The atheist indoctrination project

[Ethos]

It seems atheists have developed a comprehensive strategy to win the minds of the next generation. The strategy can be described simply: let the religious people breed them, and we will educate them to despise their parents’ beliefs. Many people think that the secularization of the minds of our young people is the inevitable consequence of learning and maturing. In fact, it is to a large degree orchestrated by teachers and professors to promote anti-religious agendas.

Why the hostility to religion? “Faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate,” writes Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion. “Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness.”

If religion is so bad, what should be done about it? It should be eradicated. According to Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, belief in Christianity is like belief in slavery. “I would be the first to admit that the prospects for eradicating religion in our time do not seem good. Still the same could have been said about efforts to abolish slavery at the end of the eighteenth century.”

But how should religion be eliminated? Our atheist educators have a short answer: through the power of science. “I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I’m all for that,” says physicist Steven Weinberg. If scientists can destroy the influence of religion on young people, “then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make.”

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/10/22/the_atheist_indoctrination_project

[Demon of Light]

I'm curious do you agree with those people about eradicating religion with science?

I certainly don't get the desire to get rid of religion. It seems they just have some sort of high-and-mighty attitude because they're more learned in gibberish than the average joe.

[Ethos]

No, I do not. Religion is used for good as well as evil, and I don't believe removing it from the public consciousness would necessarily result in a positive outcome. There are a number of tools which can be used as a form of societal control, without religion an alternative would simply replace it.

Nor do I believe it is possible (or practical) to "replace" or somehow "destroy" religious faith and practices.

Of course, I also don't consider the selective words of a few celebrities to be attributable to an entire group (atheists). Nor do I consider the level of scientific knowledge they do know as "gibberish". So there are a number of disagreements I currently hold with the commentary and subsequent analysis.

Ethos

[eugene40]

As an Atheist I don't think that becoming a religion is the way to go away from it. I have been to a couple of their little local meetings. And it reminded me of going to church way back when my parents were trying to brain wash me. Scientists as the erradicators of religion seems rather silly to me. Are we to replace priests with neurologists or physicists. I think those people should be busy trying to find answers rather then trying to lead people away from religion. Because if we lose the ultimate tool of science which I think is skepticism to a high belief in Scientists then we just replace faith with faith. Just in a different way.

I became an atheist by myself, through reading , studying and so on and so forth. I think any one who wants to do that should all try to follow the same type of path, but their own path, not some organized path set forth by someone else. I say give them a choice. I may feel that people whom are religious are a bit deluded. But I am not going to push what I believe on someone else. I think that atheism will eventually win out when people stop believing in imaginary friends. But not by the same methods used by the religious.

[AgentM]

As an Atheist I don't think that becoming a religion is the way to go away from it. I have been to a couple of their little local meetings. And it reminded me of going to church way back when my parents were trying to brain wash me. Scientists as the erradicators of religion seems rather silly to me. Are we to replace priests with neurologists or physicists. I think those people should be busy trying to find answers rather then trying to lead people away from religion. Because if we lose the ultimate tool of science which I think is skepticism to a high belief in Scientists then we just replace faith with faith. Just in a different way.

I agree. Trying to replace religion with an indoctrination of atheism is silly, and not the way to go about things at all. They'd be no better than religions, and I wouldn't give them any more credit. People need to think for themselves and reach their own individual conclusions about things. Trying to brainwash people to believe what you do is wrong. Debate and critical thinking is a good thing, but creating their own little sect? C'mon :rolleyes:.

[Lumpen Prole]

And on a practical level it's a bit difficult to replace something with the absence of that thing. I would generally agree with the statement that a scientific education is corrosive to religious belief systems, although I do not advocate using science for that purpose.

[Ethos]

And on a practical level it's a bit difficult to replace something with the absence of that thing. I would generally agree with the statement that a scientific education is corrosive to religious belief systems, although I do not advocate using science for that purpose.

I suspect the pundit is making a common mistake. Equating a disbelief of god with a belief there is no god.

[Demon of Light]

Trying to brainwash people to believe what you do is wrong.

Isn't that technically what's already happening? I mean evolution and the Big Bang are effectively taught as being the truth, even if they run contrary to what some people think is the truth and neither side actually has physical evidence to verify what really happened. We can only guess based on the observations we make in the present day.

I mean, science generally does reduce religious beliefs so it's kind of already being used to brainwash people.

[AgentM]

Isn't that technically what's already happening? I mean evolution and the Big Bang are effectively taught as being the truth, even if they run contrary to what some people think is the truth and neither side actually has physical evidence to verify what really happened. We can only guess based on the observations we make in the present day.

I mean, science generally does reduce religious beliefs so it's kind of already being used to brainwash people.

Evolution and the big bang have more proof than religion has come up with for it's ideas. Evolution in particular has lots of proof, with fossil studies, radio carbon dating etc. As to the big bang, there is substantially less proof for that than evolution, but it's the best theory they've got given the facts at hand. Until religious people come up with more proof for their theories (actually, any proof would be nice), than the scientists who study evolution have, than we can assume evolution happened. There are mounds of evidence for it.

Besides, those things are scientific. They're not trying to contradict religion necessarily. It's just that some religious people have ideas about things that happen to be factually incorrect (like that the Earth is 6000 years old and that we lived alongside the Dinosaurs :lol:) and not backed up by science.

[Ethos]

Isn't that technically what's already happening? I mean evolution and the Big Bang are effectively taught as being the truth, even if they run contrary to what some people think is the truth and neither side actually has physical evidence to verify what really happened. We can only guess based on the observations we make in the present day.

There is actually a great deal of physical evidence supporting both evolution and the Big Bang. Rather than running the thread into a tangent on this particular point (since we've seen these disagreements spiral into pages of circular argument), perhaps we can simply agree there is more "physical evidence" for evolution than for the existence of any specific god?



I mean, science generally does reduce religious beliefs so it's kind of already being used to brainwash people.

How so? Science may reduce a dependence on supernatural explanations for natural phenomena, but this is not necessarily the same as saying science reduces faith itself.

Ethos

[Groucho]

Learning science is brainwashing??

You mean when I learned that 2 + 2 = 4, it was because I was brainwashed?

[lord tammerlain]

Learning science is brainwashing??

You mean when I learned that 2 + 2 = 4, it was because I was brainwashed?
Yes because all knowledge that is not about god leads you away from god.

When the majority of the worlds population had little education, the people believed in god/s far more then when they have an understanding of the world through scientific knowledge

[Atticus]

Yes because all knowledge that is not about god leads you away from god.I don't think this is at all true. Much of the history of Western science was conducted by religious people.
When the majority of the worlds population had little education, the people believed in god/s far more then when they have an understanding of the world through scientific knowledgeFirst of all, the vast majority of the worlds population still has little education. And belief in god/s tracks far more exactly with culture or other variables than with education. The reduction in religious faith in some parts of the world is not traceable very well with the increase in knowledge or even the increase in education. It has spiked very recently. Hardly a sample from which one could elucidate a trend--at least not by any scientific method.

[Atticus]

To be more specific, there are many trends in the western world that would track just as easily to the rise in the level of atheism, including much greater ease, longer life spans, creature comforts, social equality, flush toilets. Education is related to these, but it is not the only element worth discussing if we want to make post hoc ergo propter hoc conclusions.

[Ethos]

I would personally look at how religiosity tracks with fluctuations in population anxiety. It isn't a coincidence that religious self-identification rose directly after 9/11, for instance.

Ethos

[Atticus]

I would personally look at how religiosity tracks with fluctuations in population anxiety. It isn't a coincidence that religious self-identification rose directly after 9/11, for instance.

EthosI was thinking something similar. People become more religious when they feel less in control of their lives/the world around them. To the extent that science or education makes people feel in control or helps them be less uncertain, it probably fills the same need that religion tends to fill. But then, there's always something more to feel uncertain about. Also, modern life is a lot less painful than in times past. Religion helps reconcile us to our pain and suffering--to the extent that pain and suffering have been relieved by modern life in the West, the need for faith is probably also reduced.

[Demon of Light]

With regards to evolution and the Big Bang, my point was not to say there's no evidence that can be used to support them, but that no physical evidence actually verifies that it happened. We can only believe it happened a certain way, because we can't actually check and make sure.

How so? Science may reduce a dependence on supernatural explanations for natural phenomena, but this is not necessarily the same as saying science reduces faith itself.

I didn't say it always works that way, but most of the time science reduces faith. The more physical explanations you have for something the less spiritual you can be about them.

It's no longer a matter of faith you don't fall off the earth, it's a powerful force exerted on us by the earth itself, the same kind that revolves the moon around Earth and Earth around the Sun. It's not God's good fortune, it's gravity.

The lesser the need for spiritual explanations, the lesser the need for spiritualism.

Learning science is brainwashing??

Technically yes:

Brainwashing (also known as thought reform or as re-education) consists of any effort aimed at instilling certain attitudes and beliefs in a person — sometimes unwelcome beliefs in conflict with the person's prior beliefs and knowledge.

Source: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing)

Of course, it's commonly used as a pejorative, but it doesn't have to be.

[Atticus]

The lesser the need for spiritual explanations, the lesser the need for spiritualism.A minor point--let's say "spirituality" and not "spiritualism," which has a specific meaning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualism) you probably (I hope) don't mean.

[Indian001]

We want to make our society humanistic. What will lead that Scientific thought or religious thought? Scientific thought will adopt all the people because it will be logical and religious thought will lead superstition, Community, Nationalism and particular religion. Then what should I be here?

[lord tammerlain]

I don't think this is at all true. Much of the history of Western science was conducted by religious people.
I think you missed the sarcasist nature of the post. Science for religous extremists leads people away from god/s. The evolution debate, the origin of the universe, etc. Basically science is breaking down their religous beliefs.



