such people should come under the purview of child protective services as well as any educational establishment.{ABE} What you suggest regarding education is known as the 'tyranny of the majority,' a concept that has been known since Socrates drank hemlock and which has been rejected by virtually all deep thinkers since that time. It is also a rejection of the concept of the social contract, the bedrock idea behind the US Constitution.I have a suggestion. Think thoroughly about the consequences of what you post, this place is not forgiving when it comes to sloppy thinking. Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

As a biology teacher in a somewhat conservative area, I see no reason to give time to an idea that makes fallacious statements about geology, cosmology, astronomy, physics, biochemistry, genetics, history, anthropology...should I continue this list?Teaching students that every opinion, no matter how patently false, deserves equal footing with established facts and theories is inane. Our country is already behind in the sciences, should we continue to push ourselves back?Besides, everything in biology points to common ancestry, not special creation regardless of the religion proferring it.A class on special creation cannot be "neutral" anyway. All of the evidence against special creation would make the class moot. Also, the claims of creationists are so thoroughly refuted that the class would be antithetical to its stated purpose. Time for class. Take care.