Alliance, I believe that you are merely disagreeing based in your beliefs on religion and to disagree. I have considered this, and decided that it is not worth arguing. I, and I would say the majority of people that enjoy the benefits of science, believe that we should share scientific knowledge with those that are in need of it. I, and I would say the majority of people that enjoy the benefits of religion (whichever one doesn't matter), believe that we should share religious knowledge with those that are in need of it. If they don't want it when we offer it, I believe we can withdraw the offer to teach it unless they request it.
Knowledge is knowledge, whether it be scientific or religious. Distribution is the same no matter the type.
I believe that everyone should be allowed a religious education that covers all religions but promotes none. Due to the fact that people do not allow religious knowledge to be taught in U.S. public schools, it must needs be that the knowledge is dispersed in some other manner. An educated decision cannot be made in the United States because there is no method for gaining a balanced education on the subject. The majority of people are more capable of arguing diet than religion imo. This is due to the lack of education in this field. Given this, it should be incumbent on all religions to educate the public on their individual religions.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
HmmmmmmmmI don't see the connection.
To me, Christian proselytizing is insulting, but it is better then extreme Islamic proselytizing, which can be deadly. 😆 jk
If their knowledge isn't being shared in some way, how else will they share it? I'm not saying any of them is right, only that the only means of stopping proselytizing is to flood the public body with all the religious knowledge and allow them to make religious choices from an educated position.
If you knew, hypothetically, because some fairy of knowledge popped up and showed you perfect evidence that eating chocolate would lower your life expectancy by fifteen years, and you could not reproduce the evidence, would you try to tell others that eating chocolate reduced their life expectancy? Most religions believe that they know something of value, whether or not it is true, they believe it. It isn't rational, but they view it as such.
Originally posted by Regret
Alliance, I believe that you are merely disagreeing based in your beliefs on religion and to disagree. I have considered this, and decided that it is not worth arguing. I, and I would say the majority of people that enjoy the benefits of science, believe that we should share scientific knowledge with those that are in need of it. I, and I would say the majority of people that enjoy the benefits of religion (whichever one doesn't matter), believe that we should share religious knowledge with those that are in need of it. If they don't want it when we offer it, I believe we can withdraw the offer to teach it unless they request it.Knowledge is knowledge, whether it be scientific or religious. Distribution is the same no matter the type.
I believe that everyone should be allowed a religious education that covers all religions but promotes none. Due to the fact that people do not allow religious knowledge to be taught in U.S. public schools, it must needs be that the knowledge is dispersed in some other manner. An educated decision cannot be made in the United States because there is no method for gaining a balanced education on the subject. The majority of people are more capable of arguing diet than religion imo. This is due to the lack of education in this field. Given this, it should be incumbent on all religions to educate the public on their individual religions.
No, I'm disagreeing because I think you're wrong. The public doesn't understand what science is. Science is areligious, it doesnt promote religion and it doesnt speak out against it. Of course thats in a perfect world, but there is practical leeway on all issues.
Religious education in public school is revolting. Your system promotes a religion, even though many people don't have one. Religious "knowledge" if you can call it that, is somehting that is taught at home and at the place of worship of your choice. There is no sanctatiy in religion, it does not make you a better person, it does not make you moral. There is no reason to teach religous "knowledge".
That being said, diversity of religion should be a major part of public education, allowing kids to learn some historical aspects of other faiths including agnocticism and athiesm. My high school had a program where you had to write a series of short papers about the history and general beliefs of Chrisitanity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judiasm, Zoroastarianism, Confucianism, Taoism, Athiesm, Agnociticism, and two other religions of your choice (Paganism etc.) This should be an integral part of public education and world history.
Originally posted by Alliance
No, I'm disagreeing because I think you're wrong. The public doesn't understand what science is. Science is areligious, it doesnt promote religion and it doesnt speak out against it. Of course thats in a perfect world, but there is practical leeway on all issues.Religious education in public school is revolting. Your system promotes a religion, even though many people don't have one. Religious "knowledge" if you can call it that, is somehting that is taught at home and at the place of worship of your choice. There is no sanctatiy in religion, it does not make you a better person, it does not make you moral. There is no reason to teach religous "knowledge".
That being said, diversity of religion should be a major part of public education, allowing kids to learn some historical aspects of other faiths including agnocticism and athiesm. My high school had a program where you had to write a series of short papers about the history and general beliefs of Chrisitanity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judiasm, Zoroastarianism, Confucianism, Taoism, Athiesm, Agnociticism, and two other religions of your choice (Paganism etc.) This should be an integral part of public education and world history.
