Top scientists around the world want schools to support evolution globally

[Minty]

I have been abgry at Christianity since I was a child, and at monotheist religions since I was a teenager. I do not feel that my anger appeases itself with time, on the contrary. It highly depends on what kind of people I am talking to. In everyday life I have very few opportunities to complain about religion because I never hear anybody talk about religion in Belgium or Japan. But while travelling or on Internet forums, I meet a lot of very Christian Americans that really piss me off; these people are almost always Conservative Protestant Americans, or Muslims (much more the former, as I interact with more American Christians than with Muslims). Interestingly, I was raised in a 100% Catholic environment (well among the Christians, as there were many non religious people as well), but I now do not harbour as negative feelings towards Catholics, because almost all of those I know (who are priests or religion teacher or old) are non-practising, not very religious or agnostic. The exception are Philipinos, who are still very conservative and fanatic depite being Catholics. In other words, the fanatic Christians I have met were almost all American and Philipinos.

You know I met a lot of Pilipino that are very overzealous in their religious believes too.
I also happened to notice a lot of Asians in the US or Australia are also very rabid and pious. I was talking to my uncle recently on emails and we were not even talking about religions but family business but his response was always full of these religious words even we weren't talking about religions. I find this extremely peculiar for non religious person like me. The Christian churches for Asian communities are really big over there I heard.

Oh Maciamo can you explain a bit more about the whether religions are taught in Belgium or French schools. If not has it got something to do with separating religion and the state?

When I was talking about religions taught in Australian schools, they are only taught in private schools which are very expensive. Parents only send their kids to private schools for strict disciplines. It's the parents' choice. And it is obvious those private schools are founded by interfaith groups.

If people just want to get an education without paying expensive uniforms and without restrictions on things like hair dyes, wearing finger nail enamels, jewels...etc they can just go to public schools, and there are no religions taught in public schools.

 

[Mars Man]

NB : I could have taken Japan as an example of non religious country

I was going to post to a different vein, but this just stood out like a nude woman standing in the middle of a cross-walk.
How off the mark can a person be? Maciamo, I challenge you on this claim !!! Can you show me how it is that Japan is a non-religious country when you should know good and well that almost every house and many apartments in this contry have both a butsudan and a Shinto alter??!!!!

Your generalzations about the USA need to be checked out further too. The statistics given earlier are not as clear, I would estimate, as they would have liked themselves to apprear to have been.
Well, I was gonna post to a different vein, and will later. Gotta go now. :wave:

 

[Maciamo]

I was going to post to a different vein, but this just stood out like a nude woman standing in the middle of a cross-walk.
How off the mark can a person be? Maciamo, I challenge you on this claim !!! Can you show me how it is that Japan is a non-religious country when you should know good and well that almost every house and many apartments in this contry have both a butsudan and a Shinto alter??!!!!

There is no 100% non religious country. When I say non-religious, it means compatively to the world average. But are you serious about butsudan and Shinto altars ? First of all I mostly noticed them in old people's homes (never in young people's apartments). Secondly, I have spent over 4 years discussing with Japanese people (again mostly young, under 40) and never missed an opportunity to question them on their "religious" beliefs, affiliation and their knowledge about Buddhism or Shintoism. If most people gave me a religious affiliation (as people also do in Belgium, meaning that their "family" is this or that), in 99% of the cases I knew more than them about their religion, they were non-practising, not so believing and in any case not really interested in religion.

Your generalzations about the USA need to be checked out further too. The statistics given earlier are not as clear, I would estimate, as they would have liked themselves to apprear to have been.

These are official statistics, not generalisations. You can find all the ones I have mentioned on Nationmaster.

 

[Maciamo]

Oh Maciamo can you explain a bit more about the whether religions are taught in Belgium or French schools. If not has it got something to do with separating religion and the state?

I think that religion is not taught at all in French public schools. It was in Belgium during my primary school years (my secondary school was private and Catholic). I am not sure that religion is taught in all public schools and whether it is still taught at all nowadays in public schools. I find that it is against the separation of State and Religion and shouldn't be. I am actually surprised that in a so liberal and non religious country as Belgium I was taught creationism in a public school ! Let's keep in mind that all schools in belgium are free (public or private) and the vast majority is private and Catholic-owned. So even banning religion (catechism) classes in public schools would not change much to the overall situation.

