CDZ Religion in Schools

[Pumpkin Row]

I do think that religions should be taught in schools along with the theories that have been introduces, so that all of the students can form their own opinions and beliefs from the information provided from them. As part of science classes. I think it's important to teach them alongside the theories, because at such a young age, kids won't do the research themselves, and this is all important information.

 

[320 Years of History]

I do think that religions should be taught in schools along with the theories that have been introduces, so that all of the students can form their own opinions and beliefs from the information provided from them. As part of science classes. I think it's important to teach them alongside the theories, because at such a young age, kids won't do the research themselves, and this is all important information.

Religion, taken in an academically comparative sense, like science, isn't open to one's having an opinion. The details of how a belief system originated, is structured, etc., like pi(x) ~ x/log x or e=mc^2, don't change and acquire neither more nor less validity based on one's opinion about them.

Red:
??? Say what? I do not see the rational flow of thought that connects the beginning and end of the idea you've presented. To paraphrase, what you wrote is "It's important that religions be taught as part of science classes because kids won't do the research themselves." I get that that's what you think; fine, you think it. Okay. What I don't understand is (1) what connects the content of comparative religion with science such that the two subjects should be taught together in some sort of "science-religion" class. (2) whereof be the import of pursuing such an innovative (?) approach, and (3) what kids ages or willingness to perform their assignments has to do with it.

• What young age? Did I miss something whereby the presumed age group under discussion shifted from high school to elementary school?
• Kids cannot be forced to do the research teachers assign; however, the consequence of not doing it is a poor grade. How is what students will or won't do in response to instructions from their teachers important to this thread's topic? Academically delivered religion classes are no different than any other class insofar as we assume the students will do the work assigned.

 

[SingleVoyce]

The history of religion is a much different subject than the course I envision when someone talks about teaching comparative religion. I assume that such a course would focus on the differences in the belief systems rather than the historical activities of the proponents of those religions. Maybe this is not the same assumption that other participants in this discussion are using?

Well, a good first step would be to stop envisioning what it means from your own POV and just reading what the course descriptions are for such classes. I provided links to several school's course catalogs. Did you click on them?

Blue:
That would among the things taught, but there's a huge difference in approach between dispassionately teaching students the structure and tenets of a religion's belief system and teaching students to accept the verity of the belief system taught. One major difference, the latter consists of teaching just one belief system whereas the former teaches multiple ones. It's all but impossible to indoctrinate students when "this week" the teacher is talking about Judaism, "next week" s/he covers Zoroastrianism, followed by Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hindu, etc. in subsequent class sessions.

• Do you honestly not think it'd be relevant in a comparative religion class to tell students, for instance, that Jews don't think the Messiah has come yet, so they're still waiting on him to show up, whereas that Christians think the Messiah has come, gone, and is supposed to visit one more time?
• Is it not relevant in comparing Islam with Judeo-Christian (J-C) religion to point out that Islam says that it's scripture was dictated by God, Allah, to a bedouin named Mohammed whereas the J-C traditions assert that some of their scripture is dictated by God and other parts of it were written by folks in much the same way you or I would compose diary entries?
• Would it not make sense in contrasting Ancient Greek religion with Christianity to explore the nature of the deities in each belief system, noting, among other things, that the starkly contrasting concept of their respective deities insofar as in Greek deities one sees the full spectrum of human emotion, thus their pantheon of gods constitute a reflection of humanity (or vice versa), whereas in J-C thinking, in the deity is found all the characteristics of humanity, but also the traits to which humans aspire but that, in the main they, as individuals, rarely achieve? Might not that distinction be relevant in understanding how adherents of either belief system view themselves in the world?

So, of course the similarities and differences in the belief systems will be noted, discussed, compared and contrasted. In expecting so, however, nobody's suggesting the course should explore or conclude on which points of faith held by any given belief system makes sense, is right/wrong, etc.

Out of curiosity, have you ever studied religion outside of a dogmatically focused learning environment?

Edit:
I suggest you read this -- Pearson Prentice Hall: eTeach: Teaching About Religion in World History . Perhaps after doing so, you'll realize that the academic community is indeed aware of the challenges of teaching religion and that you aren't introducing ideas that have not crossed folks' minds.

I don't understand why you're addressing the highlighted question above and the ones that follow to me. Those ideas are exactly what I was suggesting should be taught as opposed to such things as the Crusades and the Muslim conquest of Spain which you might expect to find in a history course.

I never claimed to be introducing new ideas but the challenges in the Prentice Hall article are the kind of things I was envisioning. The statement in the article "The likelihood that a credentialed high-school teacher possesses broad and detailed knowledge of world religions is slight" is one of the things I have mentioned multiple times and that you seem inclined to argue with.

The article does not address the problems presented by members of a local school board who are so-called "Chrisitian conservatives" and think that teaching Creationism as an alternative to the theory of evolution is a good idea. This problem is the core reason for my concern about the implementation of this proposal.

I have never studied religion in a dogmatically focused learning environment. Where in the world did you get that idea?

Red:
I have clearly misinterpreted your remarks. I'm sorry.

The reason I did is because of comments such as those highlighted below.

My question is whether it has been done WELL and whether or not it could be done well on a larger scale. Teaching a comparative religion course that just serves to enforce existing prejudices would do more harm than good

The above is from your second post on this topic.

• "Done well." How was I to know when you wrote that what that meant?
• "Enforce existing prejudices." Was that prejudices toward a given faith or prejudices against a given faith?

I would have to have reasonable expectations that such a class would improve our society by increasing the level of religious tolerance in the country.

I don't know if you've noticed or not, but conservatives claim that their religious rights aren't being tolerated by the left, which the right perceives as pushing religion, Islam for example, on Christians and trying to indoctrinate non-Muslims. The left claim that the right exhibits no/insufficient tolerance for the idea that the validity and merit of one religion is neither more or less than that of another.

I had no idea which form of so-called intolerance you had in mind; thus I had, again, at that point in the discussion, what constituted "improvement" in your mind. I don't know or recognize your ID from other threads. Until this one, I had not ever bothered to make note of your ID. You may think I should recall you from some other conversation, but I don't.

For example, recently I "linked" some member named beagle something or other, or something close to that. I recall mentioning his name, but as I type right now, I can't even tell you what the topic of the thread was. That happens, I suppose, because I know what I think about most things, but I have no idea whom I'm addressing....I just think of nearly everyone here as total strangers. The folks I remember fall into a few categories:

• People with whom I trade comments very often and who often present insightful and/or well developed points/ideas.
• People with whom I infrequently trade comments and and who yet made insightful and/or well developed points.
• People who frequently make incredibly inane comments in response to my posts, but I only remember them for as long as it takes for me to get disgusted enough with them that I put them on my ignore list, at which point I forget, with regard to their IDs, that they exist unless someone mentions them to me. The thing is that once they are on that list, I no longer see their posts or respond to them.

You just happened not to fit any one of those categories, which is perfectly fine, AFAIC. So if you feel like I should have known to whom I was speaking, now you know why I didn't and that my not recalling is not an indication of my having made a negative judgment about you.

Unfortunately I do not believe that the current state of our society would support an implementation that would generate a beneficial result.

There again, I had no idea what you considered a "beneficial result." I knew only that ambiguous language like that tends to come from folks who aim to leave themselves a lot of "wiggle room." I didn't know which way you might want to "wiggle." I knew only that you were opposing in practice teaching religion in public schools.

the implementation requires instructors who are both knowledgeable about all of the religions that are to be taught and able to be objective about religions other than their own. I think it would be very difficult to find a sufficient number of teachers who meet those criteria.

There is enormous political pressure on high school curricula that does not exist at the college level and, in many areas of this country, the people most involved in generating that pressure would not accept a course that taught that Christianity was no better than other religions.

The comments above struck me as a red herring/straw man lines of argumentation. Why?

• Because to the extent a given school or school district doesn't already teach religion, it'd need to find qualified religion teachers.
• There exist schools and districts that do teach comparative religion, so it's clear that it's possible to find teachers who can do so objectively and who know the subject matter.
• Because we know from economics that if there exists a labor need in the marketplace, people will appear who can fill that need.
• Because we know that if a school district stipulates that comparative religion be offered, the schools will find qualified teachers to teach it. They may do so using existing teacher on the district's payroll or they may have to hire new teachers, but somehow they'll find them, even if they have to hire them and issue H1-B visas to do so.
• Insofar as nobody is proposing making comparative religion anything other than an elective, the concerns of those who object to Christianity being presented as no better than other faiths -- i.e., folks who have a prejudice toward Christianity and against other faiths -- really don't need to play into it. Those folks just don't need to allow their kids to enroll in the comparative religion class(s). Surely those folks don't think comparative religion class content will diffuse its way through the classroom walls, windows and doors? LOL

Given the above, and assuming you realize the same things, the difficulty of finding the teachers only speaks to when comparative religion instruction can commence, not whether it should become a subject that is taught, the latter being the thread's topic. All of the above being so, your remarks read as though, despite your first thread post's, indicating you in the abstract favored the idea of teaching comparative religion in public school, you were yet looking for reasons why that objective cannot and should not be brought to fruition. That is what I'd expect from someone who opposes the prospect of comparative religion being taught in public schools.

Blue and Pink:
In explaining what my thinking was, I think I've touched upon what I'd intended to say re: the blue and pink text, so I won't repeat it.

Green:
I didn't know. That's why I asked. The idea that I got was to ask the question.

I didn't have any expectations when we started this thread about your preexisting knowledge of me. I have not been a member of this group for long and don't participate on a daily basis. I get the impression from your comments that the major contributors to this board are a relatively small group of individuals who have been debating each other for a while and bring a certain amount of "baggage" to each discussion. FWIW, I don't feel that I personally represent either side of the political spectrum. I try to approach each subject with an open mind. I don't have any particular agenda. I am just trying to understand the different viewpoints.

Your comments about the vagueness of some of my posts are probably correct. I will try to be more explicit in the future.

I may also have read some things into the initial question that you and others did not. One thing in particular is my assumption that the OP was suggesting a required course. This line from the original message:

"What if we, as a society, taught our children about all of the major religions of the world?"

led me to believe that the intent was to teach ALL of our children and thus I assumed that it would be mandatory in some form. This assumption was the basis of many of the opinions I have expressed in this thread. Was it your assumption, OldSoul, that such a course would be a mandatory part of high school curricula?

 

[320 Years of History]

The history of religion is a much different subject than the course I envision when someone talks about teaching comparative religion. I assume that such a course would focus on the differences in the belief systems rather than the historical activities of the proponents of those religions. Maybe this is not the same assumption that other participants in this discussion are using?

Well, a good first step would be to stop envisioning what it means from your own POV and just reading what the course descriptions are for such classes. I provided links to several school's course catalogs. Did you click on them?

Blue:
That would among the things taught, but there's a huge difference in approach between dispassionately teaching students the structure and tenets of a religion's belief system and teaching students to accept the verity of the belief system taught. One major difference, the latter consists of teaching just one belief system whereas the former teaches multiple ones. It's all but impossible to indoctrinate students when "this week" the teacher is talking about Judaism, "next week" s/he covers Zoroastrianism, followed by Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hindu, etc. in subsequent class sessions.

• Do you honestly not think it'd be relevant in a comparative religion class to tell students, for instance, that Jews don't think the Messiah has come yet, so they're still waiting on him to show up, whereas that Christians think the Messiah has come, gone, and is supposed to visit one more time?
• Is it not relevant in comparing Islam with Judeo-Christian (J-C) religion to point out that Islam says that it's scripture was dictated by God, Allah, to a bedouin named Mohammed whereas the J-C traditions assert that some of their scripture is dictated by God and other parts of it were written by folks in much the same way you or I would compose diary entries?
• Would it not make sense in contrasting Ancient Greek religion with Christianity to explore the nature of the deities in each belief system, noting, among other things, that the starkly contrasting concept of their respective deities insofar as in Greek deities one sees the full spectrum of human emotion, thus their pantheon of gods constitute a reflection of humanity (or vice versa), whereas in J-C thinking, in the deity is found all the characteristics of humanity, but also the traits to which humans aspire but that, in the main they, as individuals, rarely achieve? Might not that distinction be relevant in understanding how adherents of either belief system view themselves in the world?

So, of course the similarities and differences in the belief systems will be noted, discussed, compared and contrasted. In expecting so, however, nobody's suggesting the course should explore or conclude on which points of faith held by any given belief system makes sense, is right/wrong, etc.

Out of curiosity, have you ever studied religion outside of a dogmatically focused learning environment?

Edit:
I suggest you read this -- Pearson Prentice Hall: eTeach: Teaching About Religion in World History . Perhaps after doing so, you'll realize that the academic community is indeed aware of the challenges of teaching religion and that you aren't introducing ideas that have not crossed folks' minds.