First of all, the vast majority of the worlds population still has little education. And belief in god/s tracks far more exactly with culture or other variables than with education. The reduction in religious faith in some parts of the world is not traceable very well with the increase in knowledge or even the increase in education. It has spiked very recently. Hardly a sample from which one could elucidate a trend--at least not by any scientific method.
Perhaps I should have included or indicated sprituality as being reduced by science. As much of the worlds past sprituality has been a means to explain the universe around the community ( the many creation myths of most ancient civilizations ) and the religous/spritual growths from that particular creation myth. Religion/spirituality in a fairly well educated state, is generally less then what would be seen in a poorly educated state. The people use religion/spirituality to explain what they dont understand. And the well educated dont need religion/spirituality to explain a solar eclipse, or an earthquake. The number of virgin sacrifices to appease the great fire God ( ie volcano ) is likely to decrease as the education level of that particular society increases

[Atticus]

I think you missed the sarcasist nature of the post. Science for religous extremists leads people away from god/s. The evolution debate, the origin of the universe, etc. Basically science is breaking down their religous beliefs.But if that were true, the whole thing would have come down like a house of cards post-Copernicus. Religious faith survives in the heliocentric universe and it will survive Darwin. In fact, it DID survive Darwin--why some Christians want to take us back to 1924 (or 1875) is a mystery to me.
Perhaps I should have included or indicated sprituality as being reduced by science. As much of the worlds past sprituality has been a means to explain the universe around the community ( the many creation myths of most ancient civilizations ) and the religous/spritual growths from that particular creation myth. Religion/spirituality in a fairly well educated state, is generally less then what would be seen in a poorly educated state. The people use religion/spirituality to explain what they dont understand. And the well educated dont need religion/spirituality to explain a solar eclipse, or an earthquake. The number of virgin sacrifices to appease the great fire God ( ie volcano ) is likely to decrease as the education level of that particular society increasesSorry, but I find this insulting. It assumes that the only religious people are those who don't understand or refuse to accept the science I was taught in elementary school. Spirituality speaks to deep longings in the human soul. One defining element of science is that for every question answered, another question (or multiple questions) come forth. Learning sometimes lessens but often increases the need for faith in an individual.

I think the real killer of faith is the self-satisfied comfort and the insulation from suffering that modern life sometimes provides (temporarily).

[lord tammerlain]

But if that were true, the whole thing would have come down like a house of cards post-Copernicus. Religious faith survives in the heliocentric universe and it will survive Darwin. In fact, it DID survive Darwin--why some Christians want to take us back to 1924 (or 1875) is a mystery to me. Which is why I clarified my statement to mean generally religous fanatics. Who has adopted the most fundamentalist (orthadox version of their religion)
Sorry, but I find this insulting. It assumes that the only religious people are those who don't understand or refuse to accept the science I was taught in elementary school. Spirituality speaks to deep longings in the human soul. One defining element of science is that for every question answered, another question (or multiple questions) come forth. Learning sometimes lessens but often increases the need for faith in an individual.

I think the real killer of faith is the self-satisfied comfort and the insulation from suffering that modern life sometimes provides (temporarily).
Are you denying that religion in the middle ages did not play a far greater role in the everyday life of most christians. Or that pagans did not use their particular belief system to explain the weather, volcano's, solar eclipses etc.

Science has reduced the role of religion/spirituality in the everyday life of people due to the increased knowledge of the world around them. No longer do mostpeople perform "Rain Dances" to the sky god to bring rain, ( with the real expectation of the sky god bringing rain ). Religion can still be a major part of someones life, but they are not using their religion to explain the physical world, as done in the past

[mataj]

Damn those facts! They just won't go away, no matter how many people are burned at the stake.

[mataj]

Double post

[Atticus]

Which is why I clarified my statement to mean generally religous fanatics. Who has adopted the most fundamentalist (orthadox version of their religion)
Are you denying that religion in the middle ages did not play a far greater role in the everyday life of most christians. Or that pagans did not use their particular belief system to explain the weather, volcano's, solar eclipses etc.

Science has reduced the role of religion/spirituality in the everyday life of people due to the increased knowledge of the world around them. No longer do mostpeople perform "Rain Dances" to the sky god to bring rain, ( with the real expectation of the sky god bringing rain ). Religion can still be a major part of someones life, but they are not using their religion to explain the physical world, as done in the pastNo, I don't deny it, but what has that to do with this thread? Seems as though you've introduced an unimportant distinction in order to harp on it.

[Atticus]

Damn those facts! They just won't go away, no matter how many people are burned at the stake.Again, what does an activity that ended over three hundred years have to do with this thread?

[Groucho]

I think describing the basic process of education as "brainwashing" is a bit of a stretch.

[mataj]

Again, what does an activity that ended over three hundred years have to do with this thread?It's about science and religion, is it not? Burning at the stake is the only thing they got in common. There is nothing else to discuss here.

[Turenne]

I'm curious do you agree with those people about eradicating religion with science?

I certainly don't get the desire to get rid of religion. It seems they just have some sort of high-and-mighty attitude because they're more learned in gibberish than the average joe.

So scientists that have helped cure countless diseases are just very well versed in 'gibberish'?:rolleyes:

An argument can certainly be made for the world being a better place without religion.

[Demon of Light]

Groucho

I think describing the basic process of education as "brainwashing" is a bit of a stretch.

Not really, technically that's all our education facilities are good for, brainwashing. Public or private, all schools are about brainwashing kids, getting them to hold an opinion or belief.

Obviously an education on evolution and the big bang would be a form of atheistic brainwashing as it convinces kids not to believe supernatural explanations for these events.

The less explanations that can be linked to a god the more likely someone is to believe there isn't one.

That's just the natural result.

Turenne

So scientists that have helped cure countless diseases are just very well versed in 'gibberish'?

I was mainly referring to scientists or philosophers trying to get rid of religion through the education system, as this is what the article is about.

An argument can certainly be made for the world being a better place without religion.

An argument can certainly be made for the world being a better place without black people. That doesn't mean we should try to get rid of them.

[Turenne]

Yes because the 'rationale' for the eradication of a whole race of people is comparable to the eradication of a concept that is most apporiately seen as exalting blind faith and ignorance to the detriment of free thought and rationalism. Excellent mindstate you've gotten there DoL. ;)

[steveksux]

Groucho



Not really, technically that's all our education facilities are good for, brainwashing. Public or private, all schools are about brainwashing kids, getting them to hold an opinion or belief.

Obviously an education on evolution and the big bang would be a form of atheistic brainwashing as it convinces kids not to believe supernatural explanations for these events.Pointing out facts is not brainwashing. Learning is not brainwashing. As Atticus pointed out, finding out the real explanations for natural phenomenon previously attributed to God does not prove God doesn't exist. Neither does removing divine influence from the day to day workings of the universe. It is easily explained by God setting up the universe and the laws governing it so He did not have to fiddle with it to keep things working. It was designed to run on it's own without constant interference. Religion is ill suited as a reference guide to naturalistic processes that actually rely on natural laws. Science is ill suited to come up with a moral framework and spiritual guidance. They both work exceedingly well when they stick to their core competencies. They both work extremely poorly when attempts are made to portray them as something they are not.

The less explanations that can be linked to a god the more likely someone is to believe there isn't one.

That's just the natural result.Not at all. Or religion would have been destroyed centuries ago when proven wrong about all sorts of astronomical phenomenon. Religion simply says its predecessors were mistaken about their interpretations regarding that particular physical phenomenon. All sorts of religious beliefs about the natural world have been thoroughly discredited, yet the religion that held those beliefs still prospers.

An argument can certainly be made for the world being a better place without black people. That doesn't mean we should try to get rid of them.Even so, I'd still be curious too see what that argument might look like...

Randy

[Ethos]

Obviously an education on evolution and the big bang would be a form of atheistic brainwashing as it convinces kids not to believe supernatural explanations for these events.


This is possibly the most explicit anti-atheist pathology I have ever seen.

By this stretch of reasoning, the instruction of absolutely any natural function could be perceived as "atheistic brainwashing". Hardly a reasonable proposition.

Ethos

[Demon of Light]

Turenne

Yes because the 'rationale' for the eradication of a whole race of people is comparable to the eradication of a concept that is most apporiately seen as exalting blind faith and ignorance to the detriment of free thought and rationalism. Excellent mindstate you've gotten there DoL.

The mentality is the same because both are seeking to eradicate something for irrational reasons.

Any reasoning against religion is the same as the reasoning against a race of social class. People associate negative actions with them and behave as though those actions are unavoidable as long as that group is around.

This argument is apparently that people would be more tolerant and kind if there was no religion and therefore it should be eradicated. Of course, it has more to do with the people than the actual religion.

You can have a radical Christian Evangelical who is tolerant and kind and that goes for all religions. Ultimately all getting rid of religion will do is get rid of a common scapegoat.

steveksux

Pointing out facts is not brainwashing. Learning is not brainwashing.

No, it isn't, but we're talking about education. Do you deny that our public education system tries to brainwash children into avoiding drugs, practicing safe sex, and being tolerant of different ethnicities?

Our public education is all about molding people's minds to meet an established standard for individuals.

As Atticus pointed out, finding out the real explanations for natural phenomenon previously attributed to God does not prove God doesn't exist. Neither does removing divine influence from the day to day workings of the universe. It is easily explained by God setting up the universe and the laws governing it so He did not have to fiddle with it to keep things working. It was designed to run on it's own without constant interference.

That would be called Deism and it's not the same as having theistic religion, which often emphasizes the constant interference of a god or gods. Deism is really irreligious theism.

Religion is ill suited as a reference guide to naturalistic processes that actually rely on natural laws. Science is ill suited to come up with a moral framework and spiritual guidance. They both work exceedingly well when they stick to their core competencies. They both work extremely poorly when attempts are made to portray them as something they are not.

You're pretty naive aren't you? Many atheist, secular, or agnostic scientists have attempted to build a morality based on scientific principles. Obviously it's not science itself but simply a morality based on reason and observations of the natural world, the root of science.

This is effectively what Secular Humanism is, a scientific approach to morality.

Not at all. Or religion would have been destroyed centuries ago when proven wrong about all sorts of astronomical phenomenon.

That's not only inaccurate, but irrational. There was actually no specific basis in religion for a geocentric universe or flat earth, though the church often used skewed interpretations of the Bible to justify such theories.

Also, even if that were true it wouldn't have destroyed religion because that's just on small area. Religion has survived with most people for three reaons:

1. An inability to explain the world.

2. A belief that only a divine being could offer morality.

3. A fear of death.

These are really the three things that, put together, are a major reason for religion's staying power. Scientific education has effectively made the first irrelevant and the second is being built up more and more. The third usually is dealt with by the first two being dealt with.

