nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 320:
Line 320: + + Line 334:
Line 336: + + + + + + + + + Line 352:
Line 363: + Line 358:
Line 370: + + + Line 368:
Line 383: + + + Line 374:
Line 392: + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 382:
Line 412: + + + Line 395:
Line 428: +
Talk:Opposition to classroom prayer (view source)
Revision as of 10:03, March 11, 2008
, 10:03, March 11, 2008→Basic Problem: God expects us to base our beliefs on evidence, not /blind/ faith.
::You really want to argue this? It doesn't matter... sure, theocracy is rule by God if you want to define it that way. --[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::You really want to argue this? It doesn't matter... sure, theocracy is rule by God if you want to define it that way. --[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: No, if you don't want to debate this point any longer, I'm happy to drop it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:03, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
: "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" refers to the ''establishment'', that is, that the government can't establish a "state religion", which is a religious ''organisation'' run by the state. This was the issue in Britain, where the head of the Church of England was (and still is, technically), the monarch, so the ''civil government'' ran the church. So it meant that the government could not run the church; it didn't mean that the government couldn't recognise ''Christianity'' (a set of beliefs, not an organisation) as correct.''
: "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" refers to the ''establishment'', that is, that the government can't establish a "state religion", which is a religious ''organisation'' run by the state. This was the issue in Britain, where the head of the Church of England was (and still is, technically), the monarch, so the ''civil government'' ran the church. So it meant that the government could not run the church; it didn't mean that the government couldn't recognise ''Christianity'' (a set of beliefs, not an organisation) as correct.''
::"make no law respecting an establishment of religion" does indeed mean that the government cannot establish a state religion, yes. In fact, it means precisely that Congress is not allowed to make any laws which establish a religion. But what is the difference between "recogniz[ing] Christianity as correct" and endorsing a state religion? Your interpretation would lead me to believe that you think that the only provision here is to stop the government from creating a religious organization, but it seems to me that the government's teachers endorsing Christianity as "correct" would tend to impinge upon the free exercise of religion of the citizens. --[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::"make no law respecting an establishment of religion" does indeed mean that the government cannot establish a state religion, yes. In fact, it means precisely that Congress is not allowed to make any laws which establish a religion. But what is the difference between "recogniz[ing] Christianity as correct" and endorsing a state religion? Your interpretation would lead me to believe that you think that the only provision here is to stop the government from creating a religious organization, but it seems to me that the government's teachers endorsing Christianity as "correct" would tend to impinge upon the free exercise of religion of the citizens. --[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: What's the difference? I've already explained: One is the government ''running'' a religious ''organisation'', the other is simply endorsing a set of beliefs. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:03, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
: 2. Lot's of things are not ''empirically'' provable, as you later acknowledge. How do you ''empirically'' prove when you were born? Or that World War I happened? Or that the water in my kettle boiled at 100 degrees Celsius last Thursday? The first two are "proven" by ''historical'' evidence (e.g. eyewitness accounts recorded in documents). The last is "proven" by inference from what we ''do'' know, that water normally does boil at 100 degrees Celsius. Similarly, God can be "proved" by (a) historical documents (e.g. the Bible) and (b) inference (everything that begins has a cause; the universe had a beginning; therefore the universe had a cause. For a number of reasons including that the cause had to be outside of the space-time continuum, the cause must be something that we would label "God"). Did we ''empirically'' prove God? No. Did we "prove" God by other means that we accept as being sufficient in other cases? Yes.''
: 2. Lot's of things are not ''empirically'' provable, as you later acknowledge. How do you ''empirically'' prove when you were born? Or that World War I happened? Or that the water in my kettle boiled at 100 degrees Celsius last Thursday? The first two are "proven" by ''historical'' evidence (e.g. eyewitness accounts recorded in documents). The last is "proven" by inference from what we ''do'' know, that water normally does boil at 100 degrees Celsius. Similarly, God can be "proved" by (a) historical documents (e.g. the Bible) and (b) inference (everything that begins has a cause; the universe had a beginning; therefore the universe had a cause. For a number of reasons including that the cause had to be outside of the space-time continuum, the cause must be something that we would label "God"). Did we ''empirically'' prove God? No. Did we "prove" God by other means that we accept as being sufficient in other cases? Yes.''
::I should point out that by trying to use evidence and logic to demonstrate his existence, you DID attempt to empirically "prove" God exists to the best of your ability. But the empirical evidence is simply very very slim, mostly a "god of the gaps" thing. Faith proves God, nothing else, and faith is private.
::I should point out that by trying to use evidence and logic to demonstrate his existence, you DID attempt to empirically "prove" God exists to the best of your ability. But the empirical evidence is simply very very slim, mostly a "god of the gaps" thing. Faith proves God, nothing else, and faith is private.
