Texas Public School Bible Classes Teach Races Come from Noah’s Sons, B

[WIP]

The OP is about teaching this stuff in public schools. That should never be allowed to happen, and I'm surprised it's deemed constitutional in Texas. Bible class belongs in church.

That sort of plays into the fears of a lot of the religious community that separation between church and state means forcing religion out of any sort of public expression.

[Guest Manny]

The problem for us who have left and started charting our own course in the moral universe is that we have to either make our own maps as we go along or latch on to some secular system as the atheist version of religion.....I'm thinking primarily of humanist philosophies here. But, even if you are a moral person who is concerned for others, making moral decisions by using reasoning and evidence is a lot more difficult than it appears. It may work for the big decisions, but every day we have to make quick decisions on an intuitive level.....should we open a door for someone else rather than entering first....should we leave a tip for the counter clerk at the coffee shop....and all of the little examples of how we live in daily life that we do without having time to weigh evidence for or against, but just have to respond naturally. But, even if we do have a moral theory like using utilitarianism to decide moral and ethical issues, we are still going to arrive at different conclusions on various subjects....whether it's whether or not to eat meat, euthanasia, abortion, even infanticide, you'd be surprised how much variation there can be in the final decisions between different theorists. The religious adherents may be stuck having to support rules they do not get a vote on, but the challenge for secularists from atheist to vague pantheistic theists, but can we have a society with a shared moral order if we don't have some binding authority like religion to enforce it?

While you ponder all that let me also remind you, not everyone is a superman capable of deep philosophical pondering. Many ordinary folks don't have time to even think about that.

Religious people believe that the evil world order will include mind control. Some have their organized religion while others, have google. There is your new world oracle.

Ah a sarcastic antagonizing comment, why am I not surprise.

You are not surprise?

[Guest Manny]

What in particular do you disagree with?

We already went over that.

Scientists collect new data and analyze the results. Wherever it deviates from the standard model, it implies either the data is wrong or results are misunderstood. Data is revised.

Scientific inquiry frequently raises a supposition and then looks for data to support that supposition. Sometimes, results are fitted to the expected curve. Aberrant measurements are ignored as noise.

Science has its heretics. The people who come along who really mess up science. I already explained about Galileo, and stuff. Nobody said nothin after that. Science has its sacred cows. If certain theories of modern science are to be suddenly disproven, some of the big boys will be out of jobs. That means, loss of funding money. People buy scientists ad pay for them to say anything they want them to say. I can do research to show some evidence of almost anything you want.

[Sleipnir]

Scientists collect new data and analyze the results. Wherever it deviates from the standard model, it implies either the data is wrong or results are misunderstood.

No its not, it called 'variation' and not all experiments will produce the exact same result.

[Guest Manny]

Can you say standard model?

[guyser]

Scientists collect new data and analyze the results. Wherever it deviates from the standard model, it implies either the data is wrong or results are misunderstood. Data is revised.

And in the meantime the Bible people read the bible and do nothing but put trust in their faith,

They could very well try and put 2 of every animal on a boat.

They could try and part the sea.

They could nail some dude to a cross on Friday and see if he wakes up on Monday morning.(Union rules ya know)

The could try and make some chick pregnant without fertilization.

Naw....lets not try that !

Now isnt that laughable.

Edited February 4, 2013 by guyser

[Mighty AC]

Scientific inquiry frequently raises a supposition and then looks for data to support that supposition. Sometimes, results are fitted to the expected curve. Aberrant measurements are ignored as noise.[/Quote]Sometimes. What happens when there is enough "noise" or others notice the aberrations?

Science has its heretics. The people who come along who really mess up science. I already explained about Galileo, and stuff. Nobody said nothin after that. Science has its sacred cows. If certain theories of modern science are to be suddenly disproven, some of the big boys will be out of jobs. That means, loss of funding money. People buy scientists ad pay for them to say anything they want them to say. I can do research to show some evidence of almost anything you want.

Science has shown that some of the work done by the very sacred Einstein and Newton was not correct. Gallileo's troubles were mainly with the Catholic church as his support for heliocentricity clashed with the Bible. A small fraction of any profession are for hire, including clergy. The thing is most bought scientists making false claims don't get published and if they do and their work is discovered, challenged and corrected. Compare that to how religion deals with dissent.

You may feel that truth is somewhat relative, but that does not mean that all claims equal. Do you honestly feel that the claims made in the bible are as valid as scientific knowledge?