So, if our education system constantly reinforces scientific explanations that remove a god or gods from them and in this non-theistic environment enforces a moral code, education effectively deals with all the major reasons for people maintaining religious beliefs.

A topic in this very forum makes my case quite clearly:

http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63832

Ethos

This is possibly the most explicit anti-atheist pathology I have ever seen.

By this stretch of reasoning, the instruction of absolutely any natural function could be perceived as "atheistic brainwashing". Hardly a reasonable proposition.

It's not anti-atheist, it's pro-logic. I gave my more clear explanation above. Honestly, this should be elementary. The enforcement of secular education has produced a notable dip in religious activity.

[Atticus]

This is possibly the most explicit anti-atheist pathology I have ever seen.

By this stretch of reasoning, the instruction of absolutely any natural function could be perceived as "atheistic brainwashing". Hardly a reasonable proposition.

EthosI have to agree. There's no reason NOT to believe in natural causes for natural events. Now, none of these explanations eliminate the possibility of a guiding intelligence in those events, but the FORM of the events themselves would tend to be natural, the events being natural.

It seems to me that any argument that requires a supernatural explanation for a phenomenon that CAN be explained naturally is anti-intellectual--Occam's Razor.

[ProfessorBobo]

Also, even if that were true it wouldn't have destroyed religion because that's just on small area. Religion has survived with most people for three reaons:

1. An inability to explain the world.

2. A belief that only a divine being could offer morality.

3. A fear of death.

These are really the three things that, put together, are a major reason for religion's staying power. Scientific education has effectively made the first irrelevant and the second is being built up more and more. The third usually is dealt with by the first two being dealt with.

So, if our education system constantly reinforces scientific explanations that remove a god or gods from them and in this non-theistic environment enforces a moral code, education effectively deals with all the major reasons for people maintaining religious beliefs.

A topic in this very forum makes my case quite clearly:

http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63832




Okay, so let's pretend you're right; science fills or or removes all of the roles that are filled by religion and religion is eradicated. Why is that a problem?

[Dangerrmouse]

Render unto science that which is science's.

[Demon of Light]

Okay, so let's pretend you're right; science fills or or removes all of the roles that are filled by religion and religion is eradicated. Why is that a problem?

When the people who develop the science are specifically aiming to eradicate religion by giving explanations and having them propagated through public schools it is a problem.

[Dangerrmouse]

For example? Who are "the people" who are doing this, and why is it a problem if "they" were?

[Ethos]

It's not anti-atheist, it's pro-logic. I gave my more clear explanation above. Honestly, this should be elementary. The enforcement of secular education has produced a notable dip in religious activity.

There is a difference between secular education and atheistic indoctrination. There is also nothing inherently atheistic about scientific education. Linking these things as you have is not logical in any sense.

Ethos

[Demon of Light]

Ethos

There is a difference between secular education and atheistic indoctrination.

There should be, but it seems that's not the case.

There is also nothing inherently atheistic about scientific education. Linking these things as you have is not logical in any sense.

So do you think a person is more inclined to believe in a god and be religious if they're told in school that the universe began with a giant explosion and a lot of really smart people agree about this?

The fact is, people are less inclined to believe in a god when the universe can be explained without one. The idea anyone would deny this is mind-boggling.

Dangerrmouse

For example? Who are "the people" who are doing this

:rolleyes: Look at the original post.

and why is it a problem if "they" were?

I don't know, free choice.

[Atticus]

Let's remember that D'Souza makes his living as a polemicist, so his business is in making problems and concerns seem bigger than they are. Certainly there is a bit of a anti-religious movement, seen in the popularity of books by Dawkins and Hitchens, but they, too, make their living by feeding people a segment of the public what they want to hear. The question is whether their views are widespread or persuasive to great numbers of people. I would say, in key areas, that they are not.

D'Souza quotes from several other scientists and philosophers, again making their views seems as extreme and pervasive as possible. A careful reading of the article might reveal much more interesting and complex questions than the simple tack we are on in this thread.

For example, do most scientists see religion as the enemy and actively seek to squelch religion as a part of their professional mission? I'd say no, since there's very little grant money in religion squashing.

Can science really perform the task implied in the article (answer all the questions so religion is left with nothing to its credit)? Again, I'd say no, and predictions of this kind are, in fact, rather unscientific. I think they might most properly be called "as yet untestable hypotheses" and left for another time.

If science can prove, for example, that free will is an illusion and that all human thoughts and feelings are the result of biological and neurological functions beyond our control, will our lives be improved by that knowledge? Again, I'd say no. In a similar way, we may discover, after more study, that while belief in God is unsupported by empirical fact, objective measures of well-being are improved by such belief. If that's true, then the cynical empiricist will draw cold comfort from his refusal to believe in what is unseen.

Do educators have an obligation to make students more like themselves? Does this obligation outweigh the similar obligation felt by parents?

Are all the people quoted in the article as hostile to faith as D'Souza implies? Consider this wikipedia passage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson#God_and_religion) on E. O. Wilson:On the question of God, Wilson has described his position as provisional deism.[5] He has explained his faith as a trajectory away from traditional beliefs: "I drifted away from the church, not definitively agnostic or atheistic, just Baptist no more."[2] Wilson argues that the belief in God and rituals of religion are products of evolution.[6] He argues that they should not be rejected or dismissed, but further investigated by science to better understand their significance to human nature. In his book The Creation, Wilson makes a case for putting aside epistemological differences between religion and science and concentrating on what they have in common; namely, living nature. On another note, I wonder how Steven Weinberg (another scientist quoted in the article) reconciles his strong anti-religion sentiments with his unqualified support for Israel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg#Other_intellectual_legacy

In short, it seems to me that this article is food for much deeper thought than has been chewed in this thread so far.

[Ethos]

There should be, but it seems that's not the case.


To be frank, you are allowing your opinion to override the reality of this comparison.


So do you think a person is more inclined to believe in a god and be religious if they're told in school that the universe began with a giant explosion and a lot of really smart people agree about this?


"More inclined"? No. I don't believe they would be "less inclined" either. It isn't the job of a public school to protect faith-based explanations for the natural world. People generally understand this, which is why they worship in church and not in school.

So again the intention is neutral. I won't deny people want to "eradicate" religion from schools any more than people also want to dictate a Catholic curriculum. I'm not here to discuss fringe extremes, but the general status, which is secular, but not in an anti-religion sort of way.



The fact is, people are less inclined to believe in a god when the universe can be explained without one. The idea anyone would deny this is mind-boggling.


Not really. People can (and have) found plenty of reason to continue believing. In some cases they simply ignore the science as somehow fraudulent or the ever popular "anti-religion" (evolution anyone?).

If a person's faith relies solely on having a supernatural explanation for a scientifically based action, I suggest their faith is far too shaky in the first place. Finding out your god really isn't responsible for thunder storms is not a typical reason for the loss of faith.

Ethos

[Ethos]

Belief in a higher power provided a number of coping mechanisms in a variety of psychologically damaging scenarios. Physically speaking it provides reproductive benefits and community cohesion.

In order words, religion serves as a survival mechanism on a number of fronts. I would most certainly ascribe it an evolutionary origin.

Ethos

[Demon of Light]

Atticus

The question is whether their views are widespread or persuasive to great numbers of people. I would say, in key areas, that they are not.

That depends on what you consider to be key areas. I think they're very persuasive in getting rid of superstition and New-Earth Creationism. That's a natural stepping stone towards atheism. Getting rid of religion doesn't have to be an all at once thing, but a process of gradual erosion.

Sometimes belief in a god can be eliminated without eliminating religion (half of all French people are Catholic but only half of all Catholics believe in God making it an atheist country) and sometimes it's the other way around.

Can science really perform the task implied in the article (answer all the questions so religion is left with nothing to its credit)? Again, I'd say no, and predictions of this kind are, in fact, rather unscientific.

Well, science doesn't really have to explain everything. Many people were convinced there wasn't a god before Evolution and the Big Bang because they believed science or some other practice could explain it without the need for a god.

If you can convince people the universe was made through a natural process and so was everyone else, that humans are just like normal animals bound by biology, and that human life at its very beginning is little more than a flake of skin, you can probably convince them there is no such thing as a god.

When a god is no longer needed to explain the world to confused individuals, provide morality for people to follow, or give people security in death religion will simply fade away, which is ultimately what the people in this article intend to do and I believe they are proving quite successful.

Are all the people quoted in the article as hostile to faith as D'Souza implies? Consider this wikipedia passage on E. O. Wilson:

Deism is itself just a step away from atheism. It discounts most or all religious ideals and retains only a belief in a god. Some who want to move the world towards atheism actually encourage Deism because they see it as an easy way to bring about atheism.

Do educators have an obligation to make students more like themselves? Does this obligation outweigh the similar obligation felt by parents?

It's not a matter of making them do something just consider how our education system works.

As soon as children are capable of making clear judgments they're sent to school. They get up and have to get ready and then spend eight or more hours in school, one third of the day. They then go home and go to sleep for eight or more hours of the day. We're talking more than two-thirds of the day when kids are not interacting with their parents and nowadays most kids will watch TV or something else after getting home from school, until they start spending time with their friends. Not to mention parents will spend a lot of time at work or doing something other than watching their kids.

It's very unlikely that kids are getting a school day's worth of education from their parents and their parents don't have any credentials. Throw that in with a growing amount of disassociation between parent and child because of television, the Internet, friends, and work, it's unlikely children will even really care what their parents say because they don't spend much time with them.

Most families nowadays also either don't care for church(or other religious institutions) or are too busy to go to church so their kids don't go to church either.

Now factor this in with a culture that increasingly permeates with sex, drugs, and violence. What's more you have Evangelicals who make psychotic criticisms of Harry Potter and incredibly negative remarks about homosexuals contrasting with an education system and young society that is increasingly tolerant and receptive.

There are numerous more significant factors I could bring up such as the legalization of abortion, stem cell research, and major advances in medical science that all serve to stem religious belief. Separately they may not have any effect, but together they make it very difficult for a religious culture to emerge.