::--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Yes, as I said and you've essentially agreed, the time of your birth and World War I are "provable" by the historical record of people there at the time. The kettle is exactly the same situation, except that in this case the witness (me) is still alive, but you still rely on me relating that to you. However, the question is, how is the this any different from biblical events being "provable" by the historical records of people who were there at the time?
::: I'd like to see some substantive support of your claim that the biblical evidence "is entirely counterbalanced by the wide variety of other documents which claim equal support for very different Gods, on just as much authority". I consider that claim to be unsubstantiated hand-waving.
::: The counterpoint is invalid. The chain of logic started with "everything ''that begins'' has a cause". God did not have a beginning, so needs no cause.
::: How is the birth of the universe categorically different? That sounds very much like an ''ad hoc'' argument.
::: Deduction from what ''we know'' (the chain of logic in (b)) is not a "god of the gaps" argument. It is based on what we ''know'', not what we ''don't know''. It is a solid argument, not a "very very slim" argument.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:03, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
: "Faith" is trust ''based on evidence''. Christianity has ''evidence'' in support of it. Perhaps your beliefs are purely based on faith without evidence, but mine are not.''
: "Faith" is trust ''based on evidence''. Christianity has ''evidence'' in support of it. Perhaps your beliefs are purely based on faith without evidence, but mine are not.''
::You are unusual in that regard. I have no evidence of an afterlife, but I have faith in everlasting life as testified to by the lord, despite the lack of empirical proof. I believe most people would agree.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::You are unusual in that regard. I have no evidence of an afterlife, but I have faith in everlasting life as testified to by the lord, despite the lack of empirical proof. I believe most people would agree.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: I'm not unusual at all, and your comment suggests that you have the same thinking as me. My belief in the afterlife is based on the ''evidence'' that the Bible, a book that has been ''shown to be reliable'', testifies to it. Sure, I take it on trust, but trust ''based on the evidence that the Bible is correct''. For more on ''faith'', see [http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:03, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
: "''"The truth," as you put it, is not a certainty for everyone.''": Truth is truth regardless of what a person believes.''
: "''"The truth," as you put it, is not a certainty for everyone.''": Truth is truth regardless of what a person believes.''
::Except your use of the word "truth" in such an instance is almost deliberately obfuscatory. While what you are saying is accurate - that objective truth is not dependent on belief to be true - you are making an implicit and unwarranted leap to assume that your personal belief system have been objectively and empirically examined as the "truth." I could just as easily impose my own beliefs on you, and reply with your latter statement.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::Except your use of the word "truth" in such an instance is almost deliberately obfuscatory. While what you are saying is accurate - that objective truth is not dependent on belief to be true - you are making an implicit and unwarranted leap to assume that your personal belief system have been objectively and empirically examined as the "truth." I could just as easily impose my own beliefs on you, and reply with your latter statement.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: No, I'm not making an ''unwarranted leap''; I'm making a ''reasonable claim'', based on evidence. You could not validly make a similar claim about your beliefs unless you also had reasonable evidence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:03, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:4. "''Obviously the teacher cannot "force anyone to believe." But that's an illogical way of looking at the matter.''": Try telling that to all the bibliosceptics who have accused me of "forcing my beliefs" onto them simply because I argued my case on an Internet forum like this!''
:4. "''Obviously the teacher cannot "force anyone to believe." But that's an illogical way of looking at the matter.''": Try telling that to all the bibliosceptics who have accused me of "forcing my beliefs" onto them simply because I argued my case on an Internet forum like this!''
::I can't control what some people you met on the Internet said to you. But clearly you were not forcing your beliefs on them. You clearly seem to think so, which goes to support my case as to what constitutes forcing: most certainly not neutral discussion in a public forum between individuals.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::I can't control what some people you met on the Internet said to you. But clearly you were not forcing your beliefs on them. You clearly seem to think so, which goes to support my case as to what constitutes forcing: most certainly not neutral discussion in a public forum between individuals.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Sorry, I clearly seem to think ''what''? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:03, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
: "''the only way freedom of religion would be violated would be the teacher "forcing [someone] to believe," ... would [be] ... a teacher who was also a priest leading the class in Mass, administering communion, and reading the Annals of the Jesuit Register.''": No, that's not the only way at all. Forcing someone to believe would be punishing them for not believing, as happens in some cultures when people convert to Christianity.''
: "''the only way freedom of religion would be violated would be the teacher "forcing [someone] to believe," ... would [be] ... a teacher who was also a priest leading the class in Mass, administering communion, and reading the Annals of the Jesuit Register.''": No, that's not the only way at all. Forcing someone to believe would be punishing them for not believing, as happens in some cultures when people convert to Christianity.''