Because all schools are state-funded (hence free), I think that none should teach about one particular religion. Why should tax-payer money pay for teachers of Catholicism in all the country's schools ? I suppose that because private schools are not state-funded in English-speaking countries (and most other countries), it has created some misunderstanding as to why I wish even private schools to stop teaching about one particular religion.

 

[Mars Man]

But are you serious about butsudan and Shinto altars ?

Yes. I'm dead serious. Where in Japan did you live? What kind of people did you come in contact with? And do you actually understand Japanese 'religiosty'? It's quite different from that in the west; for the most part.

The survey data? That is still general until we check out the questions asked, the sample space and cross section, the areas in which they had been asked, under what circumstances, and a lot of other things. I would thing that you would be fully aware of easy it can be to put a spin on statistical data. Also, we would have to get a couple of opinions on the validity of the methodologicalness of the survey process.

It's simple not as easy as reading off some percentages given by one survey somewhere as though that were the final word. Before absolute credit is given, it should be checked out. As I've said before, really doing a good job would surely take some 20 years worth of work--to do it right, you know.

 

[Maciamo]

Yes. I'm dead serious. Where in Japan did you live? What kind of people did you come in contact with? And do you actually understand Japanese 'religiosty'? It's quite different from that in the west; for the most part.

Most Japanese only go to the temple/shrine once a year (for the New Year), and it is more a tradition than a sign of religiosity. I also know many Belgian who attend the Xmas mass but are otherwise agnostic or deist. I have never seen an ordinary Japanese (i.e. not a monk/priest) practice Buddhist meditation, or refrain from eating four-legged animals (like they all did before the 20th century), or show any other sign that they had anything to do with Buddhism. Some people consider modern Shintoism as a set of traditions more than a religion. Most Japanese now have Western-style wedding in front of a (often fake) Christian priest, instead of a Buddhist or Shinto wedding. Yet they do take their wedding day much more seriously than in many European country (expensive weddings with one's boss and coworkers are still seen as a sign of status in Japan). Isn't that a clear sign that they do not care about their religious affiliation ? Would a true Christian ever have a Muslim-style or Hindu-style wedding ?

For more information on Japanese Religions, I suggest you to read my article in the Culture section of Japan Reference.

Btw, I consider that people who do not attend religious service, don't pray, do not read their holy book (if any), do not discuss religious matters or otherwise show signs of piety, to be non religious, even if they officially claim a religious affiliation because their family do.

 

[Mars Man]

Btw, I consider that people who do not attend religious service, don't pray, do not read their holy book (if any), do not discuss religious matters or otherwise show signs of piety, to be non religious, even if they officially claim a religious affiliation because their family do.

This rather clears up the problem. Your definition of 'religion' is the narrower one. If we were to go by that aggregate definition, then Shintoism is not a religion at all.

I don't need to read your opinion of something that I have already studied fairly enough--especially since this very thread has shown the great bias and, yes, prejudice (look up that word if you don't fully understand all the possible sense it carries) that your opinion of religion and belief-systems' doctrines contains.

Sugata Masaaki, a professor who has done research and study on Shintoism today put it quite well when he wrote, "Shinto is so inextricably woven into the fabric of Japanese daily life that people ae barely aware of its existence. To the Japanese it is less a religion than an unobtrusive environmental fixture, like the air they breathe."

We can call it tradition, yes, that is correct. It is nonetheless religious tradition to the degree that is stemmed from, is based in, and propogated by the belief-system which claims it for its own. To that degree, it can correctly be defined as 'acts of religiosity'.

While it is true, as an educated guess tells me, that most young people who have left their parents' house for school or work, or those young singles and divorced singles without children who are under the age of 30, don't keep a proper butsudan or kamidama at their apartments, but may well keep other Shinto-based ornament and charms.

