Should religion be taught in science class?

[(Q)]

Well, it seems to me that CHRISTIAN ethics and ideals ended slavery and NOT ATHEISTIC thought

Lincoln freed the slaves and it had absolutely nothing to do with so-called Christian ethics and ideals - do you ever tire of being wrong?

 

[(Q)]

the vast majority of Christians in prison ended up there while they were agnostic or atheistic.

Perhaps a few, but most were Christians when they commited their crimes.

Nearly all the convicts who profess Christ through this ministry never return to prison. The percentage is very low.

Can you show any relevan statistics to back up your claim or is this merely your opinion?

The only reason Christianity isn't expressed in public schools is because of an
NON-unanimous rulings by the Supreme Court.

Your lack of understanding of the Supreme Court decisions is equaled only by your delusion that everyone is a Christian. Christianity is not the only religion, you know?

 

[LittleNipper]

the vast majority of Christians in prison ended up there while they were agnostic or atheistic.

Perhaps a few, but most were Christians when they commited their crimes.

Nearly all the convicts who profess Christ through this ministry never return to prison. The percentage is very low.

Can you show any relevan statistics to back up your claim or is this merely your opinion?

The only reason Christianity isn't expressed in public schools is because of an
NON-unanimous rulings by the Supreme Court.

Your lack of understanding of the Supreme Court decisions is equaled only by your delusion that everyone is a Christian. Christianity is not the only religion, you know?

You seem under the "delusion" that everyone who says he is a "Christian" is! This is likely because you have no idea of what one does or who one knows in order to be a Child of GOD. I will chalk that up to your inexperiance and naivete. The Supreme Court has made several past rulings with concern to Christianity. I believe the one was a 1893 decision (though I may have that year wrong). If the Supreme Court was right then, then it was in ERROR in 1963. If it was wrong in 1893, then it only goes to prove that the Supreme Court isn't perfect and makes blunders and reverses ITSELF. Either way YOUR lack of understanding of human nature is equaled only by your delusion that Christianity is a religion...

 

[(Q)]

You seem under the "delusion" that everyone who says he is a "Christian" is! This is likely because you have no idea of what one does or who one knows in order to be a Child of GOD.

All it takes is suspension of disbelief to join that elite group.

Either way YOUR lack of understanding of human nature is equaled only by your delusion that Christianity is a religion...

I've heard that said about Islam as well. So, if not a religion, then what?

 

[LittleNipper]

There are ONLY 2 things one HAS to do to be a born-again Christian and spend eternity with GOD. What must a Moslem do to spend eternity with GOD?

 

[Pah]

Gentlemen,

The title of this thread is Should religion be taught in science class? The topic is should Creationism be taught in the public science class.

Please return to the point of the thread

-pah-

Moderator post

 

[SPLogan]

Science: “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena…” - American Heritage Dictionary

TRUTH should be taught in the Science Class. If it were apparent that scientific data and a particular religious philosophy aligned and complemented one another because both are TRUE representations of reality then so be it. Science should not be tweaked to conform to any religious bias. (Including atheism, deism, or orthodox teaching)

If you want to remove anything whatsoever that resembles religion from the science classroom then you would have to drop the sciences altogether from your curriculum. It is impossible to teach any form of science without simultaneously conveying religious presuppositions. Theology is a science. Religion is no more excludable from science than history is. Science is a religious endeavor in that it “observes” and “investigates” creation.

Basically to ask the question “Should religion be taught in the science class?” is the same type of absurd question as “Should history be taught in the science class?” or “Should math be taught in the science class?” You cannot teach science without those subjects. History and religion are both the backbone and the specimen of all science. They are inseparable.

You should, however, not confuse your sciences. But, ultimately their mutual exclusivity is limited at best.

 

[Pah]

Science: “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena…” - American Heritage Dictionary

TRUTH should be taught in the Science Class. If it were apparent that scientific data and a particular religious philosophy aligned and complemented one another because both are TRUE representations of reality then so be it. Science should not be tweaked to conform to any religious bias. (Including atheism, deism, or orthodox teaching)

I know of no philosophy nor religion nor philosophy of religion that is subjected to experimental investigation. Philosophy is in the realm of thought..Science is directed at the material (physcology being the exception) Religion is derived from the supernatural. None of these mix in a science classroom. The suppositions are incompatible.