::It would seem that an enormous amount of unacceptable behavior would be justified, then, by your rule... a mullah who was an American teacher would be justified in teaching children that their parents were heretics who should be killed, to choose an inflammatory example. If the only requirement of your rule is that the teacher not "punish them for not believing," that would make perfect sense.
::It would seem that an enormous amount of unacceptable behavior would be justified, then, by your rule... a mullah who was an American teacher would be justified in teaching children that their parents were heretics who should be killed, to choose an inflammatory example. If the only requirement of your rule is that the teacher not "punish them for not believing," that would make perfect sense.
::--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: I don't think your example was "absurd" ''in the sense of being inherently wrong''. I would, however, point out that taking mass in a maths or woodworking class is not appropriate, as the class is supposed to be about maths/woodworking. However, there is also the requirement that the beliefs being taught are ''correct''. Islamic belief is not correct, so your example is flawed in that respect. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:03, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:5. "''..."truth" was a word seldom used.''": Okay, substitute "fact" if you prefer. And think about ''how'' it is taught, not what words were used to explain it.''
:5. "''..."truth" was a word seldom used.''": Okay, substitute "fact" if you prefer. And think about ''how'' it is taught, not what words were used to explain it.''
::And as I have explained exhaustively, it was taught empirically and exactly according to reasonable interpretations of the evidence, except for minor discrepancies and errors (every teacher is human, after all, and some are dogmatic).
::And as I have explained exhaustively, it was taught empirically and exactly according to reasonable interpretations of the evidence, except for minor discrepancies and errors (every teacher is human, after all, and some are dogmatic).
::--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: The point is that some things, such as evolution, are taught as "correct". Whether they are taught as 100.00% correct, 99.9% correct, or whatever is neither here nor there as far as my point is concerned. Neither does it matter if they are taught as "absolutely correct", "almost certainly correct", "correct as far as we know", or whatever. The point is, if things can be taught as "correct", whatever precise qualification is put on that, why can't Christianity also be taught as "correct". Your comment and my reply were:
:::: "''But it is not the government's job to decide for you what the religious truth is.''": Why not? They teach many other things as truth; why not also teach which religion is true?
::: Arguing over the use of the words "truth" and "fact" and how precisely things are taught is merely sidestepping that question.
: "...''your "truth" is likely not the truth of even a simple majority of Americans. Unless, of course, you speak very vaguely.''": I think you overstate how "vague" it has to be. Agreed that the more detail you get into, the more points over which there will be disagreement, but I would say that there is more ''agreement'' than you are indicating.''
: "...''your "truth" is likely not the truth of even a simple majority of Americans. Unless, of course, you speak very vaguely.''": I think you overstate how "vague" it has to be. Agreed that the more detail you get into, the more points over which there will be disagreement, but I would say that there is more ''agreement'' than you are indicating.''
::To put a question to you in return: if it is as easy to prove the matter as to prove Roman history, then what role does faith play? Is it not a venal matter of looking into a microscope in such a case?
::To put a question to you in return: if it is as easy to prove the matter as to prove Roman history, then what role does faith play? Is it not a venal matter of looking into a microscope in such a case?
::--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: And my reply is above: what's the strength of the alleged contradictory documentation? And the logical arguments are not flawed and are positive, as also explained above.
::: Faith is important for the things that we ''can't'' see under the microscope. Jesus said, "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?". If we don't believe the things that we ''can'' check, why should we believe the things that we ''can't'' check. The principle is that we have faith about the things that we can't check ''because the things that we ''can'' check are true''.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:03, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
: "''Indeed, I would be insulted if someone claimed to find God under a microscope.''": I'm not sure that I'd be "insulted", but I certainly wouldn't accept it, because God is not material. But I would ''expect'' that someone could find evidence for God under a microscope. Or telescope. Indeed, the Bible tells us that "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands."''
: "''Indeed, I would be insulted if someone claimed to find God under a microscope.''": I'm not sure that I'd be "insulted", but I certainly wouldn't accept it, because God is not material. But I would ''expect'' that someone could find evidence for God under a microscope. Or telescope. Indeed, the Bible tells us that "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands."''
::This is an important example of how "the truth" varies from you to me. You feel that God's hand in everything should be easily distinguishable, with evidence abounding... deity fingerprints in mortal clay. I feel that God is majestic and subtle, and he crafted a world free from his obvious touch for the express purpose of requiring faith in his word in order to believe, rather than a biology textbook.
::This is an important example of how "the truth" varies from you to me. You feel that God's hand in everything should be easily distinguishable, with evidence abounding... deity fingerprints in mortal clay. I feel that God is majestic and subtle, and he crafted a world free from his obvious touch for the express purpose of requiring faith in his word in order to believe, rather than a biology textbook.
::--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Oh dear. That verse is ''not'' talking about empirical testing of God.