Even while it is true that many Japanese only go to the shrines for Oshogatsu, this is nonetheless a religious act. There is no mistake there. The vast number of those who go is to be well considered. Those who practice the act of warding off the bad spirits at Setsubun are nontheless partaking in a Shinto belief-system doctrine. The Hinamatsuri is Shinto, as is Koinobori and the various summer festivals. Obon is Budhist and many reverently go to the graves of their ancestors and wash down the stones and place food there--both young and old alike, both family groups and single children. Many people observe some form of burning bark or other things to both bring and send off the returned spirits of the dead who come to enjoy the Obon decor and fruit set up in their homes.

I could go on, but do not have the time now.

The fact is, Japan is far from being as non-religious as you want to define it. Your definition would not hold up universally in academia--and you should know that much.

 

[Reiku]

How would kids feel if they are taught one thing about the universe in one class and the opposite in another class ? We already have enough confused people looking for the meaning of life (or rather 'to give a meaning to their life') to start institutionalised courses in conflicting views on the nature of life and the universe.

Well, if they were intelligent, they'd probably do what I did, and draw their own conclusions from the available evidence--or do you think children should blindly beleive whatever they are taught?

Many scientific "facts" eventualy get disproven as our understanding of the universe improves, so I don't think we should be teaching anything as absolute, unquestionable truth--that's what religion does. Instead I think school should teach whatever the evidence most supports at the time--and make it clear that that is all it is.

I think the main reason why kids are so disinterested in science these days is that they think there is no more territory to explore, no more interesting mysteries to unravel. It's like that with every field, physics, psychology, medicine, history--most people feel like we alredy know everything, or most of it anyway.

If you tell the kids the truth--that we don't have all the answers, that everything their parents and teachers beleive might be absolutely wrong, and that if they study hard enough, they might be the ones to prove that; just like Gallileo and Einstien before them--I think kids might be far more interested in learning than they currently are.

 

[Maciamo]

I agree that science is evolving all the time. But it is better to teach something that is currently true (or at least very close to reality) than something that is completely false. The BBC article in link in my OP said that millions of people around the world are still taught that the earth is about 3000 years old. We know for sure that even human civilisations are much older, and because of fossils, evolution, climatic changes and so on, we know that the earth is several billion years old. Now it may not be that important for children to know exactly how old. It's not such a big deal if scientists later find evidence that the earth was not 4.57 billion year old, but more probably 4.81 billion years old... This is just a small mistake of estimation (percentage wise), but 3000 or 5000 years is clearly not a small mistake but just a lie based on religious texts.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

...I don't think we should be teaching anything as absolute, unquestionable truth--that's what religion does. Instead I think school should teach whatever the evidence most supports at the time--and make it clear that that is all it is.

There is a real world out there with real truths. Those should be admitted to and they are not all open to subjective views that fly in the face of evidence that supports it.

Just because someone contests something, does that then mean what they are contesting cannot be taught to kids as absolute truth?

What if someone contests that gravity does not exist, and in fact what holds us here is due to angels pushing down on us? Do we then have to explain to the kids, "Some say gravity exists and holds us down, but in order for us to be tolerant and respectful of all people with different beliefs, we must also make room for the possibility that angels, not gravity, are pushing us down."

We sure can teach absolute truth as we know it based on the evidence we have. BUT science, a big part of science, always reserves the right to modify what we know as truth whenever new evidence comes in to play.

The key word is "absolute." It is thrown in there to monkey wrench a single word, "truth." And the truth is gravity holds us in place and holy books are myths just as surely as 99.9% of the population now knows that Zeus and his pantheon of subgods and goddesses were also myths.

That is the truth.

 

[Maciamo]

And the truth is gravity holds us in place and holy books are myths just as surely as 99.9% of the population now knows that Zeus and his pantheon of subgods and goddesses were also myths.

Good example, as in ancient Greece many philosophers also criticised "the gods" as being fictive, mythical, lies... They encountered angry responses from 'ordinary' Greeks who did strongly believe in them. Even kings and generals consulted with the Oracle or sometimes had to make sacrifices (like Agamemnon with his own daughter) in order to win battles... It sounds absird to all people nowadays, but for today's philosophers Judeo-Christian or Muslim gods with their schizophrenic human-like personalities (judging, angry yet compassionate, almighty and benevolent yet cruel) sound all the same absurd.