Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: "jgrisham@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <jgrisham@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 16 Mar 2006 11:56:30 -0800
diegopig@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hi, jgrisham
Thank you for answering.
What you write is very interesting, and I'd like to get a better
undestanding.
But let me be clear: I'm going to make some hard questions, but don't
get me wrong.
What I'd like is to know if I understand you well or if I did miss
something.
So, please, don't be offended. I don't mean to offend you.
First, from what you write it seems to me you think that the
"Establishment Clause" wasn't written for keeping religion out of
government, but to protect Christianity from other sect of religion.
Specifically, the Establishment Clause was written to keep the Quakers
(Puritans) from becoming sanctioned as the religion of the United
States. These are the people associated with our holiday of
"Thanksgiving", as well as the Salem Witch Trials. Much of the reason,
America has been spared conflict between religious sects is because the
Establishment Clause eliminated the potential of power in a religion
becoming state sanctioned. One of the nice things about our
Constitution is that it wasn't written to protect the government from
the people, it was written to protect the people from the government.
This is what I understand when you say "Christian morality into
classroom".
We have repeated instances of children bringing guns to school and
killing classmates in America. It's a product of our time. Children do
not receive the moral guidance or discipline that previous generations
grew up with. They disrespect their parents and teachers, protected by
laws designed to prosecute sexual molesters. It's a widening gap
between the world of students and the world of their parents.
Is this so?
If so, why do you think that morality should be taught in classroom?
Discipline. No physical violence against other students, teachers and
staff. That would be a start.
Shouldn't be church and family the right place? In the Dover trail,
plaintiff explicity states that they wanted to teach religion at home.
So what's your opinion on this?
Homeschooling protects the child from physical threats that public
schools are no longer empowered to deal with. However, students need a
social medium of their own to really develop people skills. It's a
question of safety vs developement.
Going on, you say that "all forms of theism are functionally considered
delusional in the American public school science classroom". Do you
mean teachers mobs on students for their belief? There is mobbing among
students? Keep in mind I'm not an american, so I really don't know how
things are in your school.
Americans do not raise their children, thoughtfully. Teachers can
undermine parental authority, almost too easily. My 2nd grade teacher
announced the first day of 2nd grade, "We all know there is no such
thing as Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny". I was 6
years old and hadn't thought about it (neither had my classmates). In
one stroke, my parents had become liars and other adults had become
members of an improbable conspiracy to universally lie to children. By
the time a student gets to Evolution, he either trusts his teachers or
doesn't... if he trusts them, they're telling him there's no God.
That's the kind of trauma that might lead a child to bring a gun to
school and start shooting people.
Again, you say: "The debate is over Methodological Naturalism..."
Here maybe coud be useful to confront our views on this.
I always thought that Methodological Naturalism it's an auto-imposed
limit on knowledge.
This is because scientist don't want all knowledge, but only the
knowledge the can use to make something.
Let me give and example: if I want to build a house but I don't have
any machine at all, I auto-limit myself saying: "well, I'm going to use
only staff I can lift with my bare hands".
It's a limit. It avoids me to use things like concrete walls, but since
I couldn't lift them, this limit doesn't matter very much.
In science, Methodological Naturalism is used because whatever is
outside it cannot be used.
Traditional Naturalism, as I understand it, doesn't let me have more
stuff to "lift". I can't build a machine, a device, which is based on
something that came out of traditional naturalism.
The only real limit is your imagination. There was a time when science
operated within limits, but on the whole, it doesn't do that anymore.
Physics has taken us into the realm of multiverses. Evolution
reconstructs creatures that haven't existed for millions of years from
a fossilized rib or jaw. Global warming threatens to return the climate
to the hostile conditions we haven't known for 8,000 years... is what
humans know of nature natural or has 8,000 years of moderate climate
been supernatural? How do you define naturalism if human experience has
only known the supernatural? There is much that needs to be imagined.
But maybe I get this completly wrong.
I mean, from what you write maybe you view Methodological Naturalism
like the "Gospel of Atheism", a doctrine which say "There is nothing
beyond testable things".
Yes.
In this case I can very well understand you. If M.N. is used to say
such a thing then is a religion (well, an anti-religion).
In this case everything depends on details. How this things is tougth,
what the teachers say to students, etc.
"There are many opinions. There is no proof" (as per the question of
God).
JTG 3/16/06
I'd like to know your opinion and/or clarifications on this.
Thank you,
Diego
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: Ken Shaw
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: diegopig
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- References:
- I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: diegopig
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: jgrisham@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: diegopig
- I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- Prev by Date: Re: How old does the universe have to be for evolution to "work"?
- Next by Date: Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- Previous by thread: Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- Next by thread: Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading