Anglicans exclude the US Episcopalians over gay bishops

[Rhiannon]

Yes, true, but they can be educated to see that unless there is evidence, beliefs are not facts, no matter what their parents tell them.

IME the difference between belief and fact, along with related topics such as subjective and objective truth, is hardly touched on in schools.

A different subject for a different day perhaps.

[Shaker]

That's easy, Shakes. Everything that science is based on has been observed and interpreted by human beings.

Yes, of course.

Where is the independent confirmation of anything?

Ever heard of the scientific method?

[Hope]

IME the difference between belief and fact, along with related topics such as subjective and objective truth, is hardly touched on in schools.

You would then run into the problem that occasionally occurs here whereby no-one would be allowed to suggest that science is no more than a human construct based on human observations and interpretations, and that it is little more than a belief system that is useful to humanity.

[Hope]

Ever heard of the scientific method?

Yes, I've heard of it.  Ever heard of anything scientific that hasn't been moderated through a human being?  Subjective doesn't quite do the issue justice.

[Rhiannon]

You would then run into the problem that occasionally occurs here whereby no-one would be allowed to suggest that science is no more than a human construct based on human observations and interpretations, and that it is little more than a belief system that is useful to humanity.

Don't be ridiculous, Hope, we're talking about kids being taught basic critical thinking skills.

[Shaker]

Yes, I've heard of it.  Ever heard of anything scientific that hasn't been moderated through a human being?  Subjective doesn't quite do the issue justice.

It isn't subjective - that's why the method has some of the features that it does, particularly shareability, repeatability (sometimes) and anonymous peer review.

[Shaker]

Don't be ridiculous, Hope, we're talking about kids being taught basic critical thinking skills.

Something long overdue and of which there's a great need.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon, Shaker and Leonard,

But what do you replace religious education with, it is vitally important.

From the moment our kids wake up in the morning till the time they go to sleep our kids are bombarded with bullshit, the perfect body, the must have trainers, the latest fashion accessories, we have obesity in young kids, we have kids suffering from anorexia.

Instead of simply stating, beliefs are not facts, religion should not be taught in schools, what do you replace it with, what are your answers to greed, gluttony, envy, jealousy, pride ( what's the other two ) these are vitally important subjects that should be discussed in schools from a very early age.

Me and Leonard had a similar discussion about a week ago, he mentioned that spanish kids are taught citizenship, I looked it up, British kids have something similar, but it hardly touches on what Christians call sins and anyway, it is an add on, it is an also, it does not top English and Arithmetic, where are your answers to our children's problems, you won't find them in arithmetic and you certainly won't find them in I before E except after C.

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad you've said the same as me, using your words a different way around up until you finished your post off with " To argue that they should have less is special pleading", I've never said anything other than, religious or non-religious, we should all have a level playing field, so you didn't get that lot from anything I've said, why say it Vlad, no one on the forum has argued that?

ippy

I don't think you could have possibly read what I put....for if you had you would see that if religion had the same rights as those I mentioned....there would be faith schools and bishops in the House of Lords.

To remove those rights would constitute special pleading.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Something long overdue and of which there's a great need.

British youth are brought up to criticise though.......except themselves of course.
That is one huge mother of a national parental failing.

[wigginhall]

You would then run into the problem that occasionally occurs here whereby no-one would be allowed to suggest that science is no more than a human construct based on human observations and interpretations, and that it is little more than a belief system that is useful to humanity.

It's not simply a belief system, since it is based on observations, which are used to make hypotheses, which can be checked, and also produce predictions, also tested.   We don't teach kids scientific stuff as part of a philosophical education, well, not normally, but as something practical, and also which shows the amazing aspects of the universe.   It is also something shared universally. 

[Hope]

It's not simply a belief system, since it is based on observations, which are used to make hypotheses, which can be checked, and also produce predictions, also tested.   We don't teach kids scientific stuff as part of a philosophical education, well, not normally, but as something practical, and also which shows the amazing aspects of the universe.   It is also something shared universally.

But it is still based on purely human understanding.  There is no independent (external to humanity) confirmation of what human scientists understand.  Everything depends on observations, hypotheses and predictions that are checked and established by humans. 

[Shaker]

But it is still based on purely human understanding. There is no independent (external to humanity) confirmation of what human scientists understand.

Because there's zero evidence of anything "external" to humanity, whatever that's even supposed to mean. Science is a human endeavour.

Everything depends on observations, hypotheses and predictions that are checked and established by humans.

Yes. It's called science.

[Hope]

Because there's zero evidence of anything "external" to humanity, whatever that's even supposed to mean.

In your opinion, but not in that of billions of other people.

Yes. It's called science.

Sorry, Shakes, science can't be the proof for itself.

[Shaker]

In your opinion, but not in that of billions of other people.

Argumentum ad populum/numerum. I knew you'd have to slip a logical fallacy in there somewhere or other.

Sorry, Shakes, science can't the proof for itself.

What?

[Rhiannon]

#307 Gonners, of course religion should be taught about in schools. But alongside critical thinking and making clear the distinction between belief and fact.

The most worrying failure I've seen regarding this arose because of the fashion for reaching by theme at primary age. All three of my kids were taught about The Creation as a theme - RS was the Bible story, art was God making the universe in six days, and the science part was the solar system. When one if my kids put her hand up and said that some people believed in the big bang theory (her words) she was shut up as she'd gone off script.

