Should religion be taught in science class?

[The Voice of Reason]

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Exactly - and it is this constant testing of science, it's very falsifiability, that gives it the strength to constantly pursue truth. It is not willing to accept any statement at face value - and it is unbending in it's refusal to accept a statement that cannot be tested.

Contrast that with revealed faith, which accepts something as an immutable fact, without asking that item to be tested.

TVOR

 

[KKawohl]

Precisely. The 'logic' of belief in the Supernatural is that all epistemologies are rendered cognitively meaningless....
After all, in God, all things are possible. What a wondrous science class this would be: Ad-Hoc Crock 101.

Isn't epistemology a study of the origins of nature and extent of human knowledge? There is no logic in a belief in the supernatural yet the spiritual existence is a distinct possibility. To say, "in God all things are possible" is illogical in the physical existence and unscientific.

 

[KKawohl]

Exactly - and it is this constant testing of science, it's very falsifiability, that gives it the strength to constantly pursue truth. It is not willing to accept any statement at face value - and it is unbending in it's refusal to accept a statement that cannot be tested.

Contrast that with revealed faith, which accepts something as an immutable fact, without asking that item to be tested.

TVOR

Truthfulness and rationality in religions are truths that can be substantiated by science or those that can not be proven to be wrong.

Kurt

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Isn't epistemology a study of the origins of nature ...

No, it is not. To blur the distinction between

"the study or theory of the origin, nature, methods, and limits of knowledge(study of knowledge)"​

and the

"study of the origins of nature and extent of human knowledge"​

is either sloppy or dishonest.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Truthfulness and rationality in religions are truths that can be substantiated by science or those that can not be proven to be wrong.

Similarly, truthfulness and rationality in the tales of the Daoine Sidhe are truths that can be substantiated by science or those that can not be proven to be wrong. Therefore?

 

[KKawohl]

No, it is not. To blur the distinction between

"the study or theory of the origin, nature, methods, and limits of knowledge(study of knowledge)"​

and the

"study of the origins of nature and extent of human knowledge"​

is either sloppy or dishonest.

Well, gee whiz, I guess then you will have to rewrite the dictionary, Einstein.

 

[KKawohl]

Similarly, truthfulness and rationality in the tales of the Daoine Sidhe are truths that can be substantiated by science or those that can not be proven to be wrong. Therefore?

Therefore a tale is a story; rumor; lie, falsehood.

 

[Pah]

Isn't epistemology a study of the origins of nature and extent of human knowledge? There is no logic in a belief in the supernatural yet the spiritual existence is a distinct possibility. To say, "in God all things are possible" is illogical in the physical existence and unscientific.

No, it is the branch
of philosophy that defines and discusses truth.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Therefore a tale is a story; rumor; lie, falsehood.

Right.

This holds true for the Daoine Sidhe as well as apostles, and all others in between.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Truthfulness and rationality in religions are truths that can be substantiated by science or those that can not be proven to be wrong.
Kurt

Well, I have to say that I find this to be rather odd. By definition, anything that can be substantiated by science would tend to be considered "rational". As for "truthfulness", the same would be true, with the caveat that science will continuously test a given "truth", as long as a scientist exists that is interested in challenging the veracity of said "truth". Thus, the first part of your statement above "Truthfulness and rationality in religions are truths that can be substantiated by science..." is vacuous and does not substantively say anything.
The second part of the statement above "...or those that can not be proven to be wrong." is the classic Argument from Ignorance - whether the material under consideration is religious in nature or not.

Basically, your post is meaningless.

TVOR

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, gee whiz, I guess then you will have to rewrite the dictionary, Einstein.

e·pis·te·mol·o·gy
n. The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

- see Dictionary.com

Epistemology (Greek episteme, "knowledge"; logos, "theory"), branch of philosophy that addresses the philosophical problems surrounding the theory of knowledge. Epistemology is concerned with the definition of knowledge and related concepts, the sources and criteria of knowledge, the kinds of knowledge possible and the degree to which each is certain, and the exact relation between the one who knows and the object known.

- see Epistemology

One might also type "define: epistemology" into the Google search engine and get ...

