h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>
I have no objection to your inclinatition to be inarticulate,BC. ,

It's the tendency to abuse ideas - not language - with which I have a problem.


<>

Now THAT is worrisome.

Science respects imagination. Imagining an answer to a question is exactly what drives the process of inquiry. But, and let me make this perfectly clear, THE PROCESS DOESN'T END THERE!!

That's where the process BEGINS.

To teach children that just because it can be articulated (no offence) it therefore has the same degree of scientific respectability as an hypothesis that has been tested and experimented upon and verified over and over again borders on child abuse.

It is certainly intellectual fraud, and it is either simple ignorance or out and out lying. Either way, I would demand the responsible person's head on a platter (biblical reference alert...just poetically, not literally true)if I found those crackpot fantasies told to my children in the guise of science.

(And for those following the more interesting aspect of this thread, I hope the fruits of this discussion aren't too cut and dried.)

sayamalu, i am by no means condoning or advocating the teaching of creationism. creationism is a false creed.

but what i am saying is that science and religious faith are not mutually exclusive.

Faith MEANS belief in the absence of evidence.

Faith and science, I'm afraid, ARE mutually exclusive.

3dots: >You wouldn't have Richard Dawkins as head of the CofE so why would you have someone who is at the head of a society that is based on rationlism and science who believes in an invisible friend in the clouds?<

Ah c'mon now! Bit unfair to faither-scientician types.
Belief in any form of god won't necessarily hinder scientific progress so i don't really see a huge amount of irony or indeed any particular problem in having a "man of god" at the head of the Royal Soceity, whereas having a confirmed atheist who has publicly stated his intention to "deconvert" as many faithful as possible at the head of a church would be somewhat problematic for the church.

In all seriousness though; would it be right to bar someone from a position of authority in the Royal Soceity for their belief? Should they in fact bar faithers from even being members?




On a slightly unrelated note: am I the only one who thinks the term "child abuse" is bandied about a bit too freely? (To be clear I'm on sayamalu's side here in terms of science classes should be based on fact but really, teaching a wrong idea is not borderline child abuse surely?)

sayamalu: >Faith and science, I'm afraid, ARE mutually exclusive.<

There are lots of scientists who believe in some form of god who would disagree with you there. But they are non-overlapping magisteria and one shouldn't try to mix the two, this is where problems arise... like creationism...

P.P.

1) No, I use the word "abuse" advisedly. I realise that it's popular to assume that all forms of abuse must be sexual in nature, but there are other forms of abuse. Among those I include a teacher using a position of authority to diminish or denigrate a child's ability to employ reason.

2) The very fact that the two must be kept separate indicates that they are inherently contradictory. Mutually exclusive, in other words. Certainly, some people are able to entertain two mutually exclusive notions through compartmentalisation, but the notions themselves remain impossible to reconcile. That kind of compartmentalisation is a human trait that is manifested in such things as a mother's love for a child who may be a mass murderer while she is a moral person. It doesn't make sense, and nobody should be expected to share her feelings which are tolerable to an extent, even though frankly absurd.

>I use the word "abuse" advisedly. I realise that it's popular to assume that all forms of abuse must be sexual in nature<

Just because I think abuse is over-used doesn't mean I think it can only ever refer to sexual abuse and, to be fair, your assumtion that I do is more than a little patronising. I just don't agree that teaching a child something you believe in is necessarily abuse. Teaching children that faith is as valid as reason isn't within spitting distance of abuse, never mind bordering on it. You only have to read Dawkins "converts corner" to realise that being brought up in a faith doesn't mean that your ability to reason is dimished or denigrated at all. Anyway, I don't think a teacher will have as big an impact as the parents should they choose to exercise their influence. So, to be honest I don't think you do use the term "abuse" advisedly in this case. You're not the only person who does refer to the passing on of faith as a form of abuse, or coming very close to abuse, it's just that when I saw that post, my reaction was "oh for chrissake! abuse again!"


I will try to make my point about science and faith a little clearer: I am, in fact, agreeing that they are mutually exclusive and was trying to back up your point by saying that although there are lots of scientists who believe in gods that doesn't mean we can declare the two to be similar or try to bring elements of one into the other.
Science is about discovering things by repeatedly testing various hypotheses. Faith is about putting your trust in something you can never be sure of. So having faith doesn't mean you will be any less able to carry out proper scientific reasoning and experimentation. Nor does the ability to reason scientifically stop anyone from having faith. But no-one should try to apply science to faith or faith to science.