I don't understand why you're addressing the highlighted question above and the ones that follow to me. Those ideas are exactly what I was suggesting should be taught as opposed to such things as the Crusades and the Muslim conquest of Spain which you might expect to find in a history course.

I never claimed to be introducing new ideas but the challenges in the Prentice Hall article are the kind of things I was envisioning. The statement in the article "The likelihood that a credentialed high-school teacher possesses broad and detailed knowledge of world religions is slight" is one of the things I have mentioned multiple times and that you seem inclined to argue with.

The article does not address the problems presented by members of a local school board who are so-called "Chrisitian conservatives" and think that teaching Creationism as an alternative to the theory of evolution is a good idea. This problem is the core reason for my concern about the implementation of this proposal.

I have never studied religion in a dogmatically focused learning environment. Where in the world did you get that idea?

Red:
I have clearly misinterpreted your remarks. I'm sorry.

The reason I did is because of comments such as those highlighted below.

My question is whether it has been done WELL and whether or not it could be done well on a larger scale. Teaching a comparative religion course that just serves to enforce existing prejudices would do more harm than good

The above is from your second post on this topic.

• "Done well." How was I to know when you wrote that what that meant?
• "Enforce existing prejudices." Was that prejudices toward a given faith or prejudices against a given faith?

I would have to have reasonable expectations that such a class would improve our society by increasing the level of religious tolerance in the country.

I don't know if you've noticed or not, but conservatives claim that their religious rights aren't being tolerated by the left, which the right perceives as pushing religion, Islam for example, on Christians and trying to indoctrinate non-Muslims. The left claim that the right exhibits no/insufficient tolerance for the idea that the validity and merit of one religion is neither more or less than that of another.

I had no idea which form of so-called intolerance you had in mind; thus I had, again, at that point in the discussion, what constituted "improvement" in your mind. I don't know or recognize your ID from other threads. Until this one, I had not ever bothered to make note of your ID. You may think I should recall you from some other conversation, but I don't.

For example, recently I "linked" some member named beagle something or other, or something close to that. I recall mentioning his name, but as I type right now, I can't even tell you what the topic of the thread was. That happens, I suppose, because I know what I think about most things, but I have no idea whom I'm addressing....I just think of nearly everyone here as total strangers. The folks I remember fall into a few categories:

• People with whom I trade comments very often and who often present insightful and/or well developed points/ideas.
• People with whom I infrequently trade comments and and who yet made insightful and/or well developed points.
• People who frequently make incredibly inane comments in response to my posts, but I only remember them for as long as it takes for me to get disgusted enough with them that I put them on my ignore list, at which point I forget, with regard to their IDs, that they exist unless someone mentions them to me. The thing is that once they are on that list, I no longer see their posts or respond to them.

You just happened not to fit any one of those categories, which is perfectly fine, AFAIC. So if you feel like I should have known to whom I was speaking, now you know why I didn't and that my not recalling is not an indication of my having made a negative judgment about you.

Unfortunately I do not believe that the current state of our society would support an implementation that would generate a beneficial result.

There again, I had no idea what you considered a "beneficial result." I knew only that ambiguous language like that tends to come from folks who aim to leave themselves a lot of "wiggle room." I didn't know which way you might want to "wiggle." I knew only that you were opposing in practice teaching religion in public schools.

the implementation requires instructors who are both knowledgeable about all of the religions that are to be taught and able to be objective about religions other than their own. I think it would be very difficult to find a sufficient number of teachers who meet those criteria.

There is enormous political pressure on high school curricula that does not exist at the college level and, in many areas of this country, the people most involved in generating that pressure would not accept a course that taught that Christianity was no better than other religions.

The comments above struck me as a red herring/straw man lines of argumentation. Why?

• Because to the extent a given school or school district doesn't already teach religion, it'd need to find qualified religion teachers.
• There exist schools and districts that do teach comparative religion, so it's clear that it's possible to find teachers who can do so objectively and who know the subject matter.
• Because we know from economics that if there exists a labor need in the marketplace, people will appear who can fill that need.
• Because we know that if a school district stipulates that comparative religion be offered, the schools will find qualified teachers to teach it. They may do so using existing teacher on the district's payroll or they may have to hire new teachers, but somehow they'll find them, even if they have to hire them and issue H1-B visas to do so.
• Insofar as nobody is proposing making comparative religion anything other than an elective, the concerns of those who object to Christianity being presented as no better than other faiths -- i.e., folks who have a prejudice toward Christianity and against other faiths -- really don't need to play into it. Those folks just don't need to allow their kids to enroll in the comparative religion class(s). Surely those folks don't think comparative religion class content will diffuse its way through the classroom walls, windows and doors? LOL

Given the above, and assuming you realize the same things, the difficulty of finding the teachers only speaks to when comparative religion instruction can commence, not whether it should become a subject that is taught, the latter being the thread's topic. All of the above being so, your remarks read as though, despite your first thread post's, indicating you in the abstract favored the idea of teaching comparative religion in public school, you were yet looking for reasons why that objective cannot and should not be brought to fruition. That is what I'd expect from someone who opposes the prospect of comparative religion being taught in public schools.

Blue and Pink:
In explaining what my thinking was, I think I've touched upon what I'd intended to say re: the blue and pink text, so I won't repeat it.

Green:
I didn't know. That's why I asked. The idea that I got was to ask the question.

I didn't have any expectations when we started this thread about your preexisting knowledge of me. I have not been a member of this group for long and don't participate on a daily basis. I get the impression from your comments that the major contributors to this board are a relatively small group of individuals who have been debating each other for a while and bring a certain amount of "baggage" to each discussion. FWIW, I don't feel that I personally represent either side of the political spectrum. I try to approach each subject with an open mind. I don't have any particular agenda. I am just trying to understand the different viewpoints.

Your comments about the vagueness of some of my posts are probably correct. I will try to be more explicit in the future.

I may also have read some things into the initial question that you and others did not. One thing in particular is my assumption that the OP was suggesting a required course. This line from the original message:

"What if we, as a society, taught our children about all of the major religions of the world?"

led me to believe that the intent was to teach ALL of our children and thus I assumed that it would be mandatory in some form. This assumption was the basis of many of the opinions I have expressed in this thread. Was it your assumption, OldSoul, that such a course would be a mandatory part of high school curricula?

Red:
Fair point. I didn't make the same inference, but I understand and see as reasonable why you did. Perhaps I should have too....???....

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Religion, taken in an academically comparative sense, like science, isn't open to one's having an opinion. The details of how a belief system originated, is structured, etc., like pi(x) ~ x/log x or e=mc^2, don't change and acquire neither more nor less validity based on one's opinion about them.

A lot of people think otherwise. They're all theories that are open to one's interpretation since nobody can definitely confirm or deny them, and they all have large followings in the world. Given that, it's important for one to be able to study all of the major ones so that can make an educated decision on what to believe.

Red:
??? Say what? I do not see the rational flow of thought that connects the beginning and end of the idea you've presented. To paraphrase, what you wrote is "It's important that religions be taught as part of science classes because kids won't do the research themselves." I get that that's what you think; fine, you think it. Okay. What I don't understand is (1) what connects the content of comparative religion with science such that the two subjects should be taught together in some sort of "science-religion" class. (2) whereof be the import of pursuing such an innovative (?) approach, and (3) what kids ages or willingness to perform their assignments has to do with it.

Because if people believe in any religions, or one is factual, then in that case religion and science would be the same thing. For example, should the Christian God be an existing entity, then studying creation would be science. (3): Not so much willingness to do their assignments, but willingness to go the extra mile and actually study beyond the topics taught. My generation is mostly lazy people who wouldn't study anything unless given an assignment, and sometimes not even then.

• What young age? Did I miss something whereby the presumed age group under discussion shifted from high school to elementary school?
  [*]Kids cannot be forced to do the research teachers assign; however, the consequence of not doing it is a poor grade. How is what students will or won't do in response to instructions from their teachers important to this thread's topic? Academically delivered religion classes are no different than any other class insofar as we assume the students will do the work assigned.

As I said earlier, even up to the age of 18, and as far as this generation goes, even beyond that clear into their 20s and 30s, people are too lazy to actually study these things on their own, and only know what they're being told. It's mostly that it's a part of this country's founding, they're viable theories to a lot of people, to many, more viable than what scientists have been telling us. As such, briefly addressing the other beliefs when going over topics that allow it would be informative. I'm not saying have an entire class around it, just that schools should integrate it into their studies.

 

[GaryDog]

A lot of people think otherwise. They're all theories that are open to one's interpretation since nobody can definitely confirm or deny them, and they all have large followings in the world. Given that, it's important for one to be able to study all of the major ones so that can make an educated decision on what to believe.

The purpose of a religious education, in the context in which we're discussing, is not to give people information so they can "decide what to believe." It's to provide a historical context of human society, with religion as the kaleidoscope.

Because if people believe in any religions, or one is factual, then in that case religion and science would be the same thing. For example, should the Christian God be an existing entity, then studying creation would be science. (3): Not so much willingness to do their assignments, but willingness to go the extra mile and actually study beyond the topics taught. My generation is mostly lazy people who wouldn't study anything unless given an assignment, and sometimes not even then.

And if unicorns were real, their study would fall under zoology. But so far as we know, they are not (unless you're talking narwhals). There is zero evidence to support religious claims. Insofar as we would study them in an academic context, it would be the study of mythology, of claims that are supported by no physical evidence.

Do you understand that concept?

I know it's fashionable to refer to every new generation as "lazy" or entitled or dumb, but again, this is just an opinion. It's your assertion. There are numerous instances where you are wrong. Believe it or not, the generation of people born in the late 19th century thought the "greatest generation" (born around 1910 - 1928) was a lazy group of ne'er do wells, too. There's no reason to adjust pedagogy because of some fashionable perception of a new group of students.

I was born in 1978, by the way so I'm on the border of Gen X and Millennial-hood, to give you a frame of reference.

As I said earlier, even up to the age of 18, and as far as this generation goes, even beyond that clear into their 20s and 30s, people are too lazy to actually study these things on their own, and only know what they're being told. It's mostly that it's a part of this country's founding, they're viable theories to a lot of people, to many, more viable than what scientists have been telling us. As such, briefly addressing the other beliefs when going over topics that allow it would be informative. I'm not saying have an entire class around it, just that schools should integrate it into their studies.

You don't understand what a "theory" is in the context of science. Theories are generally settled "facts" in the scientific community that exist because of the study and experimentation with evidence, and which involve repeated testing, scrutiny of results, and heated debate, generally spanning decades.

Religious claims, in almost every case, do not hold up to such rigor, and actually fail the "theory" test right out of the gate, in that there is no observable, verifiable evidence, and thus no ability to test or conclude anything from said "evidence."

 

[320 Years of History]

all theories that are open to one's interpretation since nobody can definitely confirm or deny them

No, that's just no so. The word "theory" in scientific contexts means something entirely different from what it means in non-scientific contexts. Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. The lay meaning of "theory" is comparable to what scientists call a "hypothesis."

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
• Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
• Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
• Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Scientific theories are not matters of opinion. They are comprehensive explanations of phenomena that have been proven to be so. Scientific theories and hypotheses must be falsifiable. Nothing about the pronouncements of religious dogma is falsifiable. Comparative religion classes identify what the proclamations are, but they make no attempt to gauge their validity, show they are valid/invalid, judge the merit of the arguments in favor or against their validity, etc. Comparative, academic, religion studies merely identify, "Such and such is what 'this or that' faith-based belief system says and adherents to the belief system(s) under discussion believe it to be true."

Because if people believe in any religions, or one is factual, then in that case religion and science would be the same thing. For example, should the Christian God be an existing entity, then studying creation would be science.

That the Christian deity is in fact an existing entity/being would need to be incontrovertibly established before anything about creation as depicted in scripture can become science. The reason why is well explained here. That the pronouncements of faith-based belief systems cannot be shown to be so, and the fact that scientific theories can and have been shown to be so, is why religion and science have no business being taught in the same course.

People can believe whatever they want. There can even be millions of folks who believe a given thing. The quantity of folks who believe it, or the mere fact that they do believe it, has no bearing at all on whether what they believe is so.

lazy people who wouldn't study anything unless given an assignment, and sometimes not even then.

No formal education classes are delivered for the benefit of folks who refuse to do the work needed to learn subject matter being taught. It doesn't matter what one attempts to teach supinely slothful folks; suffused with the intellectual torpidity of the sort you note, they won't learn the material whether it be science, history, comparative religion or anything else. That academically indolent individuals may be present in a school or classroom isn't germane to whether any given topic should or should not be taught. Minors having those traits are in school only because they have to be. So long as they sit quiescently, fine.