:::* In Matthew 4:7 ("Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" ") Jesus is quoting from Deuteronomy 6:16.
:::* Deuteronomy 6:16: "Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah." The following three passages provide the background:
:::* Exodus 17:2, 7: "So they quarreled with Moses and said, "Give us water to drink." Moses replied, "Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you put the LORD to the test?" ... "And he called the place Massah and Meribah because the Israelites quarreled and because they tested the LORD saying, "Is the LORD among us or not?" "
:::* Deuteronomy 9:22: "You also made the LORD angry at Taberah, at Massah and at Kibroth Hattaavah."
:::* Psalm 956:8: "do not harden your hearts as you did at Meribah, as you did that day at Massah in the desert,"
::: The instruction is to not test God's patience. It's not saying anything about testing if something is true or not. On the contrary, we are ''expected to check things out'':
:::* The Bereans were commended because instead of taking Paul at his word, they checked up on him.
:::* Thomas asked to see ''evidence'' that it really was Jesus in the upper room. Jesus didn't condemn him for a lack of faith, but ''showed him the evidence''.
:::* The Bible, unlike (nearly?) every other "holy" book, is crammed with ''historical claims'', that allow it to be checked out.
:::* Romans 1:20: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." We are "without excuse" because ''the evidence'' is clear.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:03, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:7. "''I really think I know what sense I meant it in a little better than you do... ''": I can, of course, only go on what you said, rather than what you were thinking. And it is clear from what you ''said'' that you were talking about ''scientific'' evidence.''
:7. "''I really think I know what sense I meant it in a little better than you do... ''": I can, of course, only go on what you said, rather than what you were thinking. And it is clear from what you ''said'' that you were talking about ''scientific'' evidence.''
::You described empirical proof that Catholicism is correct and Protestantism is wrong? I beg your pardon, I missed that... could you repeat it? --[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::You described empirical proof that Catholicism is correct and Protestantism is wrong? I beg your pardon, I missed that... could you repeat it? --[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: That Catholicism is correct and Protestantism was wrong was your extreme example of the question of deciding the truth about God. I didn't supply proof of that extreme question, but the more general question about God's existence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:03, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
: The bulk of paragraph 7 is explaining that there are other "proofs" than empirical or scientific proof, a claim that I totally agree with. So I'll skip all that.''
: The bulk of paragraph 7 is explaining that there are other "proofs" than empirical or scientific proof, a claim that I totally agree with. So I'll skip all that.''
::Those are all empirical proofs. I thought that was fairly clear, and went to considerable trouble to demonstrate that to you. Every single item is proven empirically or "scientifically." And in fact such proofs can be arrived at for virtually everything that is empirically testable. We could go all day. I would ask you not to do so, since it would be pretty annoying, but everything taught in the classroom ideally should be empirically demonstrable. --[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::Those are all empirical proofs. I thought that was fairly clear, and went to considerable trouble to demonstrate that to you. Every single item is proven empirically or "scientifically." And in fact such proofs can be arrived at for virtually everything that is empirically testable. We could go all day. I would ask you not to do so, since it would be pretty annoying, but everything taught in the classroom ideally should be empirically demonstrable. --[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Then we must be using the term "empirical" differently. I've just checked the meaning, at it does appear to be broader than I was using it. I was using it to refer to being able to ''measure'' things, as is done with scientific testing. But even so, they are not "scientific" proofs. You can't make predictions and test and measure those predictions, for things like those examples. And the point is that the same sort of evidence as in those examples is available for biblical events. Any distinction between them and biblical events is arbitrary and self-serving.
: "''But this rational process does not work for God, because the best "evidence" for God is individual faith.''": On the contrary, as I have pointed out above, there is good ''actual'' evidence for God, and plenty of it.''
: "''But this rational process does not work for God, because the best "evidence" for God is individual faith.''": On the contrary, as I have pointed out above, there is good ''actual'' evidence for God, and plenty of it.''
::See above.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::See above.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Ditto. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:03, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
: "''God does not bow to dance before our rationality...''": ''Our'' rationality? Where do you think we got rationality from? From the ''rational'' God! God has provided us with evidence for His existence, and we would do well to recognise that.
: "''God does not bow to dance before our rationality...''": ''Our'' rationality? Where do you think we got rationality from? From the ''rational'' God! God has provided us with evidence for His existence, and we would do well to recognise that.
::It would seem our truths are very different on the matter. Since I am a teacher, I will teach the nation's children that mine are correct. I know you won't mind, since I won't be forcing them to believe.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::It would seem our truths are very different on the matter. Since I am a teacher, I will teach the nation's children that mine are correct. I know you won't mind, since I won't be forcing them to believe.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Oh, but I do mind (or at least I might), because it is wrong to teach students things that are not correct. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:03, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
== Quote Mined ==
== Quote Mined ==