truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
Some of the world's top scientists probably consider themselves spirtitual. Why are they mutually exclusive?
Carl Sagan said:…in theological discussions with religious leaders, I often ask what their response would be if a central tenet of their faith were disproved by science. When I put this question to the Dalai Lama, he unhesitatingly replied as no conservative or fundamentalist religious leaders do: In such a case, he said, Tibetan Buddhism would have to change. Even, I asked, if it’s a really central tenet, like reincarnation? Even then, he answered. However, he added with a twinkle – it’s going to be hard to disprove reincarnation.
That has nothing to do with school and making FHC or not, nor are they subjects covered in primary school so no indoctrination of kids into views on those topics.
1Where is the blind faith? Science will provide answers as more and more becomes known about the world. Will everything ever be known? Probably not, more answers will bring more questions. Will some questions turn out to be the wrong questions? Definitely. Science goes through major paradigm shifts where the entire way of looking at things changes. Its not blind faith to say that science hasnt found all of the answers yet. Its a statement of fact. It probably never will, but there may be a time where all of todays questions are answered, but by then there will be a whole new set of questions built on newer knowledge. There is simply no comparison between scientific advancement and religious dogma and to assume so is naive.
2Thats quite a paranoid way of viewing scientific advancement. It really depends where you read things. If you are reading the National Enquirer then you could be reading rubbish, but if you are reading National Geographic then its probably true.
3.You said originally that if people questioned scientific breakthrough they were labelled as conspiracy theorists. I didnt realise you were referring to uninformed paranoid people spouting ignorant rubbish.
Im not sure what point you are trying to make, but there is a difference between questioning scientific breakthrough in an informed and educated manner and the above.
Have to say I do agree with the idea of Sunday school and taking it out of primary schools from the point of view of easier choice for all, accomodating kids whose school mighnt be in the parish of their 'home' church, and probably making kids think a bit more about it, together of course with freeing up class time for more worldly matters.
Your blind faith is when you say that Science hasn't found all of the answers yet, you saying with certainty that science will prevail in all its quests, without facts to back up such bold certainty. why is that so hard to understand?
1. My point that you keep trying to undermine by calling me naive was that people don't always question scientific announcements and it was in response to Purples statement about religion stunting the ability to think.
2. It's a paranoid view! Are you trying to prove my point!
3. See above. I mean seriously, paranoid, uninformed, ignorant rubbish. And you think that the Church is dogmatic.
I haven't read all the posts here, but just wanted to add my experiance. My child goes to an Educate Together school, and I was quite surprised last year to find that 66% of her class made their FHC. I would have expected the percantage to be a lot lower.
QUOTE]
Do you know how often they had to attend religion classes to make their first communion? Was it once a week?
Do they have to do religion outside of school for the full 8 years or just the year they make communion/confirmation?
My understanding is that the Educate Together schools have an 'Ethics and Religion' subject where they teach kids about the beliefs and background of every major religion. Very healthy idea too rather than being brought up to fear other religions like say Islam.
Anyway, if kids in ET schools want to do communion (or whatever religious ritual), they need to do all the preparation work outside school hours and their parents have to help out or be more involved. Makes a lot of sense.
My guess is that if Catholic parents were given tasks to do outside school hours to help their child through the communion sacrament, the majority would soon drop the idea like a stone! Much easier to buy a dress and rent the bouncy castle or horse drawn carriage.
My parting words, as like Yeats I feel all I can do is remunerate old themes, is that ye must either have gone to very hard line catholic schools or didnt go to such schools but imagine that such schools are the norm.
@MrMan - if you do not wish to accept the word of experts in a subject you are more than entitled to go and educate yourself in the subject and do your own investigations and come to your own conclusions, publish your results and await the peer reviewing.
I feel ridiculous defending a widely accepted view of scientific inquiry and explaining why it differs from religious dogma. Its self evident to me.
My parting words, as like Yeats I feel all I can do is emunerate old themes, is that ye must either have gone to very hard line catholic schools or didnt go to such schools but imagine that such schools are the norm. From my 1980's education I can honesty say that what we were taught were 'normal' christian ideas that did some good to those of us who paid heed, nothing sinister, nothing indoctrinating, nothing that stunted our thinking, nothing that left us unable to discern what was right or wrong, & credible or incredible.
I went to a CBS in 1970s and 1980s and I do feel that I was made to feel guilty and bad. Especially around confession time. We were certainly afraid to question or even discuss any aspect of religion for fear of the 'leather'. It wasn't healthy. There were 2 brothers abusing children too, I think people knew at the time (we knew) but nothing was done until long after I left.
Things are different now but I still don't think kids need to be taught rubbish like original sin, hell, purgatory, eternal damnation, mortal sins etc.
I think you will find that they don't teach any of those things. Here is the leaving cert syllabus. Hardly brainwashing.
[broken link removed]
And as can be seen they deal with the Religions V Science debate in a very sensible manner. They don't call scientists evil and indeed a large part of the syllabus is teaching Children to question and critically analyse.
Are you saying that children will finish 13 years of religion (primary + secondary) classes and never have heard of any of these concepts: original sin [FIANNA FAIL], hell [BANK SHAREHOLDERS], purgatory [THE COPING CLASSES], eternal damnation[NEGATIVE EQUITY], mortal sins[SEANIE FITZ]??
Are you saying that children will finish 13 years of religion (primary + secondary) classes and never have heard of any of these concepts: original sin, hell, purgatory, eternal damnation, mortal sins??
I think you will find that they don't teach any of those things.
So this statement was a mistake then?
In my opinion discussing/teaching any of the concepts I mentioned ("original sin, hell, purgatory, eternal damnation, mortal sins") isn't healthy no matter how you spin it or at what age but as you say they can just laugh them off...so thats alright then...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?