04 Oct 07
Originally posted by duecerI would agree.... Who am I to decide what is right for another persons child.... except that we accept as a society that, even though a parent might not want their child to be educated, the law says they have to be.
who are you to decide what is acceptable for another persons child?
I am sure there are some parents that would not have liked that idea at first.
On the other hand, I agree that we should be free to form our own ideas about anything. But surely that is the point, that indoctrination is not the same as education. The little boy dressed for self destruction is surely wrong, simply propagating the closed mentality (for whatever reasons) of the parents. Not an easy line to draw.....
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by snowinscotlandBut surely that is the point, that indoctrination is not the same as education.
I would agree.... Who am I to decide what is right for another persons child.... except that we accept as a society that, even though a parent might not want their child to be educated, the law says they have to be.
I am sure there are some parents that would not have liked that idea at first.
On the other hand, I agree that we should be free to ...[text shortened]... gating the closed mentality (for whatever reasons) of the parents. Not an easy line to draw.....
That may be the point—and also the short answer to your questions of my post. If part of education is to teach children (following the developmental course) to be able to think for themselves, it’s hard to imagine how to do that while teaching them to become suicide bombers.
But it’s not strictly a parental versus societal issue. One might recall the Hitler Youth, for example.
We are all born to a given set of parents, with their beliefs, and into a given cultural matrix with its beliefs. We have probably all (or at least most of us) experienced some cultural indoctrination. Some people learn to be able to step out of that to at least critically question it; some don’t. My point about post-hypnotic suggestion was that some people may not even realize that they are, in certain cases, “propagating the closed mentality”, not only of their parents, but of their culture at large.
Some people who “convert” from one cultural paradigm to another also adopt a closed mentality with regard to the new one, perhaps to attempt to overcome in themselves some set of insecurities.
It is the closed mentality—and its (whatever) causes—that is the problem as I see it.
05 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesd..or perhaps the closed mentality has some merits; inner focus, whatever; it would die out (evolutionally speaking) if it could not contribute to the individual's survival prospects..... at least under some circumstances. Perhaps it is a matter of balance, that the group does better with real diversity in the genes; and some of these are 'closed minds' and some are open. In times of trouble it might be better to not think so much, just act, focus on survival, and when times are good, the thinkers expand the prospects of the group (and by that I mean the race) through experimentation?
[b]But surely that is the point, that indoctrination is not the same as education.
That may be the point—and also the short answer to your questions of my post. If part of education is to teach children (following the developmental course) to be able to think for themselves, it’s hard to imagine how to do that while teaching them to become suicide bo ...[text shortened]... rities.
It is the closed mentality—and its (whatever) causes—that is the problem as I see it.[/b]
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI have recently read "The God delusion" by Richard Dawkins, and although he does suggest that forcing religion on a child is wrong, I think you should read it yourself before calling him rabid, as he gives very reasonable arguments for his views.
Did and does. Quite rabid, he.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by snowinscotlandWell, we’re covering a lot of ground here—and you packed a lot of thought into a few words! 🙂
..or perhaps the closed mentality has some merits; inner focus, whatever; it would die out (evolutionally speaking) if it could not contribute to the individual's survival prospects..... at least under some circumstances. Perhaps it is a matter of balance, that the group does better with real diversity in the genes; and some of these are 'closed minds ...[text shortened]... kers expand the prospects of the group (and by that I mean the race) through experimentation?
All of that makes some sense to me, as long as we don’t confuse evolution with some sort of progression to a higher order. I would say that any increasing complexity of consciousness either (a) enhances survival, or (b) is neutral/accidental to survival issues; this seems to be close to what you’re saying: we can explore art, for instance, because we’re not busy fighting off the next-door neighbors..
Can I distinguish perhaps between a “closed mentality” and “inner focus”? In terms of the group (culture and such), they may be the same. I just thought that, in terms of survival, a broad focus vis-à-vis the environment / surrounding circumstances might be more conducive to survival than any narrow focus—until the actual moment of decision/action, anyway.
BTW, I’m not a theist. Although I have no particular sectarian home, if you think Zen/Taoist you’ll probably have me pretty well pegged most of the time.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat exactly constitutes "forcing religion on a child?" The parents can make the kid read the Bible every day and go to church every Sunday, but eventually the kid will grow up and figure stuff out on his or her own. Is it okay for the public schools to "force" the theory of evolution on their students without also teaching them Intelligent Design arguments?
I have recently read "The God delusion" by Richard Dawkins, and although he does suggest that forcing religion on a child is wrong, I think you should read it yourself before calling him rabid, as he gives very reasonable arguments for his views.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerIt is perfectly okay for this, since evolution is an accepted scientific model and ID is not.
What exactly constitutes "forcing religion on a child?" The parents can make the kid read the Bible every day and go to church every Sunday, but eventually the kid will grow up and figure stuff out on his or her own. Is it okay for the public schools to "force" the theory of evolution on their students without also teaching them Intelligent Design arguments?