[Mighty AC]

On the other hand, there can be religious authorities who stand up to the despots and dictators, who stand for justice and equality, and encouraging their followers to be better people rather than judging those who are different and live in foreign countries.[/QUote]True, but the same can be done without the fairy tale. I don't like 'ends justify the means' arguments..."there are no ends, just means." - Penn Jillette

I doubt that most religious adherents are actually cherry-picking the Bible themselves. It's more likely that they have latched on to one or two trusted religious authorities and just repeat whatever they say. It's also very likely that they chose this religious authority already because it fit the political and economic ideology they already adhere to.[/QUote]I agree completely. However, systems relying on authority are severely wakened when the walls are removed. The internet provides many skeptical questions that can lead to self examination, especially among the young.

The problem for us who have left and started charting our own course in the moral universe is that we have to either make our own maps as we go along or latch on to some secular system as the atheist version of religion.....I'm thinking primarily of humanist philosophies here. But, even if you are a moral person who is concerned for others, making moral decisions by using reasoning and evidence is a lot more difficult than it appears. It may work for the big decisions, but every day we have to make quick decisions on an intuitive level.....should we open a door for someone else rather than entering first....should we leave a tip for the counter clerk at the coffee shop....and all of the little examples of how we live in daily life that we do without having time to weigh evidence for or against, but just have to respond naturally. But, even if we do have a moral theory like using utilitarianism to decide moral and ethical issues, we are still going to arrive at different conclusions on various subjects....whether it's whether or not to eat meat, euthanasia, abortion, even infanticide, you'd be surprised how much variation there can be in the final decisions between different theorists. The religious adherents may be stuck having to support rules they do not get a vote on, but the challenge for secularists from atheist to vague pantheistic theists, but can we have a society with a shared moral order if we don't have some binding authority like religion to enforce it?

I think most theists, upon reflection, would have to admit that so called religious or Christian values are actually courtesy of society and not a creator. However, even the church now tries to stray from dealing with the ethical minutia. As for universal macro-ethics, I am hopeful that a code based in human well being, guided by science and knowledge can be established. We may not be genetically suited to think beyond ourselves, our family and our tribe but as a race we've already gone great lengths to establish common goals and ideals. We're going in the right direction, IMO it's just a matter of time.

[Guest Manny]

And in the meantime the Bible people read the bible and do nothing but put trust in their faith,

They could very well try and put 2 of every animal on a boat.

They could try and part the sea.

They could nail some dude to a cross on Friday and see if he wakes up on Monday morning.(Union rules ya know)

The could try and make some chick pregnant without fertilization.

Naw....lets not try that !

Your problem is you analyzed it too much and now you can't figure it out. You're just too smart for your own good.

Now isnt that laughable.

Are you covered in dorito dust, dude?

[Guest Manny]

We're going in the right direction, IMO it's just a matter of time.

How would you like to measure that? We're becoming more disorganized as we globalize and exchange people of different cultures. In large urban areas where millions live, intolerance is on the rise. Your opinion is only due to the relative peace of your little bubble.

[GostHacked]

How would you like to measure that? We're becoming more disorganized as we globalize and exchange people of different cultures. In large urban areas where millions live, intolerance is on the rise. Your opinion is only due to the relative peace of your little bubble.

Ok you've been trolling hard for the past few pages, what's the deal here?

[guyser]

Your problem is you analyzed it too much and now you can't figure it out. You're just too smart for your own good.

Are you covered in dorito dust, dude?

Why no I am not, thanks for asking.

And you remain stuck on stupid.

Congrats.

[guyser]

Ok you've been trolling hard for the past few pages, what's the deal here?

He trolls. Other places too.

[Mighty AC]

How would you like to measure that? We're becoming more disorganized as we globalize and exchange people of different cultures. In large urban areas where millions live, intolerance is on the rise. Your opinion is only due to the relative peace of your little bubble.

It seems that more people have more rights, freedoms and greater equality than ever before. One of the greatest hurdles to freedom and equality seems to be religion itself.

[GostHacked]

It seems that more people have more rights, freedoms and greater equality than ever before. One of the greatest hurdles to freedom and equality seems to be religion itself.

However you no longer have a right to privacy.

[guyser]

However you no longer have a right to privacy.

Sure you do !

Went did ti go away?

[WIP]

While you ponder all that let me also remind you, not everyone is a superman capable of deep philosophical pondering. Many ordinary folks don't have time to even think about that.

Religious people believe that the evil world order will include mind control. Some have their organized religion while others, have google. There is your new world oracle.