 

[Toronado3800]

Some of my best college courses were on the history of different religious movements.

I believe teaching the history of various religions in a very dry and unassuming way is important. Let the kids pick whatever or no religion but they should all know when this or that religion was founded.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

And if unicorns were real, their study would fall under zoology. But so far as we know, they are not (unless you're talking narwhals). There is zero evidence to support religious claims. Insofar as we would study them in an academic context, it would be the study of mythology, of claims that are supported by no physical evidence.

I suppose the world and everything living on it aren't examples of an idea. The way entities living on the earth, and the way the earth and the universe functions as a whole are evidence in and of itself that there is an idea, and with an idea comes a mind. However, I get some arbitrary percentage of people don't like to think about the possibility of consequences to their actions. You know, it's not much of a debate when your answer is "Except [insert thing here] doesn't exist". We're supposed to be discussing this topic from both perspectives, since that's where the education would be taught from, rather than that of someone who forces his beliefs on others as though they're fact, and everyone should treat them as such. Besides that, by your logic, shouldn't Darwinism and The Big Bang be treated as mythology, too? By all rights, assuming I'm a religious person, I could pull the same 'logic' you used, and just say "Except Darwinism was developed by some guy who got on a boat and smoked some REALLY good stuff". Though, I prefer not to sink to the same level as that minority of Atheists.

I know it's fashionable to refer to every new generation as "lazy" or entitled or dumb, but again, this is just an opinion. It's your assertion. There are numerous instances where you are wrong. Believe it or not, the generation of people born in the late 19th century thought the "greatest generation" (born around 1910 - 1928) was a lazy group of ne'er do wells, too. There's no reason to adjust pedagogy because of some fashionable perception of a new group of students.

This is from my experience with my classmates, as I'm still in school, and ones I've had previously. Furthermore, if you actually READ my post, I said the majority, not every single one of them. I do not use blanket statements, as there are exceptions to everything.

You don't understand what a "theory" is in the context of science. Theories are generally settled "facts" in the scientific community that exist because of the study and experimentation with evidence, and which involve repeated testing, scrutiny of results, and heated debate, generally spanning decades.

Firstly, 'scientific fact' is a fallacy in and of itself, since there's no such thing. Everything within the scientific community is subject to change at any time, and the concept of a scientific fact is heavily flawed, as it's all merely conjecture based on observation. The problem here is that, in any case, there not only has to be a willing participant in a debate on the subject, but also someone who can prove a negative, when the burden of proof should be on the person presenting the theory. In most cases with scientists, a big problem is in the fact that there's more money in studying something than not. Why is this a problem? Because there being more money in researching something whether it's fallacy or not, means that disproving it means you're out of a job. That's why people in the scientific community accept Global Climate Change/Global Warming. So, yes, theory is better treated as just that... theory... even in the scientific community.

 

[koshergrl]

High School, by definition as "secondary" schooling, is not designed to "teach the basics", but rather expand on them. The "basics" are designed to be taught in "primary" schooling (elementary and middle/junior high). The labeling as "primary" and "secondary" schooling is for a reason. Stop trying to lay the responsibility where it does not exist.
To a large degree this problem would be solved, in most situations, if the control where to be placed back where it, in my opinion, belongs; with the various States, and local Districts. Get the Feds, and their mandates, out of education, and you will see much more accountability, because those "controling" what the students are taught, are your neighbors.

If you want to get an idea of how badly such an idea can go if turned over to the states, here's a good model:

Mexican American textbook incites controversy

In fairness, some school systems will manage the added class offering well and others will mismanage implementing the additional course. That there will be variability in the quality of the implementation really doesn't have much to do with the question at hand: "Should religion classes be offered in public schools?". The implementation considerations are relevant, however, in determining whether school district A should implement religion classes.

I interpreted the question in light of the impact that such a class would have. In order for me to agree with the idea that religion classes should be offered, I would have to have reasonable expectations that such a class would improve our society by increasing the level of religious tolerance in the country. If the implementation of such a class does not have this outcome or some other outcome that is beneficial to our country then the additional cost of offering such a class would not be justified.

Unfortunately I do not believe that the current state of our society would support an implementation that would generate a beneficial result. Even if it was done completely at the local level, the localities that implemented in such a way as to have a beneficial result would almost certainly be populated to a large extent by students who were taught tolerance by their parents. The school districts that are populated by students who were not taught such tolerance at home would most likely develop courses that simply reinforced those beliefs.

Okay.

Red:
In an effort to provide a bit of critical thought on the matter, I offer the following:

• Issues Concerning Religious Tolerance and Diversity -- This is a discussion between an anthropologist and philosopher that provides a high level framework of the considerations in the offing of teaching religion in public schools. As with the content noted below, there are additional references that are well worth exploring if one is of a mind to develop a full picture view of the spectrum of factors and the relative weighting appropriate to each in light of their costs (financial and non-financial) and benefits.
  
• Teaching for Tolerance: The Case for Religious Studies in American Public Schools -- This is a well developed inductive argument.
  
• Learning about World Religions in Modesto, California: The Promise of Teaching Tolerance in Public Schools -- This is an objective study that presents empirical evidence found through it's testing (methodology documented in the paper) that religious tolerance increased as a result of religion having been taught in one public school system.
  • "[W]e find that the [world religion] course had a positive impact not only on students’ respect for the rights of other religions and their willingness to act on behalf of vulnerable religious minorities, but also on students’ respect for the First Amendment and political rights in general."
• Promoting Tolerance | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization -- A summary of UNESCO's strategy for overcoming intolerance. (There's no point to reading this if one hasn't read the preceding documents)

Congrats to Modesto. They seem to have done it right. This is only an anecdote, however, and does nothing to remove my reservations about the implementation of such a program on a national level.

Education shouldn't be taught at the national level. That is how communism and nazism work. People have a right and a responsibility to educate their children at the local level. The cities can fuck up ghetto schools to their heart's content...but nobody has the right to tell small communities what they may, or may not teach.

 

[koshergrl]

Some of my best college courses were on the history of different religious movements.

I believe teaching the history of various religions in a very dry and unassuming way is important. Let the kids pick whatever or no religion but they should all know when this or that religion was founded.

Perfect progressive solution...teach it, but teach it badly so nobody learns anything.

 

[oldsoul]

Going to shock some people, but the short answer is no.