I watched Amanpour's special on "Christian Warriors" and it just sickened me how she equated Evangelical teens listening to Newsboys and Casting Crowns with the Taliban. Yet many people, some of them religious people, actually buy that kind of idiocy. There are people who have become so ingrained in a secular culture that any ardent believer actually frightens them. Certainly that can't be a positive trend for religion.

On another note, I wonder how Steven Weinberg (another scientist quoted in the article) reconciles his strong anti-religion sentiments with his unqualified support for Israel:

Actually many of the original Zionists were secular or atheist and Socialist to boot, that's why the Soviet Union recognized Israel's independence. Zionism was really a nationalist ideology, not a religious ideology.

[lord tammerlain]

parents?

Are all the people quoted in the article as hostile to faith as D'Souza implies? Consider this wikipedia passage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson#God_and_religion) on E. O. Wilson: On another note, I wonder how Steven Weinberg (another scientist quoted in the article) reconciles his strong anti-religion sentiments with his unqualified support for Israel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg#Other_intellectual_legacy


Weingberg, could base his support for Israel on ethnic rather then religous reasons.
Judaism unlike most other religions does have a strong ethnic/racial background

[Demon of Light]

Ethos

To be frank, you are allowing your opinion to override the reality of this comparison.

No, not really. Are you going to say that a person who accepts the science of the big bang and evolution wouldn't be of weaker faith in a god than one who doesn't?

"More inclined"? No. I don't believe they would be "less inclined" either. It isn't the job of a public school to protect faith-based explanations for the natural world. People generally understand this, which is why they worship in church and not in school.

Of course, many people aren't going to church:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_6_15/ai_53913256

Many that do go to church are also not particularly religious.

So again the intention is neutral. I won't deny people want to "eradicate" religion from schools any more than people also want to dictate a Catholic curriculum. I'm not here to discuss fringe extremes, but the general status, which is secular, but not in an anti-religion sort of way.

The people who are anti-religion, however are ultimately going to be of more influence on education than those who are very religious:

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm

Of course, there is also a significant population that doesn't believe in working to eradicate religion, but simply believe science will ultimately convince people against religion and take an effort to explain away any religious beliefs possible. So they're really working to the same end, it's just some are more devoted than others.

Not really. People can (and have) found plenty of reason to continue believing. In some cases they simply ignore the science as somehow fraudulent or the ever popular "anti-religion" (evolution anyone?).

Of course people can, but many simply don't and that number is growing thanks to the education system.

If a person's faith relies solely on having a supernatural explanation for a scientifically based action, I suggest their faith is far too shaky in the first place. Finding out your god really isn't responsible for thunder storms is not a typical reason for the loss of faith.

No but being told humans came from amoebas, the universe started off as an atom that turned into a huge explosion, and all people begin as a tiny cell as human as a skin flake certainly can be when you throw in all kinds of other factors.

[Atticus]

That depends on what you consider to be key areas. I think they're very persuasive in getting rid of superstition and New-Earth Creationism. That's a natural stepping stone towards atheism. I think you're drawing conclusions in an illogical way. Belief in something that is demonstrably untrue simply CAN'T be a "stepping stone towards atheism" because there are not just stones in front of us, there are stones behind as well. We no longer "believe" in a terra-centered universe because the data simply doesn't support that view. We that the earth revolves around a star, which is itself on the edges of a galaxy, which is itself one of millions of galaxies. Is that recognition a steping stone to atheism? Religious people in the early 17th century thought so, but fairly quickly they accommodated themselves to the idea. Key areas have to do with power and money and persuasion. None of these is moving in the direction you fear.
Getting rid of religion doesn't have to be an all at once thing, but a process of gradual erosion. Interesting metaphor--erosion. The problem is that your metaphor assumes that theism is a rock of some kind--wear it away and it can't come back. In fact, there's an ebb and flow to all ideas.
Sometimes belief in a god can be eliminated without eliminating religion (half of all French people are Catholic but only half of all Catholics believe in God making it an atheist country) and sometimes it's the other way around.Actually, it's a secular country, just like the US, though its expression of secularism is quite different from our own. Again, if theism is real and faith is important, it stands to reason that the human condition cries out for it--it won't die because of knowledge. If it does, it wasn't real to begin with. You seem to value religion just for the sake of ...what? tradition? If our need for God is real, our belief in Him will survive whatever facts we learn about His universe. If we have to maintain some kind of ignorance to maintain our belief, that belief isn't very strong to begin with.
Well, science doesn't really have to explain everything. Many people were convinced there wasn't a god before Evolution and the Big Bang because they believed science or some other practice could explain it without the need for a god.Yes, but that very idea is faith-based, not science. So some people have a "belief" in what science might one day do--just as some Christians have faith that Jesus will return in power and glory. It's poor thinking to violate the terms of a thought system in order to give that thought system primacy; it's just as silly as fearing that we'll stop believing in God if we discover He took longer to make the world than we thought.If you can convince people the universe was made through a natural process and so was everyone else, that humans are just like normal animals bound by biology, and that human life at its very beginning is little more than a flake of skin, you can probably convince them there is no such thing as a god.Why? Because they have some preconceived notion about who God is and how He works? That kind of rigidity is what leads us to burn heretics. When a god is no longer needed to explain the world to confused individuals, provide morality for people to follow, or give people security in death religion will simply fade away, which is ultimately what the people in this article intend to do and I believe they are proving quite successful.I'm less concerned about confused individuals than wise ones--those are the people I'll follow and respect. I think God is needed to provide morality to people to follow because I notice that without Him people tend to make up whatever is convenient (actually, they often do that DESPITE belief in God). And I haven't heard how science gives people security in death--beyond the assurance that nothingness isn't painful.

<more>

[Atticus]

Deism is itself just a step away from atheism. It discounts most or all religious ideals and retains only a belief in a god. Some who want to move the world towards atheism actually encourage Deism because they see it as an easy way to bring about atheism.Deists mostly retain religious ideals--they just don't believe in miracles. Voltaire? Franklin? Jefferson? Adams? I wouldn't kick them out of my house for dropping crackers on the floor.

It's not a matter of making them do something just consider how our education system works.
As soon as children are capable of making clear judgments they're sent to school. They get up and have to get ready and then spend eight or more hours in school, one third of the day. They then go home and go to sleep for eight or more hours of the day. We're talking more than two-thirds of the day when kids are not interacting with their parents and nowadays most kids will watch TV or something else after getting home from school, until they start spending time with their friends. Not to mention parents will spend a lot of time at work or doing something other than watching their kids.

It's very unlikely that kids are getting a school day's worth of education from their parents and their parents don't have any credentials. Throw that in with a growing amount of disassociation between parent and child because of television, the Internet, friends, and work, it's unlikely children will even really care what their parents say because they don't spend much time with them.Sorry, friend, but now you're writing a novel. Every family has its own story, and while there are measurable trends (none of which you've reported accurately here), how much kids respect their parents is as individual as each relationship. Kids don't get education from their parents because parents "don't have any credentials?" :shrug:
Most families nowadays also either don't care for church(or other religious institutions) or are too busy to go to church so their kids don't go to church either. This simply isn't true. On average, 55% of American adults attend church at least once a week ([url=http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac.htm]source[/url) and its reasonable to assume that adults with families are more likely than average to do so. You're building yourself a story based not on facts but the assumptions you'd prefer--which is how you'd like us to view the origins of life and the universe. :rolleyes:
Now factor this in with a culture that increasingly permeates with sex, drugs, and violence.Ok, but this finds its way into lots of arguments--how is this connected to science education? What's more you have Evangelicals who make psychotic criticisms of Harry Potter and incredibly negative remarks about homosexuals contrasting with an education system and young society that is increasingly tolerant and receptive.Which gives them a heck of a choice about who to trust. But still, about that science education thing...
There are numerous more significant factors I could bring up such as the legalization of abortion, stem cell research, and major advances in medical science that all serve to stem religious belief. Separately they may not have any effect, but together they make it very difficult for a religious culture to emerge.Religious culture doesn't have to emerge. It has to accommodate itself to...well...demonstrable facts.
I watched Amanpour's special on "Christian Warriors" and it just sickened me how she equated Evangelical teens listening to Newsboys and Casting Crowns with the Taliban. Yet many people, some of them religious people, actually buy that kind of idiocy. There are people who have become so ingrained in a secular culture that any ardent believer actually frightens them. Certainly that can't be a positive trend for religion.Didn't see it, so I can't refute your claim...but one journalist's take on evangelical teen
culture doesn't mean much, really.

Religion, like everything else in the human realm, has to adapt and change as humans change. The problem is insisting that things CAN'T change, MUSTN'T change, that poses a danger.

[Ethos]

No, not really. Are you going to say that a person who accepts the science of the big bang and evolution wouldn't be of weaker faith in a god than one who doesn't?

Absolutely not. There is more to faith than whether a person believes god literally waved his hands around to create the Universe or if he simply got the ball rolling with self-designed physics and some starting matter.



Many that do go to church are also not particularly religious.


I'm not sure how you can even know this.


The people who are anti-religion, however are ultimately going to be of more influence on education than those who are very religious:


Or this either. It seems like you make an awful lot of guesses without much support for any of it in these debates. The majority of scientific figures learned about in school were not atheists, nor are the majority of scientists alive today.



No but being told humans came from amoebas, the universe started off as an atom that turned into a huge explosion, and all people begin as a tiny cell as human as a skin flake certainly can be when you throw in all kinds of other factors.

I would certainly hope no one is being told these falsehoods. Humans did not in fact come from amoebas, the Universe did not start off as a single atom.... although all people do begin as a zygote, which is indeed smaller than a skin flake.

You still haven't explained to us how knowing these scientific facts discourages religion. It would seem to me the continued prevalence of religious institutions in the modern era, despite the accumulation of scientific knowledge, is a direct and rather forceful contradiction to your entire premise.

Ethos

[ProfessorBobo]

When the people who develop the science are specifically aiming to eradicate religion by giving explanations and having them propagated through public schools it is a problem.

So then, is the reverse a problem? Is it a problem for religious individuals, aiming to increase the spread of religion, to propagate that religion through public schools? If so, then how would you go about ensuring that neither religion nor it's eradication be spread in schools?