Science would take transubstantiation and make a mockery out of the religion and any philosophy dervied from that religion when the religion declares wine turns to blood and bread to flesh. Science has declared the Shroud of Turin to be phony - that the shrowd is reproducible in the lab by artistic and chemical means. Science has contradicted religion in the matter of the bone box (ossuary sp?) loudly touted as an indication Christ was real - it was a forgery. If you bring science completely into the investigation of religious truth, religion crumbles.

If you want to remove anything whatsoever that resembles religion from the science classroom then you would have to drop the sciences altogether from your curriculum. It is impossible to teach any form of science without simultaneously conveying religious presuppositions. Theology is a science. Religion is no more excludable from science than history is. Science is a religious endeavor in that it “observes” and “investigates” creation.

Basically to ask the question “Should religion be taught in the science class?” is the same type of absurd question as “Should history be taught in the science class?” or “Should math be taught in the science class?” You cannot teach science without those subjects. History and religion are both the backbone and the specimen of all science. They are inseparable.

You should, however, not confuse your sciences. But, ultimately their mutual exclusivity is limited at best.

Please tell us what contribution relligion has made to scientific fact other than a political one ( and that is few and far between - it rather tries to throttle science)

-pah-

 

[SPLogan]

If you bring science completely into the investigation of religious truth, religion crumbles.

Do you make this assertion on the basis of science or religion?

 

[Pah]

pah:
If you bring science completely into the investigation of religious truth, religion crumbles.


SPLogan:
Do you make this assertion on the basis of science or religion?

It's true from either perspective actually.

-pah-

 

[SPLogan]

Science is the “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena…” based on the present state of nature. That study would be useless if it stoped there. It doesn't stop with observation. Science goes on to draw theories about the past and future states of nature.

Now, let me give you a fill-in-the-blank ACT question: Present is to past as nature is to _______.

The study of timelines is not the end of science either. Timelines offer no purpose, or motive for anything. So, there is a nother dimension to the endevour of science. Science also studies present things to draw conclusions about natural and supernatural present. That is the part that is denied on a surface level by most scientists. This is a 3D view of science and I believe that it is a complete one. No one can see the past or the future yet science deals with both. Likewise no one can see supernature but nature is our God-given evidence of it. We accept both history and religion on faith in record. History and religion are necessary for "science" to have any purpose. "What" is not enough. We must also know "why" for any scientific inquiry to be complete.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I pretty much disagree with every sentence in that last paragraph, SPLogan. Science does not deal with the supernatural. Nature is not our God-given evidence of supernature. We do not accept history on faith in record, we examine records critically and come to temporary conclusions based on knowledge and evidence. Religion is not necessary for science to have any purpose, in fact I would say a weakness in science is necessary for religion to have any purpose. Finally, in science 'what' and 'how' is the goal, not 'why'. "Why" is the goal of philosophy and religion, not science, because science does not assume there has to be a "why" at all.

 

[SPLogan]

Finally, in science 'what' and 'how' is the goal, not 'why'. "Why" is the goal of philosophy and religion, not science, because science does not assume there has to be a "why" at all.

If what you say is true then scientists must consult religious leaders in order to make any application to there studies or to form any theories. Furthermore, how can the scientific method begin or end its process without naming a "problem" or a "conclusion?" There would be no "problems" if there were no "why" in science and there would be no "conclusion" if there were no "because" in science. All you would have is an endless investigation. Religion is the subject that gives grounding to those issues. Life IS and endless investigation. So, under your ideas a "scientist" must be simply an atribute of humanity (like omnivor or mamal), not a true profession.

 

[flamethrower]

If science is not taught in church, then maybe religion should not be taught in schools.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If what you say is true then scientists must consult religious leaders in order to make any application to there studies or to form any theories.

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure scientists can make observations, formulate hypotheses, test them, make conclusions, and use the knowledge gained to build microchips or space shuttles without consulting religious leaders about 'why' the universe is the way it is. What you are talking about is teleology, which science wants nothing to do with.

**edit** I would add though, that I agree with you when you say 'religion' should be taught in science class if science confirms religion. Science doesn't confirm any religious beliefs though, so I don't think we have to worry about it.