05 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionMost scientists accept evolution, but many do not. Two questions:
It is perfectly okay for this, since evolution is an accepted scientific model and ID is not.
1. Should a public school biology teacher be allowed to teach only the theory of evolution?
2. Should a public school biology teacher be allowed to teach both evolution and ID Theory?
3. Should a public school biology teacher be allowed to teach only ID?
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerThat's 3 questions, but I'll answer them anyway.
Most scientists accept evolution, but many do not. Two questions:
1. Should a public school biology teacher be allowed to teach only the theory of evolution?
2. Should a public school biology teacher be allowed to teach both evolution and ID Theory?
3. Should a public school biology teacher be allowed to teach only ID?
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. No.
I'll also add that any biology teacher - public, private or whatever - should be in the same boat. And finally, I must point out that I'm more than happy for schoopls to teach ID, just not in science/biology classes, since it most definitely is not science.
05 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by gaychessplayerStatistics show that in general the vast majority of children grow up and follow their parents religion. So even if for example one religion is true, all children of parents of other religions have essentially been 'forced' to become members of those religions and have been lead to believe in lies.
What exactly constitutes "forcing religion on a child?" The parents can make the kid read the Bible every day and go to church every Sunday, but eventually the kid will grow up and figure stuff out on his or her own.
Is it okay for the public schools to "force" the theory of evolution on their students without also teaching them Intelligent Design arguments?
The Theory of Evolution is science and yes it should be forced on children as a basic understanding of science is a human right. Lying to them that Intelligent Design is science however would be wrong.
You are a good example of what happens when your right to education has been denied.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by amannionI agree, science class is not the place to teach ID. I am a Christian, I and my family are active in our church, and I am also against school prayer. Why you ask? Because faith is a personal issue, and I don't trust people I don't know, or go to church with, to teach my children to pray. What if a teacher was a Satan worshiper? Should that teacher lead prayer in the classroom? The law cannot discriminate against them.
That's 3 questions, but I'll answer them anyway.
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. No.
I'll also add that any biology teacher - public, private or whatever - should be in the same boat. And finally, I must point out that I'm more than happy for schoopls to teach ID, just not in science/biology classes, since it most definitely is not science.
The same thinking applies to ID, it is really more of a philisophical topic, and should be taught in the context or background of all religions. Every theist view point would be represented in a class like that. A parent would have the right to exclude their child from such a class. A parent cannot exclude their child from a biology class, it covers important topical matter.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerI'm not sure it's as straightforward as you put it here. My earlier post on the parents discussing the 'breakdown' of the child is a little more concerning to me than the 'reading the bible every day' stuff. The child had 'broken down', and they were pleased that the child had then 'come to accept the Lord in it's life'. What is that all about? It sounds like the army, breaking down a man in order to build him up into someone who will obey without question..... and that my friend, does not sound like free will to me, more like the stuff you read about in relation to cults...
What exactly constitutes "forcing religion on a child?" The parents can make the kid read the Bible every day and go to church every Sunday, but eventually the kid will grow up and figure stuff out on his or her own. Is it okay for the public schools to "force" the theory of evolution on their students without also teaching them Intelligent Design arguments?
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by snowinscotlandwithout knowing the particulars of the situation, it seems awfully judgmental of you. Perhaps this was a willful stubborn child, that has caused his family a lot of grief, and accepting Jesus Christ was for him, turning over a new leaf. Of course that is just speculation, but it is certainly as possible a scenario as any other.
I'm not sure it's as straightforward as you put it here. My earlier post on the parents discussing the 'breakdown' of the child is a little more concerning to me than the 'reading the bible every day' stuff. The child had 'broken down', and they were pleased that the child had then 'come to accept the Lord in it's life'. What is that all about? It sou ...[text shortened]... ound like free will to me, more like the stuff you read about in relation to cults...
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by vistesdI keep thinking that there must be some reason why either a) we are susceptible to the kind of thought that, grouped, we would call faith or b) those who are most susceptible are also the best survivors.
Well, we’re covering a lot of ground here—and you packed a lot of thought into a few words! 🙂
All of that makes some sense to me, as long as we don’t confuse evolution with some sort of progression to a higher order. I would say that any increasing complexity of consciousness either (a) enhances survival, or (b) is neutral/accidental to survival issues ...[text shortened]... arian home, if you think Zen/Taoist you’ll probably have me pretty well pegged most of the time.
There must be some advantage to religion, in evolutionary terms. Or is it that to date, to be outside the group was such a big disadvantage (eg Cathars, wiped out by daring to present an alternative view)? Or such a technological disadvantage (Incas)? Perhaps it has come full circle and to reject science now will present such a disadvantage that the more extreme will die out?