Pope warns: West seems 'tired' of faith

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

:rolleyes:

The duty of the government is and should be to provide education to everyone, a vanilla education. Teaching kids empirical facts, mathematics, learning to read etc. After that it's the parents job. However this is not the case as it stands.

All the government needs to do is make sure that all kids have access to the same levels of numeracy, literacy and science that's it. I repeat personal beliefs have no right to my tax money. Cold hard facts I'm okay with. There is just education to suggest otherwise is you just serving your argument. Why are you so eager to have my tax money bolster your faith?

Let's go to your original assertion. You have issue with your tax money going to things that you disagree with. It is inevitable in a pluralism that this will happen. I'm sure that my taxes will be used for funding the Dublin Gay Pride parade. Firstly, I'm not of that orientation so why should my money be used to fund it. Secondly, I disagree with this lifestyle choice (not the inclination but acting upon it). Yet I understand that in a pluralism my money will be spent that way.

Your claim about empirical facts also undermines much of what the education system aims to do. Critical thinking as a faculty to be developed isn't an empirical fact in and of itself. Philosophy isn't an empirical fact. Poetry and English are not empirical facts in and of themselves. It is a skill to be thought how to regard differing opinions, yet this has nothing to do with empirical facts. By empirical facts I'm referring to what is demonstrable, I'm not making the lazy assumption that everything that isn't an empirical fact is false or has no truth value. There's not much logical basis in making such an assumption.

I think the Government should allow for choice in teaching in respect to religious belief. The values that parents want their children to grow in. Parents desire what is best for their children and I don't see how this is an issue. It's practicable, and it is a way in which the Government can help parents in educating their children according to their wishes.

You keep banging on about your tax money, but what about my tax money, or the tax money of the Muslim or the Jew that lives down the street? The point is that the Government takes tax funding from numerous different demographics. Why should your demographic get an overriding say in respect to the education system? I would ask this of anyone who thinks that the RCC should still keep 92% of schools also so I am being consistent.

I'm sorry but you live in a pluralist society and that has implications for how tax funding will be spent. The say of theists has equal sway to that of atheists. Hence compromise.

Quo Vadis

yawha wrote: »

According to science, people don't rise from the dead.

Science, although important, can only deal with the physical aspects of the strictly limited amount of data we know about this universe. It does not deal with the metaphysical.

anymore

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Science, although important, can only deal with the physical aspects of the strictly limited amount of data we know about this universe. It does not deal with the metaphysical.

Did you want to say " It should not deal with the metaphysical " ?

Quo Vadis

anymore wrote: »

Did you want to say " It should not deal with the metaphysical " ?

There are numerous subjects outside the realm and boundaries of science, e.g. philosophy, art and morality to name a few, this does not in any way lessen the importance of science, nor the subjects outside its limited boundary.

CerebralCortex

Quo Vadis wrote: »

There are numerous subjects outside the realm and boundaries of science, e.g. philosophy, art and morality to name a few, this does not in any way lessen the importantance of science, nor the subjects outside its limited boundary.

The three you mentioned outside the realms of science can easily come under the realm cognitive science.

philologos

CerebralCortex: Only a very small minority of scientists would say that moral questions can be dealt with by science. Sam Harris may claim this but it doesn't seem to have much objective basis yet.

Quo Vadis

CerebralCortex wrote: »

The three you mentioned outside the realms of science can easily come under the realm cognitive science.

Cognitive science is the study of the nature of various mental tasks and the processes that enable them to be performed. None of you may exist, along with the rest of the universe you may in fact be the product of my cognitive imagination.

GarIT

CerebralCortex wrote: »

:rolleyes:

The duty of the government is and should be to provide education to everyone, a vanilla education. Teaching kids empirical facts, mathematics, learning to read etc. After that it's the parents job. However this is not the case as it stands.

All the government needs to do is make sure that all kids have access to the same levels of numeracy, literacy and science that's it. I repeat personal beliefs have no right to my tax money. Cold hard facts I'm okay with. There is just education to suggest otherwise is you just serving your argument. Why are you so eager to have my tax money bolster your faith?

IMO schools should only be allowed teach facts and not allowed to teach any speculation including but not limited to all religions and any scientific theories that have not been proven.

Quo Vadis

GarIT wrote: »

IMO schools should only be allowed teach facts and not allowed to teach any speculation including but not limited to all religions and any scientific theories that have not been proven.

No art, no philosophy, no music, no politics, no morality, no opinion, no debate. Thankfully you're not minister for education then.

GarIT

Quo Vadis wrote: »

No art, no philosophy, no music, no politics, no morality, no opinion, no debate. Thankfully you're not minister for education then.

I meant not to be thought something like a fact when it is not. i.e. There is no fact behind god, it is speculation, as is the theory of evolution. They should be thought as something that could have happened. It can be very confusing for a child getting two completely different stories from two people who are supposed to educate you.