[Demon of Light]

Atticus

I think you're drawing conclusions in an illogical way. Belief in something that is demonstrably untrue simply CAN'T be a "stepping stone towards atheism" because there are not just stones in front of us, there are stones behind as well.

The more divine beliefs that get eroded away the less there are left to encourage religion.

We no longer "believe" in a terra-centered universe because the data simply doesn't support that view. We that the earth revolves around a star, which is itself on the edges of a galaxy, which is itself one of millions of galaxies. Is that recognition a steping stone to atheism?

As I said earlier, a geocentric universe wasn't part of any religion.

Religious people in the early 17th century thought so, but fairly quickly they accommodated themselves to the idea. Key areas have to do with power and money and persuasion. None of these is moving in the direction you fear.

As I already pointed out most scientists either aren't religious or are openly atheist or agnostic. Obviously the science that is coming out comes from them and it gets spread out into the education system.

Interesting metaphor--erosion. The problem is that your metaphor assumes that theism is a rock of some kind--wear it away and it can't come back. In fact, there's an ebb and flow to all ideas.

I'm not saying it can't come back, I'm just saying that these people in the article intend to erode away religion and replace it with something else.

Again, if theism is real and faith is important, it stands to reason that the human condition cries out for it--it won't die because of knowledge.

Of course, that's why people are trying to form a moral code and life plan absent of any deity.

If our need for God is real, our belief in Him will survive whatever facts we learn about His universe. If we have to maintain some kind of ignorance to maintain our belief, that belief isn't very strong to begin with.

It's not so much a matter of ignorance as it is a matter of being told something is true without really being able to decide for yourself. A lot of people will simply believe what they're told in school and not think much for themselves, especially considering the education system doesn't encourage it.

Yes, but that very idea is faith-based, not science. So some people have a "belief" in what science might one day do--just as some Christians have faith that Jesus will return in power and glory. It's poor thinking to violate the terms of a thought system in order to give that thought system primacy; it's just as silly as fearing that we'll stop believing in God if we discover He took longer to make the world than we thought.

Some people may have a hard time losing their beliefs, but children are really still shaping their beliefs and the education system's purpose is to shape their beliefs.

Why? Because they have some preconceived notion about who God is and how He works?

More like it takes the mystery out of everything. Sometimes when you learn what the mystery is it stops being as interesting. A world that can be explained by humans without using a god is so much easier to see as a world without a god.

I'm less concerned about confused individuals than wise ones--those are the people I'll follow and respect. I think God is needed to provide morality to people to follow because I notice that without Him people tend to make up whatever is convenient (actually, they often do that DESPITE belief in God).

There are a lot of movements to build a morality without a god or supernatural occurrences, though this morality may not be what you consider moral.

Deists mostly retain religious ideals--they just don't believe in miracles.

That's just wrong. For instance, Thomas Jefferson didn't believe Jesus was anything but a man, which is certainly not a retained religious ideal. Deists mainly believe a god made the earth, but otherwise don't believe that god does anything else.

Sorry, friend, but now you're writing a novel. Every family has its own story, and while there are measurable trends (none of which you've reported accurately here), how much kids respect their parents is as individual as each relationship. Kids don't get education from their parents because parents "don't have any credentials?"

Obviously there are cases where this is different, but most kids are in the public education system and do many things other than interact with their parents and all of them sleep. Many parents have very little time nowadays to provide the same level of education as you're suggesting.

This simply isn't true. On average, 55% of American adults attend church at least once a week [url=http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac.htm]source[/url) and its reasonable to assume that adults with families are more likely than average to do so.

You didn't really read that did you? I said most either don't care for church or don't go to church. Some people may go to church, but not care for it and a lot really just don't go to church.

which is how you'd like us to view the origins of life and the universe.

Not really, I'm just saying that education on issues like the big bang and evolution leads more to atheism than not.

Ok, but this finds its way into lots of arguments--how is this connected to science education?

I was more making the point that when you combine that very irreligious culture, driven by people who are less religious or not religious, with an education like we have, it encourages atheism.

[Demon of Light]

Didn't see it, so I can't refute your claim...but one journalist's take on evangelical teen culture doesn't mean much, really.

Of course, it was on CNN and there are people who do share her irrational outlook on it.

Religion, like everything else in the human realm, has to adapt and change as humans change.

Of course it's likely to eventually adapt itself into atheism.

Ethos

Absolutely not. There is more to faith than whether a person believes god literally waved his hands around to create the Universe or if he simply got the ball rolling with self-designed physics and some starting matter.

True, but it doesn't help to make everything a little less like divine creation and more like natural non-divine development.

I'm not sure how you can even know this.

By knowing people who go to church. Some of them go to church every week more as a ritual or tradition than a religious devotion. That's what's happened in France. Even though half the population is Catholic only half of them are theistic, the rest treat it like a culture like many Jews do.

Or this either. It seems like you make an awful lot of guesses without much support for any of it in these debates. The majority of scientific figures learned about in school were not atheists, nor are the majority of scientists alive today.

Are you disagreeing with the study I showed you?

I would certainly hope no one is being told these falsehoods. Humans did not in fact come from amoebas, the Universe did not start off as a single atom.... although all people do begin as a zygote, which is indeed smaller than a skin flake.


I obviously know that, but that is effectively the argument as humans are said to have come from small single-celled organisms, and the universe began as a very small singularity, according to the science.

In fact, the idea of humans coming from something small and being nothing but randomly-formed becomes much more convincing with these explanations than without them.

You still haven't explained to us how knowing these scientific facts discourages religion. It would seem to me the continued prevalence of religious institutions in the modern era, despite the accumulation of scientific knowledge, is a direct and rather forceful contradiction to your entire premise.

Religion being around doesn't mean it's not having an effect. I don't think anyone would deny that more and more people are losing their religious beliefs and belief in a god in the West.

ProfessorBobo

So then, is the reverse a problem? Is it a problem for religious individuals, aiming to increase the spread of religion, to propagate that religion through public schools?

Of course it's a problem if they're using the education itself. That's why we have private schools and home schooling.

[Ethos]

True, but it doesn't help to make everything a little less like divine creation and more like natural non-divine development.

"Doesn't help" what, exactly? Again it seems like you are making a range of assumptions that simply don't fit real-world observations. Despite centuries of scientific advancement, a significant majority of humanity still believe in gods. Those who do not weren't converted to agnosticism or atheism because of science alone.



By knowing people who go to church. Some of them go to church every week more as a ritual or tradition than a religious devotion. That's what's happened in France. Even though half the population is Catholic only half of them are theistic, the rest treat it like a culture like many Jews do.


I see. So you are taking personal experience and applying it on a wider scale? Is this much like how you believe all atheists are anti-religion because the ones you know eventually admit it to you?



Are you disagreeing with the study I showed you?


Yes. The study you showed me was a survey of the National Academy of Sciences - not exactly a random sampling. It is statistically invalid as a representative of the whole.


I obviously know that, but that is effectively the argument as humans are said to have come from small single-celled organisms, and the universe began as a very small singularity, according to the science.

In fact, the idea of humans coming from something small and being nothing but randomly-formed becomes much more convincing with these explanations than without them.


Except the argument is not that humans are said to have come from small, single-celled organisms. Nor was our evolutionary track "randomly formed".

Misunderstandings of these sorts do lead to conflicts between science and faith, unfortunately, though not in the sense you are suggesting.


Religion being around doesn't mean it's not having an effect. I don't think anyone would deny that more and more people are losing their religious beliefs and belief in a god in the West.


Not over the last few years. Again I submit there are many more variables relating to the adoption (or release) of religious faith than you are addressing here. Secular education wouldn't seem to be a primary consideration.

Ethos

[Demon of Light]

"Doesn't help" what, exactly? Again it seems like you are making a range of assumptions that simply don't fit real-world observations. Despite centuries of scientific advancement, a significant majority of humanity still believe in gods.

Of course, that's because theories like evolution and the Big Bang have not penetrated as heavily in the world. I mean it was only early last century in the U.S. when it was decided that it was ok to teach evolution in school. It has taken even longer for that to become common place in public education and it also took a while for public education to become prominent.

This isn't even considering the fact that the science itself was not as advanced. Education has also improved significantly and become more common-place, as well as literacy.

Many of the advancements you mentioned weren't able to be propagated like they are today.

Those who do not weren't converted to agnosticism or atheism because of science alone.

I disagree, many people give up a belief in a god because of science.

I see. So you are taking personal experience and applying it on a wider scale?

I'm also basing it off France having a majority of Catholic, but also a majority of atheists because many identify themselves as Catholics, even if they don't believe in a god.

Not to mention you have teenagers or pre-teens who don't believe in a god but go with their parents and even some grown adults that go to church regularly, despite being atheist.

They're not a sizable minority, but the fact is going to church ever Sunday doesn't automatically make them a monotheist.

The same phenomena exists with Jews who will be atheist but actually consider themselves Jewish even going to temple regularly.

Is this much like how you believe all atheists are anti-religion because the ones you know eventually admit it to you?

Well, judging by your posts on this forum I'd say you also vindicate that statement.

Yes. The study you showed me was a survey of the National Academy of Sciences - not exactly a random sampling. It is statistically invalid as a representative of the whole.

Fine:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:JT4P-VksocAJ:religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Ecklund.pdf+religion+scientists&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Does that do more to satisfy you?

Except the argument is not that humans are said to have come from small, single-celled organisms.

Are you serious? Do you even understand the very science you're saying doesn't influence people's beliefs?

Single-celled organisms are the theoretical origin of all life on Earth, naturally that includes humans.

Nor was our evolutionary track "randomly formed".

You really don't understand the Theory of Evolution do you? I mean, we could have an argument about Determinism if you like, but excluding this evolution is a random process. It's a simple result of who lives and who dies.

Not over the last few years. Again I submit there are many more variables relating to the adoption (or release) of religious faith than you are addressing here. Secular education wouldn't seem to be a primary consideration.

It's not necessarily the sole cause for most people, but it is certainly a major factor. Often times some other trigger makes them question their beliefs such as the loss of a loved one, a crippling illness or medical disorder, or a traumatic event like war. However, many of them end up becoming vindicated in those beliefs by looking at science.

