UK Census 2011

[miniand]

I think there might be something in the idea that by teaching it in schools, it acts as a bullwark against fundamentalism. They don't teach RE in school in america, yet their society is fundamentally less tolerant. Perhaps teaching RE makes us more secular, not less.

But the Yanks are are bunch of religeous half wits/zealots delete as applicable, the bible belt has a big political influence, the founding fathers were a bunch of religeous freaks who had already left england to go to holland to pray in peace,the dutch being that bit more liberal even in them days, early 1600's if my long term memory serves me better than my short term one does, I like holland tho on a side note. Came back to catch/buy a boat to America. If there is any kind of education the americans need it isn't religeous.

from wikipedia

Religion in the United States seems to be expanding. According to recent surveys, 93 percent of Americans claim to belong to a religious denomination, 70 percent claim to attend services nearly every week or more, and 88 percent claim to pray at least weekly

oh and while I'm the subject you are finally allowed to be english in the census instead of britsh

[feral chile]

Both you and Phil are separating science from religion, which is a false dichotomy.

The importance of teaching traditional religion from a cultural perspective is because it has formed our present culture. A culture that includes science, ghosts, theories of aliens being descendents of God, splintered religions, abductions and everything else. It's all part of modern culture.

[feral chile]

it's obviously a point that is worth dwelling on...

the concept of religion... theology.. is very interesting/relevant. It'd be good if certain religious schools weren't in a position of giving a 'leg up' in the system...

this goes to the heart of some of what the humanists are saying. How many people tick a box (for their religion) without giving it much thought to it, which then gives the unreliable statistic of how religious 'we' are?

Edited March 21, 2011 by feral chile

[feral chile]

If it's evidence-based then it has nothing to do with belief. Nor does it have anything to do with intellect. The scientist can therefore believe in a religion on the basis of his intellect.

[worm]

I'm perfectly happy to have religion taught as part of cultural education, that's what I've been arguing. And science as well, for that matter. I agree that science is also part of our culture. I just don't like religion being given dominance. Of course, that's cultural in itself. I'd love that point being taught in school, so kids realised not to blindly accept cultural values.

[feral chile]

You're doing it again. To put it another way Feral:

Christian physics

Islamic biology

Amerindian chemistry

Buddhist psychologyThere is no dichotomy between science and religion. We teach Christian science because it was born out of Christian culture.

We need to study religion as part of our understanding of science and, what's more important, is that we have to understand that science is inseperable from culture.

[worm]

Course it does, you have to believe in truth based on empiricism.

Edited March 21, 2011 by worm

[worm]

I didn't realise there were such things.

Edited March 21, 2011 by worm

[llcoolphil]

G

try searching harder. An increasing number of kids in the UK reject evolution in favour of creationism.

Which just further shows those people's stupidity.

and 37.5M don't believe in god either. They merely say they do for cultural and not religious reasons (as the humanist's can prove to you). Church attendances for one make this abundantly clear.

The simple truth is that there's an identical intellectual basis for both 'standard' religions and the Spaghetti Monster. The fact that one is rejected as ridiculous by most just gets to show the ridiculous intellectual standards of 'believers'.

[llcoolphil]

There is. Being the arrogant west, we like to think of our science and knowledge constructs as universal though. Western sciences evolved out of Christianity. Helped by philosophy of course.

There are those that believe that science is universal and can be broken into simply right and wrong. But just consider how often scientific methodology has changed over the years, due to changes in our culture. And think of how this has made us reconsider what we thought was right and wrong.

[worm]

That last bit was what i was trying to say on saturday. There definitely is no god mind!

[Ed209]

He talks to me every day.

I think organised religion is a danger. But we need to understand our culture, and not start handing over our faith to some metaphysical idea of the world mistakenly known as science. Science is just a process we use to test stuff. It's no longer led by Christianity, but culture still guides it. It isn't free of bias.

[llcoolphil]

Why's it mistakenly known as science?

[llcoolphil]

He talks to me every day.

I think organised religion is a danger. But we need to understand our culture, and not start handing over our faith to some metaphysical idea of the world mistakenly known as science. Science is just a process we use to test stuff. It's no longer led by Christianity, but culture still guides it. It isn't free of bias.

[Ed209]

Here comes a semantic debate around whether science is a belief system or a method of testing stuff

[llcoolphil]

My point was more about the use of language. I hate getting into these arguments, but Science is just a label. People may be mistaken by what that the meaning of that is, but not by the use of the word itself. Some people interpret "Science" as a belief system, others interpret "Science" as testing stuff.

No?

[Ed209]

Yes. I think worm might not be comfortable with that though and tomorrow neil wont be happy with worm's understanding. Im predicting an exchange on truths - probably with some culturally defined postmodernism for old times sake. You heard it hear first

[RABun]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197

[worm]

Why's it mistakenly known as science?

[worm]

Here comes a semantic debate around whether science is a belief system or a method of testing stuff

[worm]

semantic debate

Edited March 22, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

No, I mean that it has nothing to do with belief. Evidence does not require belief.

Yes it does. When a person is presented with evidence, they choose to have a belief in that evidence having relevance, or not.

As you're talking your normal literally wrong bollocks, I'll leave you to it.

[eFestivals]

I know that and you know that, but dafty here is saying that evidence is what seperates believing in religion form believing in evolution.

it does to anyone working their intellect on a consistent basis. You know, what you've just failed to do.

Have you seen any evidence of evolution? No? Neither have I.

You're living in a box, you're living in a cardboard box. With a cardboard brain.

[worm]

When a person is presented with evidence, they choose to have a belief in that evidence having relevance, or not.

[worm]

it does to anyone working their intellect on a consistent basis.

Edited March 22, 2011 by worm