Being an armchair philosopher is more about personality than it is about intellect or time available. Everybody has some free time, but even when we're busy, some of us are more introspective than others. And I don't think the percentage of the population that would be inclined towards creating their own philosophical framework is very large. Most people would rather look for a movement to join, one that appeals to them for largely aesthetic reasons. If people like a certain religion....especially if it's one they've grown up with, they'll ignore or gloss over any doctrinal inconsistencies if they feel that the religion is satisfying to them on a personal level and provides a sense of purpose.

Like I said before, I don't usually get involved in religion-bashing like pulling out embarrassing verses, but this one was an example of how religious authorities are leading their people right straight back into the racial attitudes that are supposed to be in the past. That is also the point of the Texas Freedom Network too. I heard one their spokesmen interviewed on a freethought program, who's host wasn't happy that the organization doesn't broadly condemn religion, but instead focuses on issues where certain religions are trying to advance their books and push their doctrines in the schools.

[GostHacked]

Sure you do !

Went did ti go away?

Specifically for the USA, PATRIOT Act, Warrant less wiretapping (land lines and cell phones), NSA spyrooms on AT&Ts network, the NDAA, CCTV everywhere and some that actually listen, ... want more?

[guyser]

Specifically for the USA, PATRIOT Act, Warrant less wiretapping (land lines and cell phones), NSA spyrooms on AT&Ts network, the NDAA, CCTV everywhere and some that actually listen, ... want more?

I shall grant you that some of those have impinged on privacy, except CCTV . No one has privacy out in the public arena.

But I see the point you were trying to make, but I was thinking more Canada.

[WIP]

True, but the same can be done without the fairy tale. I don't like 'ends justify the means' arguments..."there are no ends, just means." - Penn Jillette

First, you picked the wrong guy to quote from to win me over! I'm not sure what the point is, since in this example, we are dealing with followers of that "fairy tale" who rise to the occasion and do great work against all opposition and threat of death and injury in some circumstances. Are you saying that people like Martin Luther King or Archbishop Oscar Romero (who was ordered assassinated by the U.S. backed government of El Salvador) should have been required to deconvert from their religions before they should be accepted as leaders in the cause of human rights and freedom?

I agree completely. However, systems relying on authority are severely wakened when the walls are removed. The internet provides many skeptical questions that can lead to self examination, especially among the young.

That's true, but the internet builds as many walls, if not more so, than it takes down! If a young Mormon (for example) isn't happy with the Church and is looking to leave; the internet can provide loads of reasons for leaving. But, those who are happy in the Mormon Church are more likely to go to the Mormon sites and Mormon apologist bloggers who provide their flock with handy little rebuttals of challenging and conflicting information they may have been confronted with.

I think most theists, upon reflection, would have to admit that so called religious or Christian values are actually courtesy of society and not a creator. However, even the church now tries to stray from dealing with the ethical minutia. As for universal macro-ethics, I am hopeful that a code based in human well being, guided by science and knowledge can be established. We may not be genetically suited to think beyond ourselves, our family and our tribe but as a race we've already gone great lengths to establish common goals and ideals. We're going in the right direction, IMO it's just a matter of time.

As I get older, I am finding myself more inclined to go back to nihilism, after thinking that science was on the road of solving moral and ethical issues through greater understanding of the mind and human society. But it seems like science can only take us so far. Science can give us the facts, but it can't tell us what the best choice should be without committing the naturalistic fallacy.

Religions claim to have access to objective or transcendent moral standards, but those standards have changed over time. The difference is that they change relatively slowly, such as the recognition of individual rights and dignity and the repudiation of the institution of slavery. There was a changeover in church attitudes and it was likely motivated by other reasons that selected verses in the Bible. It's more likely that Wilberforce and other abolitionists found reasons to oppose slavery outside of their religious training, but soon incorporated it with Christian dogma. Same thing is happening in more recent times with the shift from left to right in right wing Christianity....which has found a way to blend their love of market ideology and belief that capitalism results in a meritocracy with Christian doctrine.

The problem for secularism is that there are no authorities, so there is never going to be a complete consensus and the overall consensus could change overnight as circumstances change.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....But I see the point you were trying to make, but I was thinking more Canada.

Wow...how refreshing....what a concept on a "Canadian web site" !!!

[Guest Manny]

Being an armchair philosopher is more about personality than it is about intellect or time available. Everybody has some free time, but even when we're busy, some of us are more introspective than others.

Leisure time is very important for cultural advancement. It's a little hard to be a poet when your problem of the day is getting another meal. Thats extreme, but at more ordinary levels mom and dad are tired after a long day. Dad's gotta look at the car and Moms still got to make dinner. Let alone doing some homewoerk with little John. Then time for bed and do it again tomorrow. No time for musing over the subtleties of Abdi.