The long answer is society today has too many whiners and too many people in leadership positions who are spineless enablers of the whiners. Religion should be allowed within schools openly by students and taught at home. If a student wears a I love Buddha t shirt, so be it. If a student wants to have a prayer club, so be it. Religion must now be taught in the home and the church. I don't need an athiest moonbat trying to teach religion.

Dress codes are a good thing, though.

If your talking kids must wear pants, shirts and shoes yes. If your talking uniforms, no. Uniforms are nothing but an assault upon individualism based upon a perceived threat the government refuses to address and actually help create.

Another way of looking at it is that "uniforms" are generally required in most work one would endevor to do for pay. Now, I use the term "uniform" fairly loosely here. While a truck driver, like myself, is often expected to wear pants/shorts, shirt, and footwear (often times provided my employer) that is exactly (or materially) the same as everyone else in the company (in the same position); an accountant, for example, may only have general guidelines (i.e. button-up shirt and tie, slacks and dress shoes for men; and similar business dress for women). Of course there are jobs that have much lower standards (if any at all), such as factory workers; they may only be required to wear long pants, sturdy (steel-toed possibly) shoes, and refrain from wearing loose clothing.
Most of the positions I have held have had some sort of "uniform" or clearly defined "dress code" so everyone is a) safe, and b)presents an image the employer desires. So, having a strict "dress code" or even "uniforms" for high school is not just about avoiding problems (real or imagined), it is about prepairing students for the "real world" where they don't generally get to wear whatever suits their mood that day.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Going to shock some people, but the short answer is no.

The long answer is society today has too many whiners and too many people in leadership positions who are spineless enablers of the whiners. Religion should be allowed within schools openly by students and taught at home. If a student wears a I love Buddha t shirt, so be it. If a student wants to have a prayer club, so be it. Religion must now be taught in the home and the church. I don't need an athiest moonbat trying to teach religion.

Dress codes are a good thing, though.

If your talking kids must wear pants, shirts and shoes yes. If your talking uniforms, no. Uniforms are nothing but an assault upon individualism based upon a perceived threat the government refuses to address and actually help create.

Another way of looking at it is that "uniforms" are generally required in most work one would endevor to do for pay. Now, I use the term "uniform" fairly loosely here. While a truck driver, like myself, is often expected to wear pants/shorts, shirt, and footwear (often times provided my employer) that is exactly (or materially) the same as everyone else in the company (in the same position); an accountant, for example, may only have general guidelines (i.e. button-up shirt and tie, slacks and dress shoes for men; and similar business dress for women). Of course there are jobs that have much lower standards (if any at all), such as factory workers; they may only be required to wear long pants, sturdy (steel-toed possibly) shoes, and refrain from wearing loose clothing.
Most of the positions I have held have had some sort of "uniform" or clearly defined "dress code" so everyone is a) safe, and b)presents an image the employer desires. So, having a strict "dress code" or even "uniforms" for high school is not just about avoiding problems (real or imagined), it is about prepairing students for the "real world" where they don't generally get to wear whatever suits their mood that day.

The business world dress codes are not even close to military uniform codes you suggest.

 

[oldsoul]

Going to shock some people, but the short answer is no.

The long answer is society today has too many whiners and too many people in leadership positions who are spineless enablers of the whiners. Religion should be allowed within schools openly by students and taught at home. If a student wears a I love Buddha t shirt, so be it. If a student wants to have a prayer club, so be it. Religion must now be taught in the home and the church. I don't need an athiest moonbat trying to teach religion.

Dress codes are a good thing, though.

If your talking kids must wear pants, shirts and shoes yes. If your talking uniforms, no. Uniforms are nothing but an assault upon individualism based upon a perceived threat the government refuses to address and actually help create.

Another way of looking at it is that "uniforms" are generally required in most work one would endevor to do for pay. Now, I use the term "uniform" fairly loosely here. While a truck driver, like myself, is often expected to wear pants/shorts, shirt, and footwear (often times provided my employer) that is exactly (or materially) the same as everyone else in the company (in the same position); an accountant, for example, may only have general guidelines (i.e. button-up shirt and tie, slacks and dress shoes for men; and similar business dress for women). Of course there are jobs that have much lower standards (if any at all), such as factory workers; they may only be required to wear long pants, sturdy (steel-toed possibly) shoes, and refrain from wearing loose clothing.
Most of the positions I have held have had some sort of "uniform" or clearly defined "dress code" so everyone is a) safe, and b)presents an image the employer desires. So, having a strict "dress code" or even "uniforms" for high school is not just about avoiding problems (real or imagined), it is about prepairing students for the "real world" where they don't generally get to wear whatever suits their mood that day.

The business world dress codes are not even close to military uniform codes you suggest.

You obviously either have a reading comprehension problem, or didn't read my entire post. Try again.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Going to shock some people, but the short answer is no.

The long answer is society today has too many whiners and too many people in leadership positions who are spineless enablers of the whiners. Religion should be allowed within schools openly by students and taught at home. If a student wears a I love Buddha t shirt, so be it. If a student wants to have a prayer club, so be it. Religion must now be taught in the home and the church. I don't need an athiest moonbat trying to teach religion.

Dress codes are a good thing, though.

If your talking kids must wear pants, shirts and shoes yes. If your talking uniforms, no. Uniforms are nothing but an assault upon individualism based upon a perceived threat the government refuses to address and actually help create.

Another way of looking at it is that "uniforms" are generally required in most work one would endevor to do for pay. Now, I use the term "uniform" fairly loosely here. While a truck driver, like myself, is often expected to wear pants/shorts, shirt, and footwear (often times provided my employer) that is exactly (or materially) the same as everyone else in the company (in the same position); an accountant, for example, may only have general guidelines (i.e. button-up shirt and tie, slacks and dress shoes for men; and similar business dress for women). Of course there are jobs that have much lower standards (if any at all), such as factory workers; they may only be required to wear long pants, sturdy (steel-toed possibly) shoes, and refrain from wearing loose clothing.
Most of the positions I have held have had some sort of "uniform" or clearly defined "dress code" so everyone is a) safe, and b)presents an image the employer desires. So, having a strict "dress code" or even "uniforms" for high school is not just about avoiding problems (real or imagined), it is about prepairing students for the "real world" where they don't generally get to wear whatever suits their mood that day.

The business world dress codes are not even close to military uniform codes you suggest.