I realise my original post did probably come across as disagreeing with you but hopefully I've sorted that out!

P.P.

Abuse v. Definition 1: Use to bad effect or for a bad purpose

Abuse n. Definition 1: The improper use of something

Concise Oxford English Dictionary


As far as the rest of your post is concerned. Yes, I agree. If one is able to compartmentalise to that degree, one may well be able to do science and still believe in anything one wants. The Red Queen, after all, entertained contradictory notions as a matter of routine!

Hi BCR,

>i'm guessing you wholeheartedly disapprove of science fiction then sayamalu?

I'm guessing sayamalu does indeed disapprove of science fiction being taught *in science lessons*.

>if in science lessons we were to constrain ourselves to literal facts only, without appealing to the imagination, we would soon run out of scientists!

So what's your alternative? To teach anything in science lessons with no discrimination at all?

By all means, let's have hypotheses and theories in science lessons. But those lessons should, imo, be about how to test those hypotheses and see whether they stand up to scrutiny. They should *not* be about giving 'equal time' to all viewpoints, irrespective of the amounts of evidence against them, or of their untestability, simply because some people want others to believe them to be true.

>what i am saying is that science and religious faith are not mutually exclusive.

That's not an unreasonable position - but you would have to conceed that they are based on opposing premises. They also often frequently come to opposing conclusions. So actually... they are pretty hard to reconcile.

Gif

Hi pp,

@ 13395 - yep, I think we're violently agreeing with each-other!

Ooh, and @ 13424 too! Yes, I do think that people like Dawkins over-use the term 'abuse' (though it can apply to some forms of religious upbringing).

>non-overlapping magisteria

Ah, at least something to argue about! I'm with Dawkins on this one... I'll believe this 'non-overlapping magesteria' bit when I see a priest look at a miracle and say 'well, that doesn't provide any evidence for the existence of God, because it happened in the physical world and is therefore part of science.' Whatever Gould's original intent, NOMA has become asymmetric - it has come to be an excuse for faith to 'opt out' of the common sense rule that if the evidence is against it, you shouldn't believe it.

Gif

Re: abuse.

Would bringing a child up to believe that (e.g.) many of their friends and relatives will burn forever in eternal torment be classed as abuse?

If the child believes it sincerely enough to burst into tears at the thought?

If the child believes that this is their own fault for not been a good enough 'witness'?

And yes, this is something I have seen. And not just in children, either.

Gif

Well put, Gif. And isn't it interesting that such indoctrination is virtually identical to the anti-scientific teaching that is routinely carried on in pesantrens (Islamic boarding schools).

I don't think you need to stretch a point to suggest that the indoctrination received by young men that will inspire them to strap an explosive device to their bodies and then go into a nightclub and detonate it might be considered abusive.

The kind of thinking that leads to those actions is taught in schools in many countries; anti-intellectualism in the form of pretending that religion is in any way a reasonable alternative to truth is abusive*. Religions are constantly clamouring to be permitted to teach that tripe. Objecting to their ridiculous demands is called being insensitive or closed minded.

*(See cOED definitions above)

So to continue my ambivalent playing of both sides on the abuse thing...

What about more moderate religions that don't teach suicide bombing or eternal damnation?

Is it abuse to teach children that Santa Claus exists? Is it abuse to bring children up to believe that God and heaven do not exist? Is it abusive if a parent who sincerely (if mistakenly) believes they have good reason to think God exists brings up a child to believe in God?

Gif

The CoE has published a prayer against corporate bankruptcies:
http://www.christiantoday.co.uk/article/church.publishes.prayer.amid.global.financial.crisis/21480.htm

The CoE speaks out against 'short selling':
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7634641.stm

24 hours later, CoE admits profiting from 'short selling':
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3081541/Church-of-England-admits-profiting-from-short-selling.html

And just to get this in a little perspective, perhaps a little financial hypocrisy isn't so bad:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4828349.ece

Gif

pp, sayamalu: newton would disagree with you that science and faith are mutually exclusive. so would darwin, at some points in his long life.


ever read the tao of phyics?