My brother had an experience like that where one thing led him to question his beliefs, while science ultimately led him to abandon it entirely.

With some people science simply makes the trip shorter. That is how it happened with Charles Darwin, science made him question his beliefs while the death of his daughter pushed him over the edge.

[Ethos]

Of course, that's because theories like evolution and the Big Bang have not penetrated as heavily in the world. I mean it was only early last century in the U.S. when it was decided that it was ok to teach evolution in school. It has taken even longer for that to become common place in public education and it also took a while for public education to become prominent.

This isn't even considering the fact that the science itself was not as advanced. Education has also improved significantly and become more common-place, as well as literacy.

You still haven't shown us that higher rates of education directly result in lower religiosity. I would be more convinced if we could see a sharper drop in those believing in god as the population came closer to 100% school attendance and literacy rates. From survey data between 1900 and 2005, we can see Christianity rates dropped as a percentage of the whole, but non-religious and/or atheists have grown by 10%. That seems like a ridiculously low number considering the levels of "indoctrination" you've been suggesting.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9399685/Religious-Adherents-in-the-United-States-of-America-1900-2005


I disagree, many people give up a belief in a god because of science.


Is that right? Who, exactly? How many have done so? Was the reason science alone, or perhaps a multitude of factors, with science being but one?


I'm also basing it off France having a majority of Catholic, but also a majority of atheists because many identify themselves as Catholics, even if they don't believe in a god.

Not to mention you have teenagers or pre-teens who don't believe in a god but go with their parents and even some grown adults that go to church regularly, despite being atheist.

They're not a sizable minority, but the fact is going to church ever Sunday doesn't automatically make them a monotheist.

The same phenomena exists with Jews who will be atheist but actually consider themselves Jewish even going to temple regularly.


You aren't giving me any hard data. Your assumptions and guesswork don't provide me with information I can either verify nor trust.



Well, judging by your posts on this forum I'd say you also vindicate that statement.


You'll understand if I don't agree with your judgment in this case. I expect this is an argument for PM or another thread, however.



Fine:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:JT4P-VksocAJ:religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Ecklund.pdf+religion+scientists&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Does that do more to satisfy you?


No. These surveys apply to U.S. University scientists. Yet another narrow group that cannot represent "scientists" in the general sense you're indicating.



Single-celled organisms are the theoretical origin of all life on Earth, naturally that includes humans.

You really don't understand the Theory of Evolution do you? I mean, we could have an argument about Determinism if you like, but excluding this evolution is a random process. It's a simple result of who lives and who dies.

While one should usually avoid technicalities, I think nitpicking in this case is warranted. Once again you are making an inaccurate statement - the origin of all life on Earth was not "single-celled organisms". The building blocks are more fundamental than that, and while I know the basic point you are trying to make, I believe it is the basic lack of detailed knowledge and short-cut explanations that puts evolution in such a cloud of doubt in most peoples' minds.

Humanity did not come from single-celled organisms. We evolved from far more complex species. We also did not come from "monkeys" or "ooze" or any of a number of ridiculous notions that just happen to be confused with actual science.

Evolution is also not random. Genetic mutation can be (and I stress "can be")a random event, however the process by which those mutations survive from one genome to the next is in no way random.



It's not necessarily the sole cause for most people, but it is certainly a major factor. Often times some other trigger makes them question their beliefs such as the loss of a loved one, a crippling illness or medical disorder, or a traumatic event like war. However, many of them end up becoming vindicated in those beliefs by looking at science.

My brother had an experience like that where one thing led him to question his beliefs, while science ultimately led him to abandon it entirely.

With some people science simply makes the trip shorter. That is how it happened with Charles Darwin, science made him question his beliefs while the death of his daughter pushed him over the edge.

So science does not, in fact, make people question their faith. What you have described above is a function of denial. People will question god for the loss of a loved one, but they end up leaving him because they learned about the Big Bang?

Not a chance. It's far less dangerous to simply not believe in god rather than to blame him for these tragedies. Science is the excuse, not the catalyst.

Ethos

[Turenne]

The mentality is the same because both are seeking to eradicate something for irrational reasons.

In fact I offered some small reasons as to why eradication of religion could be a good thing; explain their irrationality to me if you will.

Any reasoning against religion is the same as the reasoning against a race of social class. People associate negative actions with them and behave as though those actions are unavoidable as long as that group is around.

This argument is apparently that people would be more tolerant and kind if there was no religion and therefore it should be eradicated. Of course, it has more to do with the people than the actual religion.

In fact I never made any such argument. I'll repeat - my argument is that religion - the basis for which is an irrational belief in a supernatural being - is dangerous because no such being has been proven to exist and the ulitimate fallback position for the religious is that of blind faith. Such a belief belongs in a different time, a time when life was so precarious and volatile that gripping on to the belief in an afterlife and all powerful God were actually useful.

[steveksux]

steveksux



No, it isn't, but we're talking about education. Do you deny that our public education system tries to brainwash children into avoiding drugs, practicing safe sex, and being tolerant of different ethnicities?

Our public education is all about molding people's minds to meet an established standard for individuals. Irrelevant. Those things have nothing whatsoever to do with science education. Which is not brainwashing. Science is only harmful to one's religion if that religion insists on sticking with variations on such medieval fallacies as 6000 year old earth centered universes. Plenty of religions do not conflict with science. They and their followers are safe from any imaginary "brainwashing" going on through a science education.


That would be called Deism and it's not the same as having theistic religion, which often emphasizes the constant interference of a god or gods. Deism is really irreligious theism.Ridiculous. Catholics are not deists. Yet they have no problem with natural laws of science running the normal flow of events of nature through naturalistic principles and laws based on science. God is still free to intervene in human affairs through supernatural phenomenon. Same with many other mainstream Christian religions. Only the fringe fundamentalists have a problem with science explaining naturalistic phenomenon contrary to their ..... interesting... interpretations of bible passages to explain the physical universe.

You're pretty naive aren't you? Many atheist, secular, or agnostic scientists have attempted to build a morality based on scientific principles. Obviously it's not science itself but simply a morality based on reason and observations of the natural world, the root of science.So what does this have to do with anything? Building a morality? :lol: riiight. Hint: Showing that morality does not have to derive exclusively from Christianity is not attempting to "build a morality" as a part of some grand scheme to create a new "religion" based on science as you seem to be afraid of.

This is effectively what Secular Humanism is, a scientific approach to morality.
Not naive at all. Secular humanism is nothing more than a made up term by the religious fringe, seeking to pretend science is merely a belief system equivalent to religion. Pretending there is no difference between demonstrable fact based on evidence and sheer faith based on ancient texts.

That's not only inaccurate, but irrational. There was actually no specific basis in religion for a geocentric universe or flat earth, though the church often used skewed interpretations of the Bible to justify such theories. Exactly the same situation we have now, as some religions do today with evolution and the Big Bang.

Also, even if that were true it wouldn't have destroyed religion because that's just on small area. Religion has survived with most people for three reaons:

1. An inability to explain the world.

2. A belief that only a divine being could offer morality.

3. A fear of death.

These are really the three things that, put together, are a major reason for religion's staying power.Exactly why accepting evolution and the Big Bang in no way invalidate religion. Well, mainstream religions anyway. Those stuck with medieval theories about various phenomenon... :sorry:

Scientific education has effectively made the first irrelevant and the second is being built up more and more. The third usually is dealt with by the first two being dealt with.

So, if our education system constantly reinforces scientific explanations that remove a god or gods from them and in this non-theistic environment enforces a moral code, education effectively deals with all the major reasons for people maintaining religious beliefs.Ridiculous. Schools teach science and fact. Let the chips fall where they may. It does nothing to harm religion. Only some superstitious baggage on the margins are in jeopardy. And those can be jettisoned from religious orthodoxy as simply as the heliocentered universe was accepted over the earth centered philosophy by medieval theologians.

Randy

[steveksux]

The more divine beliefs that get eroded away the less there are left to encourage religion.
I guess we better take explanations of weather out of science class so as to not brainwash anyone into doubting that Indian Rain dances do cause rainfall. Wouldn't want to discourage religion.

As I already pointed out most scientists either aren't religious or are openly atheist or agnostic. Obviously the science that is coming out comes from them and it gets spread out into the education system.Science covers natural phenomenon. Period. It does not address, concern itself with, deny the existence of God in any way shape or form. Their personal beliefs regarding religion are irrelevant to the scientific works they do. Personal belief in God does not change the results of experiments or mathematical equations.

I'm not saying it can't come back, I'm just saying that these people in the article intend to erode away religion and replace it with something else.They erode away superstition and replace it with fact. As was done in the middle ages with the earth centered universe, denial of which was considered blasphemous and or heresy by the church, as was the movement of planets and stars, demonstrated by the treatment of Galileo. Much as one might try to deny that these false beliefs were articles of faith in the early church. Not unlike the current opposition to evolution and the big bang on doctrinal grounds. Its a simple matter to reinterpret scripture in light of existing evidence once more on evolution and the big bang as it was for the Earth being the center of the universe.

It's not so much a matter of ignorance as it is a matter of being told something is true without really being able to decide for yourself. A lot of people will simply believe what they're told in school and not think much for themselves, especially considering the education system doesn't encourage it.
What are the alternatives to evolution and the big bang that you are proposing for inclusion in science class, and what sort of evidence backs them up? Anything else need revamping? Numerology in math class? Alchemy in Chemistry class?

Randy

[Demon of Light]

Ethos

You still haven't shown us that higher rates of education directly result in lower religiosity. I would be more convinced if we could see a sharper drop in those believing in god as the population came closer to 100% school attendance and literacy rates. From survey data between 1900 and 2005, we can see Christianity rates dropped as a percentage of the whole, but non-religious and/or atheists have grown by 10%. That seems like a ridiculously low number considering the levels of "indoctrination" you've been suggesting.

This is a horribly ignorant analysis. There are some things that would never show up with such a simplistic measure of the number of religious people. This can't measure the extent or nature of their religious beliefs, which is also a factor to consider. For one people may identify themselves with a certain religion, but not actually believe in a god.