You obviously either have a reading comprehension problem, or didn't read my entire post. Try again.

I read it, and very few private businesses require uniforms. So my original post stands, dress codes are OK, school uniforms are not.

 

[OldLady]

So, I've been thinking (I know, a dangerous thing to do), and I am wondering what people would think of an idea I have had for some time. So, here goes:

What if we, as a society, taught our children about all of the major religions of the world?

• First question I had was: How do we determine the "major" religions of the world? For the sake of this debate, we'll say the threshold is 10% of the world population. The following link provides a chart showing just that. Major Religions Ranked by Size
• Second question was: Do we teach just the basics, or include details such as the various sects, if any, within a given religion? I think we should include the primary sects. I don't wish to get into how to determine this(as I don't have a good answer), but I think it is important to understand the differences between the primary sects, in order to get a good picture of the religion as a whole.
• The third, and final question I had was: Why/ why not? Here is where I hope we can focus our discussion.

I, for one am in favor of teaching the major religions of the world, including the "non-religious" as defined in the above link. I mean why not? There are two main reasons for this:

1. Most importantly, for me at least, is to gain an understanding of our "global neighbours". Let's face it, we are a global society and will be for the forseeable future, so we really should understand how different people think, and live. One way to do this is to study religions.
2. There are a lot of valuable lessons to be learned from religious teachings such as:

• The golden rule
• Many of the "Ten Comandments", those governing behaviour within a society.
• Ways of looking at the world
• Ect.

By no means do I envision getting into an indepth theological comparison between the various religions, nor do I envision even discussing who is "right" and so forth. I see these as very personal topics and would be of little value in the scope of learning the basics.

So, what do you think? Why, or why not (please explain yourself)? Should we go about his a different way?

I think college is the proper place for a World Religions or Comparative Religions class. There is no reason to avoid mentioning that a country is primarily Buddhist or Hindu or Muslim, answering basic questions, but I don't think studying the tenets of world religions in depth will actually promote better understanding or less xenophobia. Those biases are learned at home and in the community and a unit in Social Studies is not going to change that. Now, Sunday School would be an appropriate place to study other religions, if the church chose, but keeping religious studies out of the public schools is for the best, imo.

 

[OldLady]

How about we teach math in schools, and science, how to write...
A child's religious training is a parent's concern, not a school's. Along with sexual orientation, and health choices.

No, you don’t understand.

Teach about religions other than those children are subject to indoctrination at home – such is Hinduism and Taoism.

They would be taught in an academic context, not religious.

Why teach Taoism and Hinduism to kids "indoctrinated" into a different religion at home? What will they gain, do you think?

 

[GaryDog]

And if unicorns were real, their study would fall under zoology. But so far as we know, they are not (unless you're talking narwhals). There is zero evidence to support religious claims. Insofar as we would study them in an academic context, it would be the study of mythology, of claims that are supported by no physical evidence.

I suppose the world and everything living on it aren't examples of an idea. The way entities living on the earth, and the way the earth and the universe functions as a whole are evidence in and of itself that there is an idea, and with an idea comes a mind. However, I get some arbitrary percentage of people don't like to think about the possibility of consequences to their actions. You know, it's not much of a debate when your answer is "Except [insert thing here] doesn't exist". We're supposed to be discussing this topic from both perspectives, since that's where the education would be taught from, rather than that of someone who forces his beliefs on others as though they're fact, and everyone should treat them as such. Besides that, by your logic, shouldn't Darwinism and The Big Bang be treated as mythology, too? By all rights, assuming I'm a religious person, I could pull the same 'logic' you used, and just say "Except Darwinism was developed by some guy who got on a boat and smoked some REALLY good stuff". Though, I prefer not to sink to the same level as that minority of Atheists.

I know it's fashionable to refer to every new generation as "lazy" or entitled or dumb, but again, this is just an opinion. It's your assertion. There are numerous instances where you are wrong. Believe it or not, the generation of people born in the late 19th century thought the "greatest generation" (born around 1910 - 1928) was a lazy group of ne'er do wells, too. There's no reason to adjust pedagogy because of some fashionable perception of a new group of students.

This is from my experience with my classmates, as I'm still in school, and ones I've had previously. Furthermore, if you actually READ my post, I said the majority, not every single one of them. I do not use blanket statements, as there are exceptions to everything.

You don't understand what a "theory" is in the context of science. Theories are generally settled "facts" in the scientific community that exist because of the study and experimentation with evidence, and which involve repeated testing, scrutiny of results, and heated debate, generally spanning decades.

Firstly, 'scientific fact' is a fallacy in and of itself, since there's no such thing. Everything within the scientific community is subject to change at any time, and the concept of a scientific fact is heavily flawed, as it's all merely conjecture based on observation. The problem here is that, in any case, there not only has to be a willing participant in a debate on the subject, but also someone who can prove a negative, when the burden of proof should be on the person presenting the theory. In most cases with scientists, a big problem is in the fact that there's more money in studying something than not. Why is this a problem? Because there being more money in researching something whether it's fallacy or not, means that disproving it means you're out of a job. That's why people in the scientific community accept Global Climate Change/Global Warming. So, yes, theory is better treated as just that... theory... even in the scientific community.

Indeed, the way living things behave is evidence. It is not, however, evidence of a creator. The reason for this is because all of the natural, evolutionary explanations for how animals have evolved, continents have formed, oceans have filled with life, etc., have been tested, retested, observed, and yet to be proven false. EVEN DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE GOAL OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY IS TO TRY AND DISPROVE VARIOUS HYPOTHESES BY TESTING THEM.

You cannot test the "god" hypothesis. There's no evidence whatsoever that it exists. Frankly, your posts seems to smack of a wholesale denial of scientific evidence in general. Which is rather odd, considering it is the very scientific method you doubt that has allowed you to type words on to a computer screen, and send those electronic messages over a network to be read by people 10,000 miles from you, almost instantaneously. You rely on science when you fly in a plane. You don't "doubt" the very real evidence of thrust and lift, and how it makes flight possible, because you have evidence, i.e. you have likely flown on several successful flights. Moreover, when planes lose thrust, lose lift, or suffer other mechanical failures, they crash. Gravity is real. We see it every day. So it goes with evolution. And so it does NOT go with the idea of a creator. You can have faith, sure. But you have no scientific basis to back up your "faith".