For example a first year goes into religion class on their first day of secondry school and is thought about adam and eve, the religion teacher tell the child it is a fact. Then they go to their first history class and they are thought about evolution and told that is a fact. There is clearly a problem with that happening as the child wouldn't know what to think.

Art, music and politics are all fine as they do not have any theories, they are practices and do not contradict other subjects.

Zombrex

Evolution is on of the most supported scientific theories there is but it is not proven. No scientific theory is proven, science doesnt work like that it does not prove things. so what you are suggesting would mean they aren't taught science at all.

philologos

^^ So one can't expect us to prove the existence of God? Interesting.

But yes you're right. Proofs lie in the realm of mathematics.

GarIT

Wicknight wrote: »

Evolution is on of the most supported scientific theories there is but it is not proven. No scientific theory is proven, science doesnt work like that it does not prove things. so what you are suggesting would mean they aren't taught science at all.

I know nothing in science is ever proven for definite, but things in science are tested so many times with so many controls that they are mostly accepted as fact.

Anyway religion annoys me so much so I'm just gonna get myself away from this thread.

GarIT

philologos wrote: »

^^ So one can't expect us to prove the existence of God? Interesting.

But yes you're right. Proofs lie in the realm of mathematics.

You can't be expect to prove his existence but you can be expected to show evidence of his existence. Which other than a 1800 year old book which has been edited more times that any other book and "the priest told me so" there is none.

philologos

I agree GarIT. That is the task that Christians need to do. Many Christians have presented evidence that would indicate that God exists in Christian apologetics. Evidence being what indicates that a hypothesis is indeed true.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

CerebralCortex: Only a very small minority of scientists would say that moral questions can be dealt with by science. Sam Harris may claim this but it doesn't seem to have much objective basis yet.

If it did?

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

I agree GarIT. That is the task that Christians need to do. Many Christians have presented evidence that would indicate that God exists in Christian apologetics. Evidence being what indicates that a hypothesis is indeed true.

It's called seeing only the evidence you want to see and then filling in the gaps with absurdities.

GarIT

philologos wrote: »

I agree GarIT. That is the task that Christians need to do. Many Christians have presented evidence that would indicate that God exists in Christian apologetics. Evidence being what indicates that a hypothesis is indeed true.

I've never seen or held any evidence that a god exists myself. Someone saying they saw god isn't evidence. My mate could tell me he went home with a hot girl from the pub last night but that doesn't mean it happened. Just because someone said they saw god or talked to a god it doesn't meant it happened.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

I agree GarIT. That is the task that Christians need to do. Many Christians have presented evidence that would indicate that God exists in Christian apologetics. Evidence being what indicates that a hypothesis is indeed true.

If you look hard enough you can find evidence for anything, as demonstrated by the Conspiracy Forum on Boards.ie .

The point of science is to test this evidence is a structured fashion to figure out if it actually supports the claim or not.

Religion can't do this as there is no testable evidence, just hear say and suggestion. Which is why after thousands of years of religion we still have thousands of religions, yet after only a few decades competing scientific theories can be whittled down to just one or two that are supported.

As such religion shouldn't be in a science class room as this evidence fails basic standards.

philologos

Nobody claims that Christianity is science. I don't see why you even needed to mention something to obvious. We're not talking about science.

One can provide reasons as to why Christianity is true. One can argue that certain things imply that Christianity is more likely to be true than not. That's what I mean when I am referring to evidence by indication. What incidates that Christianity is more likely to be true than not?

By the by, even Karl Popper when he gave his lecture Science: Conjectures and Refutations said that he was only attempting to demarcate science from non-science. Just because something is demarcated as non-science doesn't mean that it mightn't be true, but what it means is that it is unverifiable and untestable as you have said. This isn't an argument in your favour however.

GarIT

philologos wrote: »

One can provide reasons as to why Christianity is true.

If one can provide reasons why don't you? Why do all other christians refuse to provide valid proof that something they are so sure about exists? The bible is not evidence of anything. There is a series of books about a boy called Harry Potter, that doesn't mean he exists or ever did. One thing that all Roman Catholics believe in and that can be certainly disproven is transubstantiation. No matter what you say to be bread and wine it will stay bread and wine, this "blessed" bread and wine has been tested many times using many methods and traces of flesh or blood have never been found. And don't say it represents flesh or blood because in the catholic religion it doesn't, if you are a catholic you must believe that it is flesh and blood and no longer bread or wine. By the catholic churches own rules you believe 100% that it is blood and wine or your a sinner.

On a thought of basic logic do you not think its ridiculous that a priest can believe that after he talks to a piece of bread it will turn to flesh.

Quo Vadis

GarIT wrote: »

If one can provide reasons why don't you? Why do all other christians refuse to provide valid proof that something they are so sure about exists? The bible is not evidence of anything. There is a series of books about a boy called Harry Potter, that doesn't mean he exists or ever did. One thing that all Roman Catholics believe in and that can be certainly disproven is transubstantiation. No matter what you say to be bread and wine it will stay bread and wine, this "blessed" bread and wine has been tested many times using many methods and traces of flesh or blood have never been found. And don't say it represents flesh or blood because in the catholic religion it doesn't, if you are a catholic you must believe that it is flesh and blood and no longer bread or wine. By the catholic churches own rules you believe 100% that it is blood and wine or your a sinner.