Many people identify themselves as Jewish, but are atheists and, like I pointed out before, in France people identify themselves as Catholic despite being atheist. In the UK the majority are atheist, but many identify themselves as Christians at the same time.

Is that right? Who, exactly? How many have done so? Was the reason science alone, or perhaps a multitude of factors, with science being but one?

Straight from the horse's mouth:

http://lilyofphilly.blogspot.com/2007/03/conversion-to-atheism.html

http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=lostfaith

http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/MyConversion.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/vincent_runyon/left_ministry.html#c6

You aren't giving me any hard data. Your assumptions and guesswork don't provide me with information I can either verify nor trust.

I've given you plenty of hard data.

You'll understand if I don't agree with your judgment in this case.

I did say before that a lot of atheists don't admit to it, so I do.

No. These surveys apply to U.S. University scientists. Yet another narrow group that cannot represent "scientists" in the general sense you're indicating.

Unless you can find something that verifies a majority of scientists as theists I'll need more. I know for damn sure ya ain't gonna find very many religious scientists, even if you can find a majority of theists.

While one should usually avoid technicalities, I think nitpicking in this case is warranted. Once again you are making an inaccurate statement - the origin of all life on Earth was not "single-celled organisms". The building blocks are more fundamental than that, and while I know the basic point you are trying to make, I believe it is the basic lack of detailed knowledge and short-cut explanations that puts evolution in such a cloud of doubt in most peoples' minds.

It's not an inaccurate statement.

Humanity did not come from single-celled organisms. We evolved from far more complex species. We also did not come from "monkeys" or "ooze" or any of a number of ridiculous notions that just happen to be confused with actual science.

The argument is that atoms formed molecules and they formed more complex systems that ultimately formed single-celled organism and those developed over time into more complex organisms like fish or undersea reptiles that came on land, developed into early reptillians (I know they're not reptiles), and over times developed into mammals with fur and birds with feathers. Some of these mammals eventually developed into primates some of which ultimately developed into humans. A process that took millions of year before modern man. Obviously the first true man, wherever you'd choose to draw that line, wouldn't have come from a monkey or single-celled organism, but simply a more humanoid ape.

I do understand the science of it.

Evolution is also not random. Genetic mutation can be (and I stress "can be")a random event, however the process by which those mutations survive from one genome to the next is in no way random.

Of course it's random. It's just who lives and who dies. There's no rhyme or reason to it, it just happens.

So science does not, in fact, make people question their faith. What you have described above is a function of denial. People will question god for the loss of a loved one, but they end up leaving him because they learned about the Big Bang?

I'm sorry, but do you even know what I just told you. Charles Darwin was seriously questioning faith and religion long before his daughter died, but when his daughter did die he became an atheist. The loss of his daughter may not have had the same impact if he wasn't already questioning his faith.

Turenne

In fact I offered some small reasons as to why eradication of religion could be a good thing; explain their irrationality to me if you will.

You believe having religion is the same as being ignorant?

In fact I never made any such argument.

Didn't say you did, only that one common argument is effectively the same as an argument for racism because it alleges that religion is inherently intolerant and cruel.

I'll repeat - my argument is that religion - the basis for which is an irrational belief in a supernatural being - is dangerous because no such being has been proven to exist and the ulitimate fallback position for the religious is that of blind faith. Such a belief belongs in a different time, a time when life was so precarious and volatile that gripping on to the belief in an afterlife and all powerful God were actually useful.

In other words religion is the "opium of the people"?

[Ethos]

This is a horribly ignorant analysis. There are some things that would never show up with such a simplistic measure of the number of religious people. This can't measure the extent or nature of their religious beliefs, which is also a factor to consider. For one people may identify themselves with a certain religion, but not actually believe in a god.

Many people identify themselves as Jewish, but are atheists and, like I pointed out before, in France people identify themselves as Catholic despite being atheist. In the UK the majority are atheist, but many identify themselves as Christians at the same time.

I don't believe you are equipped to imagine the exact level of faith that people aside from yourself current hold. I will take the word of everyday people through properly organized and implemented surveys which I have already provided. They do not cover France or the UK, so I can't really comment on the exact nature of their religious faith. What they do show is a direct contradiction to your claims of atheistic indoctrination through the U.S. public school system.

If you have an actual set of data to present on actual religious faith across the U.S., please do so. I will not accept your assumptions on the matter as accurate.



Straight from the horse's mouth:

http://lilyofphilly.blogspot.com/2007/03/conversion-to-atheism.html

http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=lostfaith

http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/MyConversion.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/vincent_runyon/left_ministry.html#c6


Well again, these people moved away from religion for a number of reasons. The ones that do mention science as a variable seem to do so in passing.



I've given you plenty of hard data.


No, you haven't. You have given me personal opinion cloaked as fact and wild assumptions without supporting information. Even the "converted" atheists you manage to find don't support your assertions.


I did say before that a lot of atheists don't admit to it, so I do.


Again, pure assumption on your part. If someone doesn't admit to a fact you cannot otherwise know, then you are clearly making a potentially erroneous extrapolation.



Unless you can find something that verifies a majority of scientists as theists I'll need more. I know for damn sure ya ain't gonna find very many religious scientists, even if you can find a majority of theists.


And now we see more semantics. The scientists of the world must be "religious enough" to meet an invented benchmark on your part before you consider them anything but atheists?



The argument is that atoms formed molecules and they formed more complex systems that ultimately formed single-celled organism and those developed over time into more complex organisms like fish or undersea reptiles that came on land, developed into early reptillians (I know they're not reptiles), and over times developed into mammals with fur and birds with feathers. Some of these mammals eventually developed into primates some of which ultimately developed into humans. A process that took millions of year before modern man. Obviously the first true man, wherever you'd choose to draw that line, wouldn't have come from a monkey or single-celled organism, but simply a more humanoid ape.

I do understand the science of it.

Good. Maybe we can avoid factually incorrect claims.



Of course it's random. It's just who lives and who dies. There's no rhyme or reason to it, it just happens.

Apparently you don't understand the science after all. Death within the context of natural selection is anything but random. Genetic mutations that allow one species to survive where another does not is the antithesis of randomness. Unless you can explain to us how a "selective" process can simultaneously be "random" ?



I'm sorry, but do you even know what I just told you. Charles Darwin was seriously questioning faith and religion long before his daughter died, but when his daughter did die he became an atheist. The loss of his daughter may not have had the same impact if he wasn't already questioning his faith.


Yes I do. Do you know what you just told me?

Darwin had doubts, but he still had faith even with his scientific discoveries. It wasn't until the trauma of a child's death that he turned from god.

Once again, science is not even the primary factor. It is simply a minor element in a much larger psychological battle. Your argument is lost.

Ethos

[Atticus]

I have to agree with Ethos that the arguments you're making are founded in assumptions that can't be proven. If I bring you data, you just say "well, they go to church but they don't really care about religion." That's an unprovable notion. I like fairly tightly structured arguments, ones that don't stray too far from either fundamental questions of value or factual evidence, and I'm afraid this one is too far from either one to convince me--and I'm actually among those it's easier to convince. You really appear to be saying "who are you going to believe, me or your lyin' eyes?" when you say that we simply have to reject the evidence and logic of science in order to maintain religious faith.

Part of this comes from what I understand about the nature of language (and therefore texts like the Bible). Language can be literal, but it's also metaphorical, ironic, symbolic, and functions differently in different contexts. Exactly how to interpret a text is the subject of some debate--even among members of a single religion or even a single sect--so too much rigidity is likely to be troublesome in any case. You seem to think religion is like a brittle old tree that may be strong, but once broken will snap away and die a stump. I look at the same tree and see a willow. We have to decide what's really important about faith and stick to those things. If the Bible says "seven days," what does that really mean? If we can count the begats and measure exact years, perhaps the meaning is obscure. Jesus' most important teachings were parables that, by their very nature, are symbolic and require some complexity of thinking to understand. I don't see why we can't apply that complexity to other questions and come away with answers that will continue to serve us well in a world filled with more empirically derived understanding.

Appreciating the complexity of the discussion is key, I think. Let's look at one of your claims: As I already pointed out most scientists either aren't religious or are openly atheist or agnostic. Obviously the science that is coming out comes from them and it gets spread out into the education system.On the surface, you're right--barely. According to the "The 2005-07 study, "Religion Among Academic Scientists" (source (http://www.buffalo.edu/reporter/vol38/vol38n43/articles/EcklundReligiousScientists.html)) it's true that "almost 52%" of American scientists claim no religious affiliation (as opposed to 14% of the wider population). That's a bare majority. But the reasons for their lack of religion don't follow your expectation. The claim of the article is that science makes people less religious. In fact, the relatively religiousness of scientists varies according to the same variable as everyone else--being raised in a religious home. The lower levels of faith among scientists come from the fact that religious people are less attracted to science: Ecklund and Scheitle concluded that the assumption that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable.

"It appears that those from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately self-select into scientific professions," Ecklund says. "This may reflect the fact that there is tension between the religious tenets of some groups and the theories and methods of particular sciences, and it contributes to the large number of non-religious scientists."So there IS a relationship between being non-religious and studying science, but it comes at the front and of the process, not the back end.

In other words, Richard Rorty can say all he likes that academics should arrange things so as to make students more like themselves, but those students can just as easily select academic subjects that reflect their own values--and they do.

Dorothy Parker said, "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think." This study seems to indicate that non-culturated horts will just avoid Miss Parker altogether.

It's just dangerous to look with such an differentiated view at a complex question like this one. You'll probably come up with more simple, satisfying answers, but not necessarily the most enlightened ones.

[Groucho]

I agree with Atticus. I think by the time people have decided to go to college and study science, they have already decided their religion... and people who are analytical, questioning, and skeptical are obviously attracted to science and not to religion.

[Ethos]

While admittedly anecdotal, I should mention that as a Christian, I put behind me what I considered trivial conflicts between my faith and scientific advancement. I was never one to take the Bible literally, and whether the universe began as a physical explosion, or a supernatural flick of a switch, never really made much of a difference to me.

Like many Christians, I welcomed new discoveries not as a destructive force against my faith, but a reinforcement of god's magnificence as a creator.