And scientific "facts" are the closest thing we have to certainty. Does that mean that every scientific theory is impossible to disprove? Of course not. But you interpret that as a weakness. In fact, this is science's strength; it is open to new interpretations if new evidence comes to light. That's why it's reliable. It's constantly subject to scrutiny by learned scientists. Anything that is vetted that carefully is bound to be more reliable.

God is a wild guess. The bible is dogma that refuses to change. All of the bible was written thousands of years before anything resembling modern science ever came to fruition. Microbes, viruses, bacteria, the stars, the sun, etc., were all mysteries to the people who wrote the bible. They used that to explain what they didn't understand.

We used to believe that god spontaneously regenerated maggots in trash. We later learned that maggots are the larvae stage for flies, which laid eggs in the trash. We used to believe that the world was flat. However, observations by sailors over centuries, including horizon views, circumnavigation of the globe, and eventually photos from space, disproved that hypothesis. Does that means we could one day prove the world is NOT a sphere? Um, I guess.....but how much money would you put on that?

Scientists would be out of a job if they disproved a theory? Uh, no. Any scientist who disproves Darwinian evolution will be the most famous scientist in the world overnight and would be a shoo-in for the Nobel Prize. I'm sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about.

It's pastors and priests and televangelists who stand to lose their job if they can't continue to get enough people to believe in mythos so they can fill their coffers. You have it backward.

 

[oldsoul]

I don't think studying the tenets of world religions in depth will actually promote better understanding or less xenophobia. Those biases are learned at home and in the community and a unit in Social Studies is not going to change that.

Using that logic, we should eliminate "Black History Month", because it serves no puropse.

The purpose here is to better understand the people of the world, all of them, not just the ones that live in a society similar to yours. It is not the only way to do this, nor is it the complete way. However, it is important to have a basic understanding of the various major cultures in the world. To do so, one MUST understand the basics of the major religions.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Indeed, the way living things behave is evidence. It is not, however, evidence of a creator. The reason for this is because all of the natural, evolutionary explanations for how animals have evolved, continents have formed, oceans have filled with life, etc., have been tested, retested, observed, and yet to be proven false. EVEN DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE GOAL OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY IS TO TRY AND DISPROVE VARIOUS HYPOTHESES BY TESTING THEM.

Except they're not interested in disproving any of them, because they get paid to research them. As I explained, if you disprove a theory, you no longer research it, and no longer get paid. You also have yet to explain how, if there's no creator, this planet and everything on it even came into existence. Besides that, God's existence isn't even the main reason I explained for religion being taught in schools. It's an important part of history. Though, I get your resistance to it, Atheists won't be happy unless no form of belief is being taught in schools, and religious people won't be happy unless it is.

You cannot test the "god" hypothesis. There's no evidence whatsoever that it exists. Frankly, your posts seems to smack of a wholesale denial of scientific evidence in general. Which is rather odd, considering it is the very scientific method you doubt that has allowed you to type words on to a computer screen, and send those electronic messages over a network to be read by people 10,000 miles from you, almost instantaneously.

Unlike a good 80% of the things they tell us we should believe, I can see and experience computers. Massive difference between being able to experience something and taking their word for it. A big problem I have with people like you is that what you do is exactly that, take their word for it because they're "experts". Clearly anything and everything an expert says is instantly true, regardless of whether you can verify it or not.

You rely on science when you fly in a plane. You don't "doubt" the very real evidence of thrust and lift, and how it makes flight possible, because you have evidence, i.e. you have likely flown on several successful flights. Moreover, when planes lose thrust, lose lift, or suffer other mechanical failures, they crash. Gravity is real. We see it every day. So it goes with evolution. And so it does NOT go with the idea of a creator. You can have faith, sure. But you have no scientific basis to back up your "faith".

Uh. No, no it doesn't. We can see and experience gravity. We cannot see and experience "evolution", we've only heard these "experts" telling us that it's totally a thing that happened. I'd also like to point out that I never said that Christianity or any form of belief in a God was my faith. I'm just calling this from both perspectives rather than just assuming one belief or lack there of is instantly fact because it's what more closely aligns with what I think. As of right now, all you've really said is that "It shouldn't be taught because I think it's not real". Well, guys, I guess we shouldn't have religion taught in schools because Gary doesn't believe in it. Let's just ignore EVERYONE ELSE who also has an opinion on that.

And scientific "facts" are the closest thing we have to certainty. Does that mean that every scientific theory is impossible to disprove? Of course not. But you interpret that as a weakness. In fact, this is science's strength; it is open to new interpretations if new evidence comes to light. That's why it's reliable. It's constantly subject to scrutiny by learned scientists. Anything that is vetted that carefully is bound to be more reliable.

Actually, experiencing something ourselves is the closest thing we have to certainty. Besides that, something being "Close enough" doesn't mean we should instantly believe anything that reaches that point. Furthermore, I didn't say it was a strength or weakness for something to be proven or disproven. What I did say was that nobody is willing to disprove a theory, because so long as they can research it, they continue making money.

God is a wild guess. The bible is dogma that refuses to change. All of the bible was written thousands of years before anything resembling modern science ever came to fruition. Microbes, viruses, bacteria, the stars, the sun, etc., were all mysteries to the people who wrote the bible. They used that to explain what they didn't understand.

Not exactly a wild guess, it's a belief that the world is intelligently designed, which does look like a possibility, apparently to a lot of people..

We used to believe that god spontaneously regenerated maggots in trash. We later learned that maggots are the larvae stage for flies, which laid eggs in the trash. We used to believe that the world was flat. However, observations by sailors over centuries, including horizon views, circumnavigation of the globe, and eventually photos from space, disproved that hypothesis. Does that means we could one day prove the world is NOT a sphere? Um, I guess.....but how much money would you put on that?

Yet today we still pass obvious fallacy off as fact, and assume everyone is too stupid to figure it out. Are they wrong? In a lot of cases, no, I've met more people that believe the Food Pyramid is always correct, that Global Climate Change is a fact, and that ADHD isn't a myth. Everyone should always doubt.

Scientists would be out of a job if they disproved a theory? Uh, no. Any scientist who disproves Darwinian evolution will be the most famous scientist in the world overnight and would be a shoo-in for the Nobel Prize. I'm sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about.

No, they'd put lots of other people out of a job, and they would be rejected by everyone else in the scientific community for disproving a source of money for them.

It's pastors and priests and televangelists who stand to lose their job if they can't continue to get enough people to believe in mythos so they can fill their coffers. You have it backward.

Because Pastors make a ton of money, right?