On a thought of basic logic do you not think its ridiculous that a priest can believe that after he talks to a piece of bread it will turn to flesh.

If you rule out all evidence, then, as far as your concerned, there is none.

As for proof, there is no irrefutable proof God does, or does not exist, or transubstantiation does or does not occur, that's why its called personal belief and faith.

Thankfully there is no irrefutable proof either way, so that free will can remain.

If there was irrefutable proof that God existed, what would be the implications ?

GarIT

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Thankfully there is no irrefutable proof either way, so that free will can remain.

If there was irrefutable proof that God existed, what would be the implications ?

Free will would remain either way, If there was proof nobody could force you to believe it.

Asking a question like that is awkward because its a what would happen if... question, but I suppose if there was proof more people would believe and people would try not to do as many bad things, go to confession and church to avoid being a sinner. From what I can imagine if there was proof any religion was real it would only bring about change for the better.

And at a minimum we would all be clearer on the matter.

philologos

GarIT: I've done so many times on boards.ie. Perhaps I might aim to do so again after the university exams are over.

Quo Vadis

GarIT wrote: »

Free will would remain either way, If there was proof nobody could force you to believe it.

Asking a question like that is awkward because its a what would happen if... question, but I suppose if there was proof more people would believe and people would try not to do as many bad things, go to confession and church to avoid being a sinner. From what I can imagine if there was proof any religion was real it would only bring about change for the better.

And at a minimum we would all be clearer on the matter.

I'm not talking about proof, I'm talking about irrefutable proof. If it existed all free will would be removed, you'd have to believe and your choice would be removed, effectively making this world, which is a test for the next, irrelevant. God, like any loving parent, doesn't want automatons, he wants voluntary, freely chosen love in return, not forced. Hence no irrefutable proof. That's why we get to choose how to live our life. Of course all of this is a Christians belief, it may not be yours, nor does it have to be. I'm only clarifying what I believe and why, not what others should believe.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Nobody claims that Christianity is science. I don't see why you even needed to mention something to obvious. We're not talking about science.

We are talking about education, and where the responsibility of the state to teach comes in.

philologos wrote: »

One can provide reasons as to why Christianity is true. One can argue that certain things imply that Christianity is more likely to be true than not. That's what I mean when I am referring to evidence by indication. What incidates that Christianity is more likely to be true than not?

One can provide reasons as to why anything is true. Clearly we cannot educate children as to every single thing that anyone might claim is true. As such we need methods to assess these reasons to assertion their accuracy.

If we cannot do that then they have little place in the education system, particularly a secular one that cannot promote one particular religious ideology above any other.

philologos wrote: »

By the by, even Karl Popper when he gave his lecture Science: Conjectures and Refutations said that he was only attempting to demarcate science from non-science. Just because something is demarcated as non-science doesn't mean that it mightn't be true, but what it means is that it is unverifiable and untestable as you have said. This isn't an argument in your favour however.

My favour is that we don't teach unverifiable and untestable things to kids in school. So it is :pac:

anymore

Quo Vadis wrote: »

There are numerous subjects outside the realm and boundaries of science, e.g. philosophy, art and morality to name a few, this does not in any way lessen the importance of science, nor the subjects outside its limited boundary.

Is this what they call a 'truism' ? So just who decided on where subject boundaries should lie ? Well I suggest that philosophers and theologians must definitely shouldn't since it is science which has shifted the boundaries of these so often !

anymore

Quo Vadis wrote: »

I'm not talking about proof, I'm talking about irrefutable proof. If it existed all free will would be removed, you'd have to believe and your choice would be removed, effectively making this world, which is a test for the next, irrelevant. God, like any loving parent, doesn't want automatons, he wants voluntary, freely chosen love in return, not forced. Hence no irrefutable proof. That's why we get to choose how to live our life. Of course all of this is a Christians belief, it may not be yours, nor does it have to be. I'm only clarifying what I believe and why, not what others should believe.

And why exactly does God want this continous flow of people to be tested to see if they measure up to some standards which presumably he sets ? Is this like some enormous laboraty type experiment in which we are the ' test animals' ?

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

My favour is that we don't teach unverifiable and untestable things to kids in school. So it is :pac:

Morality? literature? philosophy (in part in Leaving Cert RE)? Rhetoric? Opinion?

All of these things are unverifiable, so lets not pretend otherwise. Many things which aren't science or verified facts are taught in education and indeed need to be taught for a good education.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

Morality? literature? philosophy (in part in Leaving Cert RE)? Rhetoric? Opinion?

All of these things are unverifiable, so lets not pretend otherwise. Many things which aren't science or verified facts are taught in education and indeed need to be taught for a good education.

Hmmm, I wonder if we had a way of verifying that?