Ethos

[Demon of Light]

steveksux

Irrelevant. Those things have nothing whatsoever to do with science education. Which is not brainwashing.

Of course it's brainwashing, just like all education institutions, public or private. The whole point education is to brainwash people. It involves people telling children at an age where they are not fully developed intellectually that the world works a certain way and making sure the students believe them.

Science is only harmful to one's religion if that religion insists on sticking with variations on such medieval fallacies as 6000 year old earth centered universes.

Yet again, there is nothing in any religious text that suggests a geocentric universe.

Plenty of religions do not conflict with science. They and their followers are safe from any imaginary "brainwashing" going on through a science education.

Uh, no, most religions would conflict with science. Here are the Biggest religions:

# Christianity: 2.1 billion
# Islam: 1.5 billion
# Hinduism: 900 million
# Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
# Buddhism: 376 million
# primal-indigenous: 300 million
# African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million

Buddhism is probably the most tolerant religion, but even Buddhists have beliefs which contradict science such as reincarnation, not to mention many also have other religious beliefs. Though, Buddhism is also mostly an atheistic religion anyway.

Generally, I don't think any of the above religions actually work well with scientific concepts.

Ridiculous. Catholics are not deists.

Not all of them anyway.

Yet they have no problem with natural laws of science running the normal flow of events of nature through naturalistic principles and laws based on science.

Of course, I think that about 99.9% of all religious people agree. Naturally some don't believe in evolution or the big bang as those theories are laid out. Believing those are the causes of life and the universe naturally erodes away at faith.

So what does this have to do with anything? Building a morality? riiight. Hint: Showing that morality does not have to derive exclusively from Christianity is not attempting to "build a morality" as a part of some grand scheme to create a new "religion" based on science as you seem to be afraid of.

You're the one that said:

Science is ill suited to come up with a moral framework and spiritual guidance.

I was simply responding that people have indeed used science to build up a moral framework.

Secular humanism is nothing more than a made up term by the religious fringe, seeking to pretend science is merely a belief system equivalent to religion.

No the term was coined long before religious critics used it against the movement and it very much exists.

Exactly the same situation we have now, as some religions do today with evolution and the Big Bang.

Except they're not simply making it up. If anything is wrong with their interpretation it's a mistranslation.

Exactly why accepting evolution and the Big Bang in no way invalidate religion. Well, mainstream religions anyway.

Getting rid of just one of those things ultimately makes losing another all the easier.

Schools teach science and fact.

This shows how little you know. Evolution of species and the big bang are by no means facts. Many things taught in science or other classes are not fact, they are merely theories.

I guess we better take explanations of weather out of science class so as to not brainwash anyone into doubting that Indian Rain dances do cause rainfall. Wouldn't want to discourage religion.

Teaching what causes rain is of course different from teaching the beginning of the universe and life.

Science covers natural phenomenon. Period. It does not address, concern itself with, deny the existence of God in any way shape or form. Their personal beliefs regarding religion are irrelevant to the scientific works they do. Personal belief in God does not change the results of experiments or mathematical equations.

Obviously, but who is pursuing the research and reaching the conclusions?

They erode away superstition and replace it with fact. As was done in the middle ages with the earth centered universe, denial of which was considered blasphemous and or heresy by the church, as was the movement of planets and stars, demonstrated by the treatment of Galileo.

Of course superstition here being code for religion.

What are the alternatives to evolution and the big bang that you are proposing for inclusion in science class, and what sort of evidence backs them up? Anything else need revamping? Numerology in math class? Alchemy in Chemistry class?

I'm not proposing alternatives, I'm saying the way these subjects are taught doesn't really allow students to think for themselves you either believe everything they say or you don't. If you don't you better act like you do or you fail.

[Demon of Light]

Ethos

I don't believe you are equipped to imagine the exact level of faith that people aside from yourself current hold.

I don't claim to be equipped for such, however I simply know that not everyone who identifies themselves as of a certain faith is religious. I'm sure you can name plenty of people you know who claim to be a member of a religion but are not very dedicated to their religion and I can do the same.

What they do show is a direct contradiction to your claims of atheistic indoctrination through the U.S. public school system.

No, but it does show you have one hell of a way of twisting data to make some idiotic criticism. You're taking an absolutist approach to everything I've said. I said science education erodes away religion and you then argue that because a majority still identify themselves as religious it must mean I'm wrong because not everyone or mostly everyone is atheist yet.

Of the people you mentioned not all of them go to church frequently so they're not as religious and of those that do not all of them are very religious and some may even be irreligious but go frequently for some other reason say their family or spouse.

If you have an actual set of data to present on actual religious faith across the U.S., please do so. I will not accept your assumptions on the matter as accurate.

They're not assumptions, they're just facts.

Well again, these people moved away from religion for a number of reasons. The ones that do mention science as a variable seem to do so in passing.

And I'm sure you'd say anything rather than admit to being wrong. If you even read those, which you obviously didn't, you'd see that science was a central focus of their loss off religion:

But then one day in adult bible study, during a lesson on the Creation Story, our group leader explained about how ancient people viewed the world, and how the Creation Story reflects that. She pointed out "the firmament- a solid, dome-shaped structure in which the stars were placed, and separated the waters below from the waters above" as a good example. We now know that rain comes from clouds, and not windows in a firmament being opened.

Conceptual step 2: Some stories in the Bible are just too contradictory to science and reason to be real.

So then I started thinking, what am I supposed to believe out of this holy book if some of it isn't true? There's no disclaimer in any of the chapters. If some of it isn't true, maybe the whole thing's been embelished. So then I started looking into the world's other major religions, and their traditions, and writings. I probably found something I liked and didn't like in each and every one, so I thought,

Seems like she was looking at it all from science.

I did not lose my faith, I gave it up purposely. The motivation that drove me into the ministry is the same that drove me out. I have always wanted to know. Even as a child I fervently pursued truth. I was rarely content to accept things without examination, and my examinations were intense. I was a thirsty learner, a good student, and a good minister because of that drive. I always took things apart and put them back together again.

Since I was taught and believed Christianity was the answer, the only hope for "man," I dedicated myself to understanding all I possibly could. I devoured every book, every sermon, and the bible. I prayed, fasted and obeyed biblical teaching. I decided that I would lean my whole weight upon the truth of scripture. This attitude, I am sure, gave the impression that I was a notch above, that I could be trusted as a Christian authority and leader. Christians, eager for substantiation, gladly allowed me to assume a place of leadership and I took it as confirmation of my holy calling.

But my mind did not go to sleep. In my thirst for knowledge I did not limit myself to Christian authors but curiously desired to understand the reasoning behind nonChristian thinking. I figured the only way to truly grasp a subject was to look at it from all sides. If I had limited myself to Christian books I would probably still be a Christian today. I read philosophy, theology, science and psychology. I studied evolution and natural history. I read Bertrand Russell, Thomas Paine, Ayn Rand, John Dewey and others. At first I laughed at these worldly thinkers, but I eventually started discovering some disturbing facts--facts that discredited Christianity. I tried to ignore these facts because they did not integrate with my religious world view.

For years I went through an intense inner conflict. On the one hand I was happy with the direction and fulfillment of my Christian life; on the other hand I had intellectual doubts. Faith and reason began a war within me. And it kept escalating. I would cry out to God for answers, and none would come. Like the battered wife who clings to hope, I kept trusting that God would someday come through. He never did.

The only proposed answer was faith, and I gradually grew to dislike the smell of that word. I finally realized that faith is a cop-out, a defeat--an admission that the truths of religion are unknowable through evidence and reason. It is only undemonstrable assertions that require the suspension of reason, and weak ideas that require faith. I just lost faith in faith. Biblical contradictions became more and more discrepant, apologist arguments more and more absurd and, when I finally discarded faith, things became more and more clear.

Again, sounds like he was talking about science.

[Demon of Light]

However, for as far back as I could remember I had never really felt the presence or existence of God or Jesus or any such listener to my pro forma prayers. When alone I felt that my thoughts were heard, and my actions seen, by only myself and my own conscience. I had always thought that the gospels were somehow a little too quaint, and that the Old Testament was hard to take very seriously. At some point I read Genesis and was made skeptical by the counter-intuitive Tree of Knowledge story and the use of the first person plural. My increasing knowledge and appreciation of science made the Bible seem less and less grounded in the nonfiction universe.

Hmmm.

First let me outline the events that directed me to atheism.

1. I had been taught to be a truthseeker.

2. I took a sabbatical leave which gave me time to travel study and rethink.

3. I came in contact with the Humanists who had a substitute for religion. Worshipping neither God, man nor beast their emphasis was on improving this world rather than preparing for the next.

4. Impressed with the fact that the rationalists, humanists, secularists and freethinkers were superior people I was driven to my books in order to learn whether or not the supposed existence of God was a fallacy. With a hundred questions on my mind I did not stop reading until I was completely and fully convinced that my most fundamental beliefs were based on error. I finally had to conclude that future civilizations would be better off without belief in this nefarious practice of superstitiously attempt ing to contact the so-called unseen or invisible powers. I quit belief in ghosts.

Let me apply the four steps one by one:--

Step #1. Good professors made me a truthseeker. The motto of my old alma mater Fremont College was "The Light of Truth Leads." From her able scholars I early learned what a thrill, what excitement and what adventure there is in store for those who diligen tly seek the light of knowledge. Later when commencing my studies at Drew Theological seminary my beloved and esteemed professor of theology Dr. Edwin Lewis startled the class when he in effect said (my words) "Young men follow truth wherever it leads. It may lead you in dangerous paths but have courage to follow it even if it takes you from your goal." Those were jewelled words of wisdom. Little did I then realize that in later years the continued pursuit of knowledge would lead me from the very professi on for which I was then being trained.

You weren't by any chance ignoring all of this were you? Certainly the first person sounds like it was science alone that convinced her.

No, you haven't. You have given me personal opinion cloaked as fact and wild assumptions without supporting information. Even the "converted" atheists you manage to find don't support your assertions.

I guess it's easy to deny it when you clearly are ignoring it.

And now we see more semantics. The scientists of the world must be "religious enough" to meet an invented benchmark on your part before you consider them anything but atheists?

Someone who believe there's a supreme being and that's it, is not really what we're getting at. My point in all this