• the study or theory of the origin, nature, methods, and limits of knowledge (study of knowledge).
• Greek episteme (knowledge) + logeo (to speak). The theory of knowledge: the study of the nature, sources, and validity of knowledge. It differs from logic and psychology. Logic is concerned with the specific and formal problem of correct reasoning, while epistemology deals with the nature of reasoning, with truth, and with the process of knowing themselves. Psychology is concerned with a descriptive study of behavior, phenomena, etc., while epistemology deals with our claims to knowledge, ie, what we mean by "knowing." See Epistemological realism and knowledge
• The study of the nature knowledge and justification, and the extent to which we have either.
• The theory or science of the method or grounds of knowledge.# The philosophical discipline which examines the nature and validity of human cognition.
• From the Greek, knowledge. Branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge. In theology, the question of how finite beings can have knowledge of the infinite is an epistemological question.
• Branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge and justification.
• A major branch of philosophy that concerns the forms, nature, and preconditions of knowledge.
• (The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.)
• the study of human knowing, regarding its bases, forms, and criteria.
• The branch of philosophy which is concerned with the theory of knowledge, or more specifically, the question, "How can we know?"
• Epistemology is derived from the two Greek words e)pisth/mwn(epistemon) meaning "understanding" and lo/goj(logos) meaning "word." Epistemology is the science of knowledge. Epistemology seeks to find the true assumptions that account for reality. Biblical epistemology acknowledges that apart from God's personal self-revelation in His word and by His Spirit, no man can make right judgments about God, himself, or any of God's creation.
• The theoretical study of knowledge:? what knowledge is; how it might be assessed; what the grounds/assumptions for an idea might be; what claims to truth might be made; whether true knowledge can be achieved.
• One of the major branches of philosophy, most often contrasted with ontology. Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know.
• the science of the origins, nature, methods and limits of human constructs of knowledge, evaluating the veracity of human knowledge.
• the peculiar knowledge structure of a particular view of a portion of the universe.
• the science of the method or grounds of knowledge.
• refers to the philosophical theory of knowledge, consisting of attempts to answer questions about how we can know what we know, and whether this knowledge is reliable or not. Debates about the adequacy of empiricism, for example, are epistemological debates.
• The branch of philosophy that involves the study of knowledge.
• A branch of philosophy that studies human knowledge, its nature, sources, and limits. From the Greek word 'episteme' meaning knowledge or understanding.
• The branch of philosophy that investigates the nature, source, and limits of knowledge. Knowledge in epistemology is primarily construed as "knowledge that" a statement is true or false.
• "a concept in philosophy that relates to theories of knowledge or how people come to have knowledge of the world....refer to particular perspectives in scientific methods that led to acquisition of knowledge in a discipline" (Powers & Knapp, 1990, p. 45).
• The study of knowledge and how individuals gain knowledge.
• n. epistemological, adj. The theory of human knowledge; the basis of the sciences of man which is concerned with the origin, structure, methods and validity of human knowledge. It deals with the mental phenomena of human life: thinking, perceiving and knowing. It assumes that the logical structure of the human mind is unchanging. [Further reading see Epistemological Problems of Economics ] UF. 1-2.
• Studies the relationship between the researcher and knowledge, posing questions such as, are researchers and the objects of study seperate, independent elements, or is bias, or influence by the researcher on the studied objects inevitable.
• the philosophical theory of knowledge
• EpistemeEpistemology (from the Greek words episteme=science and logos=word/speech) is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature, origin and scope of knowledge.

-see Google

Well, gee whiz, I guess rewriting the dictionary won't be necessary after all.

 

[KKawohl]

Well, gee whiz, I guess rewriting the dictionary won't be necessary after all.

So how does this dispute my statement that "epistemology is a study of the origins nature and extent of human knowledge"?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Well, gee whiz, I guess rewriting the dictionary won't be necessary after all.

Perhaps a little crow to go with that humble pie....?

TVOR

 

[KKawohl]

Perhaps a little crow to go with that humble pie....?

TVOR

I love crow and humble pie, it reassures me that I'm human....time to take my mind out of the sky.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

...time to take my mind out of the sky.

I'll withhold the obvious retort...

TVOR

 

[KKawohl]

I'll withhold the obvious retort...

TVOR

Cool. I overlooked the ovious...oh well, letting one's mind float stimulates creativity...as long as it remains connected to the brain.

 

[linwood]

belief in spontaneous generation;

I`m sorry, I know this is very old and you may not evne be around here anymore but humanists do not believe in spontaneous generation.
It is an impossibility that was thrown out centuries ago.

 

[linwood]

evolution is not testable. there is no way you can recreate the big bang in a lab. evolution is accepted blindly on faith because you can in no way testits truth. scientists admit there is less and less proof of evolution all the time. its just called a science so it can be continue being promoted in the schools

You`re showing your ignorance.
Evolution says nothing of cosmology or even the origins of life.

There is immense "proof" of evolution from the fields of microbiology, paleontology, sociology, archeology, and numerous other fields.

If you`re intetrested I can show you this "proof".

 

[Fatmop]

Many theists like to throw out the Big Band, consciousness, epistemology, and abiogenesis as 'untestable and unprovable' areas of science. The implication is that, since we don't know exactly how they happened, there must be some higher power. That implication is based on an a priori set of assumptions involving the existence of a deity. An atheist does not share that set of assumptions, and sees the world (including the above phenomena) in a very different light.
Even though the Big Bang is currently a little beyond the depth of my knowledge, I'm not going to sit back and attribute it to a mystical force. I especially take issue with the fact that Christians assume that their God is the one to explain these phenomena - even if the Big Bang were completely inexplicable, it still would not invalidate Biblical contradictions, and therefore would not give me reason to believe in the Christian god. To make a long story short, just because I don't know doesn't mean a deity exists.
Religion needs to be kept out of science classrooms because it is fundamentally at odds with scientific inquiry. To attribute the earliest moment in time to a god is to think you have the ultimate answer - which stifles further inquiry into the subject. Most theists have a remarkable ability to incorporate scientific findings into their views just fine - and as long as they don't mistake their faith for science, I have no problem with that. It's when reactionaries decide that they don't like the consequences (imaginary or real) of a theory like evolution that theists are given a bad name.