You also do our young people a disservice. All those things you mention were problems when I was a child and the religious education I had back then didn't prevent them. Today's young people are ready to act when they are moved by something - only this week my local paper has a feature on a young man who organised a collection of emergency supplies through social media and drove to hem up to flood victims in York. I see much to admire in today's young.

[Aruntraveller]

In your opinion, but not in that of billions of other people.
Sorry, Shakes, science can't the proof for itself.

Aye well billions of flies think shit tastes great.

The last sentence makes no sense to me even if i insert the word i think is missing.

[Shaker]

Aye well billions of flies think shit tastes great.

Hope probably prefers your rather more forthright version - he gets very antsy about terminology in non-English languages even when it's the correct terminology.

[SusanDoris]

Dear Rhiannon, Shaker and Leonard,

But what do you replace religious education with, it is vitally important.

From the moment our kids wake up in the morning till the time they go to sleep our kids are bombarded with bullshit, the perfect body, the must have trainers, the latest fashion accessories, we have obesity in young kids, we have kids suffering from anorexia.

Instead of simply stating, beliefs are not facts, religion should not be taught in schools, what do you replace it with, what are your answers to greed, gluttony, envy, jealousy, pride ( what's the other two ) these are vitally important subjects that should be discussed in schools from a very early age.

Me and Leonard had a similar discussion about a week ago, he mentioned that spanish kids are taught citizenship, I looked it up, British kids have something similar, but it hardly touches on what Christians call sins and anyway, it is an add on, it is an also, it does not top English and Arithmetic, where are your answers to our children's problems, you won't find them in arithmetic and you certainly won't find them in I before E except after C.

Gonnagle.

You don't REPLACE it, it's an integral part of history and that's where it should take its place.

Simon has just been reading me the chapter of 'The Human Universe' by Brian Cox where he points out that the scientific method is the best.

And a note to Hope here: Read the book, 'The Human Universe'

[Hope]

Argumentum ad populum/numerum. I knew you'd have to slip a logical fallacy in there somewhere or other.

No, neither of those fallacies, Shakes.  You have expressed your opinion, I stated that there are billions who have a different opinion.  At no point did I say that numbers (or lack of them) proved that either position was correct.  Your reference to the fallacy concept would seem to suggest that you think that the numbers do prove correctness.

What?

As I am sure you are aware, you cannot - in law - be the evidence for something you have done (or not done).  Nor can science be the evidence for itself.

[Hope]

You don't REPLACE it, it's an integral part of history and that's where it should take its place.

It is also still an integral part of a sizeable majority of the world's population.

Simon has just been reading me the chapter of 'The Human Universe' by Brian Cox where he points out that the scientific method is the best.

Good to see a scientist pointing out that science is the best.  Where is the objectivity in this point?

And a note to Hope here: Read the book, 'The Human Universe'

I've read extracts which I found interesting but they, at least, never gave any indication as to why I should regard Cox's opinions as sacrosanct.

[Shaker]

No, neither of those fallacies, Shakes.  You have expressed your opinion, I stated that there are billions who have a different opinion.

And that is utterly irrelevant. You know what opinions are like, don't you?

At no point did I say that numbers (or lack of them) proved that either position was correct.

So why mention it? Why even bother to raise the point that billions of people hold a certain opinion? Certainly it is a fact, but it tells us precisely nothing, nada, zip, zilch about whether the content of their belief is true. That being the case, why raise the non-issue of numbers?

The vast majority of the world's scientists - millions upon millions of men and women - accept that biological evolution has taken place and still does. That fact is relevant not because of the numbers but because of their position as professionals able to evaluate empirical evidence.

Your reference to the fallacy concept would seem to suggest that you think that the numbers do prove correctness.

Nope.

As I am sure you are aware, you cannot - in law - be the evidence for something you have done (or not done).  Nor can science be the evidence for itself.

The validity of the scientific endeavour is shown by its successes. It works, in other words, in telling us about the stuff of the world and how it works. Nothing else does.

[Shaker]

It is also still an integral part of a sizeable majority of the world's population.

But this is irrelevant, isn't it?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon,

The important word in your post is should.

I see ( personally ) a void, nothing to replace religious teaching, not the loaves and fishes, not the creation myth, the do unto others, the turn the other cheek ( I would personally love to watch kids discuss that one, I think we would have plenty of, oh you bloody well think so from the kids, I struggle with that one ) the serving your fellow man, the do not judge.

And I see our Susan jumping in with another should but then maybe she is right, history could be a great place to teach morals and ethics, learn from our past mistakes.

But I am talking about teaching our kids from a very early age, loving your fellowman is way more important than English and Arithmetic.

I would never do our kids a disservice, I point the finger fairly and squarely at my generation, hell! I voted Thatcher in, for that I am truly sorry.

Gonnagle.

[Rhiannon]

But Gonners, who was to blame for my generation being screwed up? My parents? Who screwed them up? It's never-ending. But I tell you this: when it comes to teaching selflessness, kindness and empathy schools can only do so much; it is what a child learns from the cradle in their family and community that shapes that rather than anything picked up through education.