nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 269:
Line 269: + + + + + + + + +
→Basic Problem: Reply to TomMoore.
7. ''Are you saying that the only things that schools can teach are things that are scientifically proven? In that case, you might as well close down the schools, because science is unable to prove anything. And even apart from that, does that mean that you don't teach the history of the Roman Empire, because we only know about it from ancient documents, not scientific proof? Or that the right way to spell "cat" is c-a-t, because it's not been scientifically proven?''
7. ''Are you saying that the only things that schools can teach are things that are scientifically proven? In that case, you might as well close down the schools, because science is unable to prove anything. And even apart from that, does that mean that you don't teach the history of the Roman Empire, because we only know about it from ancient documents, not scientific proof? Or that the right way to spell "cat" is c-a-t, because it's not been scientifically proven?''
I was using the colloquial sense of "prove," as I think you probably were aware. You seem to be taking a pretty personal tone to this... let's try to keep it civil, please.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
I was using the colloquial sense of "prove," as I think you probably were aware. You seem to be taking a pretty personal tone to this... let's try to keep it civil, please.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
: 1. Neither was I arguing for a theocracy (rule by God). I was arguing in the context of a democracy, but I was arguing, as I said, for what ''should'' be (in a democracy), not what ''is'' (in America). I would also point out that the original intention of the Constitutional amendment was not to prevent religion (Christianity) being implicitly endorsed by government agencies, and that it is only activist judges (and lobbyists) who have ''interpreted'' it to mean something different. That being the case, it would not be going against the constitution (as opposed to court ''interpretations'' of the constitution) to return to that. If you think that I was rejecting freedom of religion, either you still aren't properly reading what I write, or you are using the term differently to me. I specifically said above that I endorsed the right of everyone to choose their religion. Surely that indicates that I believe in freedom of religion?
: 2. I wasn't trying to equate evidence for the location of Australia with evidence for God. I was pointing out that there was nothing improper about a teacher speaking the truth. Not everything is proved to the same degree of certainty, and just because God's existence is not proven in precisely the same way as the location of Australia doesn't mean that it's not sufficiently certain. And by the way, Catholics and Protestants ''agree'' on the existence of God; it's other details that they don't agree on. And that point is irrelevant anyway. Just because someone ''doesn't'' agree on something doesn't mean that it's an open question. If that was always the case, then ''everyone'' would consider the existence of goo-to-you evolution to be an open question, because different beliefs exist about it!
: 3. That's not my understanding.
: 4. That's a non-answer as far as my point was concerned, which is that the teacher is not ''forcing'' anyone to believe.
: 5. No, I'm not being facetious, and as I've already said, I'm (a) not talking about the ''existing'' situation with the constitution, and (b) it is not really the constitutional situation anyway, but court misinterpretation of it. Did teachers never teach you that two plus two equals four? Nor that America is a republic? Or did they teach them as ''opinions'' rather than ''truth''? Of course they taught them as truth! "''In science, for example, nothing is sacrosanct "truth," since under the scientific method everything is open to question as long as evidence can be presented.''": In theory. In practice, evolution at least is sacrosanct and not open to question.
: 6. "''That would be the great caveat, wouldn't it? ;) I think you take my point. Or I hope you do, anyway.''": Did you get my point? That the anti-Christians argue that you shouldn't teach God as truth ''because it's religion'', not ''because it's not true''. In other words, to them the truth of it doesn't matter, or else they ''presume'', without warrant, that the truth is necessarily indeterminable. My point is that the question should be ''is it true?'', not ''is it religion?''
: 7. No, sorry, you ''were not'' using it in "the colloquial sense". You specifically used the terms "empirical study" and "scientifically proven".<!-- And for those Really Wrong people: Neither did he talk about "mathematical proof" nor "logical proof", so I wasn't replying in those contexts. -->
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:32, 7 March 2008 (EST)
== Quote Mined ==
== Quote Mined ==