[Mighty AC]

I'm not sure what the point is, since in this example, we are dealing with followers of that "fairy tale" who rise to the occasion and do great work against all opposition and threat of death and injury in some circumstances. Are you saying that people like Martin Luther King or Archbishop Oscar Romero (who was ordered assassinated by the U.S. backed government of El Salvador) should have been required to deconvert from their religions before they should be accepted as leaders in the cause of human rights and freedom?[/Quote]I'm saying that the fairy tale is not required to do good and charitable deeds. People do and will continue to do great things without superstition.

That's true, but the internet builds as many walls, if not more so, than it takes down! If a young Mormon (for example) isn't happy with the Church and is looking to leave; the internet can provide loads of reasons for leaving. But, those who are happy in the Mormon Church are more likely to go to the Mormon sites and Mormon apologist bloggers who provide their flock with handy little rebuttals of challenging and conflicting information they may have been confronted with.[/Quote]Filter bubbles certainly allow us to retreat into a cocoon of agreeable opinions. However, this is more of an issue as we age. The young are more open to new ideas and information; now they have more ubiquitous access to it than ever before. Add in the greater emphasis education is placing on critical thinking and information processing skills and we should see greater skepticism of unsupported, unlikely claims.

As I get older, I am finding myself more inclined to go back to nihilism, after thinking that science was on the road of solving moral and ethical issues through greater understanding of the mind and human society. But it seems like science can only take us so far. Science can give us the facts, but it can't tell us what the best choice should be without committing the naturalistic fallacy.[/Quote]Science has already provided unfathomable insight into human minds and emotions. We understand how and why we behave the way we do better than ever before and I suspect our knowledge will only improve. This knowledge will allow us to navigate the 'moral landscape' (yes that reference was also intended to annoy) in a more universal, unbiased and factually sound fashion than ever before. I will take facts as guide over the assertions of a religious leader any day.

The problem for secularism is that there are no authorities, so there is never going to be a complete consensus and the overall consensus could change overnight as circumstances change.

I don't see lack of authorities as a problem. For example, parenting practices are not ruled by authorities, yet they have changed along with the knowledge we've gained into our emotions, and how we learn and respond to motivation.

[WIP]

I'm saying that the fairy tale is not required to do good and charitable deeds. People do and will continue to do great things without superstition.

Or they will often do nothing! For all of the problems of religion, it also has be recognized that religions have also developed ways of motivating people to show concern for things other than their own personal interests. One thing that secular humanism seems to have a lot of trouble doing is to motivate people to contribute either time or money to the group.

Science has already provided unfathomable insight into human minds and emotions. We understand how and why we behave the way we do better than ever before and I suspect our knowledge will only improve. This knowledge will allow us to navigate the 'moral landscape' (yes that reference was also intended to annoy) in a more universal, unbiased and factually sound fashion than ever before. I will take facts as guide over the assertions of a religious leader any day.

I believe in using facts as a guide too, but Harris is saying something more than using facts as a guide, he is claiming that moral judgments are scientific facts. And if we accept the scientific facts of what we are and how we got here - the long, slow process of natural selection - that process does not have any built in moral values....except in the mind of Christian evolutionists like Francis Collins or Teihard de Chardin. The general consensus is that evolution is emergent and unguided, so that leaves us with a state of metaphysical nihilism. So, how do we make the jump that Harris and Daniel Dennett does in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, that the facts of human evolution can provide some objective moral values for us now? Ultimately that nihilism means that we just have to make choices that are generally accepted as the best choices, and those choices can change depending on cultural circumstances.

[Canuckistani]

The general consensus is that evolution is emergent and unguided, so that leaves us with a state of metaphysical nihilism. So, how do we make the jump that Harris and Daniel Dennett does in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, that the facts of human evolution can provide some objective moral values for us now? Ultimately that nihilism means that we just have to make choices that are generally accepted as the best choices, and those choices can change depending on cultural circumstances.

Didn't John Lennon write a song about nihilism? I haven't read Harris and Dennett (did read one of Dennetts books about consciousness) but as humans we do have the awareness required to see that moral values can be adaptive for both the individual and the species. Seeing ourselves interconnected with other people and the world around us and acting that way would seem to create the best environment for the individual and the species to thrive. Unfortunately, of course, there are other facets of our beings that are not that evolved and get in the way of this ideal. But I think as a society we've come quite some ways in bringing these ideals into our laws and other codes of conduct. They may have their origin in Christianity, but really only seemed to come to the fore once a lot of the shackles of organized Christianity began to be thrown off.