Wow looks like no one has what it takes to take on your version.
In my opinion there are infinite versions and I am totally against religious christians. I do however totally believe in god. I don't know how personal God is though. God could just be that which defines the universe, and if that god defined it around us and our souls, then we would be able to have a "relationship" with god. My question is do our souls and god have a personality like we think of personalities with our minute little minds, or did jesus and spiritual teachers describe God in such a way that these small personality-driven minds can try to understand?

Parents bringing up children? Parents? my my with the way things are headed parents will soon not exist. We will be living in a brave new world! Parents have the right to teach their kids what they want. I don't go telling little kids there is no santa, even though I think it childish and somewhat mean to knowingly lie to ones children.

Hi, Gif!
<>

Just to make sure that we don't lose perspective, here, remember that I said that teaching children that fantasy is scientifically equivalent to tested, experimented, and verified hypotheses is borderline child abuse. And then I posted the Oxford definition of the word "abuse". My claim, I think was reasonable.

And I used the words "child abuse" deliberately, for effect. Properly, appropriately, but in an attempt to point out that teaching children lies and calling it science isn't merely a harmless little eccentric quirk on the part of some well meaningh people, but is a concerted effort, political perhaps, but very definitely deliberate, to destroy a young mind's ability to think critically.

To tell a child about Santa Claus or Rapunzel or Noah is not abusive, as long as one isn't trying to pretend that one is a folk tradition, another is a fairy tale, and one is literal truth.

To teach a child that god and heaven and hell exists is not abusive as such, I suppose, if one is honest and points out that the belief is not supported by anything whatsoever and that there is no scientific evidence for its truth.

It isn't the relating of folk tales that I object to. It's the trying to pass them off as truth, or scientifically valid, or even as having a greater legitimacy than any other whimsical lies we tell our children.

Sorry, I missed the point of one of your questions.

No, I don't consider it abusive to teach children that heaven and god do not exist. Or the Easter Buny, for that matter.

If I was perfectly fair, and they were old enough to understand it, I suppose I might teach them the concepts as odd beliefs held by some people; concepts for which there is an utter dearth of evidence. As far as understanding the world is concerned, I think it's important that they recognise the existence of such notions as well as the political, social, and economic power those antiquated and false ideas still wield.

"Faith MEANS belief in the absence of evidence"

So faith means belief in something that does not exist? something that has no proof of existence except by a person's profound sense in something that must be but it is not?

I agree with Richard Dawkins, by the way, in mostly...all.

If you notice, in history, most of the important personalities did not believe in a God, Gods or any kind of belief. They refused it or had constant internal conflicts. When you wake up to rational thought, you see that reallity does not get to be changed by simple personal will.

I will tell you what Nietzsche said: God is dead, i'll tell you what i say: there is no god, a deus, a elohim, anything that rules your life or this entire cosmos and dimensions.

There is, yes, atoms, subparticles, radiation, etc. And you can only grasp all of this and actually interact with rallity if you follow methods, improved by thought and experiment. All based in evidence and logic.

Just a curiosity about the word methaphysics: "The word derives from the Greek words &#956;&#949;&#964;&#940; (metá) (meaning "beyond" or "after") and &#966;&#965;&#963;&#953;&#954;&#940; (physiká) (meaning "physical"), "physical" referring to those works on matter by Aristotle in antiquity. The prefix meta- ("beyond") was attached to the chapters in Aristotle's work that physically followed after the chapters on "physics", in posthumously edited collections. Aristotle called some of the subjects treated there "first philosophy.""

and a small joke: a man falls in a well but before going even more down to certain death he's able to get a hold in a vine. He stays there for hours calling out for help, and he yealls and yealls. Suddently a voice comes from the top and says: "MY SON, I AM THE LORD, THE GOD OF MAN. PLEASE RELEASE THAT VINE AND HAVE FAITH IN MY WORD: I WILL SAVE YOU FROM DEATH". The guy looks to that light, so shinny and peacefull and wanted at the top of the well, going along the voice and the cherubin chants...he looks up thoughtfully for a while...and finally says for a couple more hours the following until he is finally rescued: "Is there anybody else up there???"

peace