 

[SPLogan]

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure scientists can make observations, formulate hypotheses, test them, make conclusions, and use the knowledge gained to build microchips or space shuttles without consulting religious leaders about 'why' the universe is the way it is.

I agree that science has done incredible things and that "religious leaders" wern't consulted. My point is that religion was not excluded from those endevours because it is inseperable from science. I believe that religion IS in the science class always, weather you admit it or not. Science, religion, history, math, language, and art are never exclusive of each other. Each of those subjects is contained within all of the others.

Therefore, I believe that we must call religion what it is and admit that it will be with us in science. Athiestic scientists manipulate hypotheses and will "wag the dog," so to speak, in order to resist thinking the unthinkable, that they personaly will be held accountable to a soverign God who made them. When each of us comes face to face with God almighty, "you didn't prove yourself" will be no excuse for anyone's vain acceptance of the athiestic doctrine of human autonomy. (which is an unmovable religious presuposition present in much of science) Is it not? How can the unthinkable be included in a hyphothesis? It DOESN'T get included. Denial prevails and creates vast misconseptions about origens. Those misconseptions reciprocate and teach our children that there is no "why" to their existence based on so called "evidence." This is a tragic affair. The foundation of that tragity is human free-will and the choice of autonomy.

When each of us meets our maker, Jesus will be our only hope to avert judgement for our actions. Please take note of that.

Religion will always be in the science class. God help us! Theology is the master science. All sciences are ultimately the study of God.

Please understand, I mean this respectfully. (not to offend) I simply believe that science is always scewed by some measure of will and motive. Show me objectivity and I'll show you a lie.

 

[Pah]

SPLogan,

You have yet to demonstrate any specific religious thought imbedded in science. Please do so.

-pah-

 

[Ceridwen018]

I believe that religion IS in the science class always, weather you admit it or not. Science, religion, history, math, language, and art are never exclusive of each other. Each of those subjects is contained within all of the others.

And yet in college you can choose to major in one and not the others, thereby exluding one from the group....interesting.

Personally, I don't think my math grade would suffer without an art class and vice-versa.

 

[SPLogan]

You have yet to demonstrate any specific religious thought imbedded in science. Please do so.

I like this exhortation, but I could begin to list all sorts of particular biases and underlying religious thought in science and it wouldn't help because the things that I could list would be too obvious. On the other end of my examples would be a plethora of naturalistic justifications for those phenomena.

The problem is that there's a deeper, more fundamental realm of thought that is not easily persuaded by the normal realm. In a scientific investigation, controls must be put in place. Those controls are datum points by which variables are measured. A datum is set based upon a known “constant.” You cannot measure or truly observe anything without reference points. It is possible to question the stability of a datum and then set up an experiment to test it but you’ll need datums to test the datum. So the cycle could go on forever if you were skeptical enough. You would quickly lose your sanity. Even though you would doubt your next heart beat, sure enough it would beat and you’d live another second. Maybe.

If the earth has rotated on its axis completely, every 24 hour period of you life (or so your memory tells you), then that is not evidence that it will do it again tomorrow. Rhythms, patterns, orders, and such are illogical. In fact logic is illogical. What datum can you use to test logic? Maybe the scientific method is flawed. Perhaps we should set up a datum to measure it against. What would that be? Something used in the past? What past? I don’t believe in past. I was born today. Prove that I wasn’t!

Let me say it a different way: asdkfaih qweiufe oifuwqa gbfouisagb fouiff bdsfkjaslfdlajsbf pooh basif bwiefubwiefub? asifd geese bi baklfsjbadskljfb wallzag sakjf saklfj bs adklfj basb as lkj f! What!

Get the picture? How can you set a datum point when any datum is based on the results of other datums? What if the datum at the very bottom of the stack is in the wrong place? Let’s move it! Right? NO! Because every datum on top of it would fall and we might kill ourselves.

Religion is the beginning science. You must begin with a datum of super-nature to investigate nature. There’s no other place to set it. (unless you can count to infinity)

 

[SPLogan]

And yet in college you can choose to major in one and not the others, thereby exluding one from the group....interesting.

Personally, I don't think my math grade would suffer without an art class and vice-versa.

This is the result of arbitrary compartmentalization of educational institutions. Where does math stop and art begin? Tell me where that line of distinction lies.