Agreed, and I believe this is what I was referring to. Perhaps your impression of what I was talking about was off from what I meant. I think that the areligious attitude of U.S. policy is a poor position. It allows the religiously bigoted (extreme anyones) to claim grievance against the public system as is, broad spectrum education as to the beliefs of the various religions (in the manner you described, if not coursework on the subject) is the only way that true ambivalence in the system can occur.
😆 No, I agree with you. I only believe that an overview of the impacts each has had on history and a basic overview of their origins and beliefs should be taught. This would include the agnostic stance and the atheist stance.
It's similar to my view on Psychology. A basic overview of all the schools of thought should be given, and then all students should learn Behavior Analysis, Physiological Psychology, Stats, and Psychological History should be taught. All the other schools should be handled with the same skepticism that religion is. argue 😆 😆
Originally posted by Regret
It's similar to my view on Psychology. A basic overview of all the schools of thought should be given, and then all students should learn Behavior Analysis, Physiological Psychology, Stats, and Psychological History should be taught. All the other schools should be handled with the same skepticism that religion is. argue 😆 😆
Actually, that is how psychology is taught in undergrad--and what I didn't like about it was that I got the impression everyone with a theory was competing with everyone else's theory, so you had to learn like a dozen terms for the same damn thing. It's basically information-dumping. But this also did include the more bio/neuro/experimental/stats-related branches of psych.
Grad school is where you start to learn the cool stuff, where you learn to actually apply things in realistic, practical and effective ways. Eg, hypnosis was quite fascinating, more in application than theory.
Originally posted by Mindship
Actually, that is how psychology is taught in undergrad--and what I didn't like about it was that I got the impression everyone with a theory was competing with everyone else's theory, so you had to learn like a dozen terms for the same damn thing. It's basically information-dumping. But this also did include the more bio/neuro/experimental/stats-related branches of psych.Grad school is where you start to learn the cool stuff, where you learn to actually apply things in realistic, practical and effective ways. Eg, hypnosis was quite fascinating, more in application than theory.
Yeah, grad school is where it's at, post doc work is even better if you are working with decent people. I am not referring to what you are. I mean that Psychology should be taught with an intro to psychology course (covering all the speculative schools, and the solid schools) and then only Behavior Analysis, Physiological Psychology, Stats, and Psychological History. I don't believe that Cognitive Psychology, Psychoanalysis, Humanistic Psychology, Positive Psychology, Gestalt Psychology should be taught as scientifically valid systems. I also feel that a lot of Evolutionary Psychology should be looked at more heavily as to whether it fits with these or not.
edit: Gestalt is pretty much dead, it is typically only discussed in relation to perceptual phenomena in Physiological Psychology. I would also state that Physiological Psych would cover Perception and Psychophysics as well.
My opinion of hypnosis is rather skeptical though. Hypnosis doesn't work on those that don't want to be hypnotized. Given this, does it really do anything? I doubt it, the person wants the hypnotism to work, and so he does whatever was suggested. The physiological effects are there, but they are minimal, and may simply correlate with the act, and not be indicative of true control.
Originally posted by Regret
I mean that Psychology should be taught with an intro to psychology course (covering all the speculative schools, and the solid schools) and then only Behavior Analysis, Physiological Psychology, Stats, and Psychological History. I don't believe that Cognitive Psychology, Psychoanalysis, Humanistic Psychology, Positive Psychology, Gestalt Psychology should be taught as scientifically valid systems. I also feel that a lot of Evolutionary Psychology should be looked at more heavily as to whether it fits with these or not.
My opinion of hypnosis is rather skeptical though. Hypnosis doesn't work on those that don't want to be hypnotized. Given this, does it really do anything? I doubt it, the person wants the hypnotism to work, and so he does whatever was suggested. The physiological effects are there, but they are minimal, and may simply correlate with the act, and not be indicative of true control.
Originally posted by Mindship
Scientific validity can be tricky even with the hard sciences (eg, quantum mechanics: the most powerful scientific theory ever developed, yet the least understood in terms of what it "really" means). But I do agree, some schools of psychological thought do leave much to be desired. The trick is to find where certain systems can be used reliably, especially if improvement in quality of life is what you're after.
I agree, but I think the schools of thought I mentioned (Cognitive Psychology, Psychoanalysis, Humanistic Psychology, Positive Psychology, Gestalt Psychology) hold as much credibility as most religions. They just avoid spirit/god type explanations in favor of unobservable and unprovable "mind/thought/process" explanations. The data can be interpreted without resorting to the fiction that is often thought up. IMO the religion forum is a good place to discuss them. Religion can be used reliably in specific situations, and it can be beneficial in those situations, does not make it valid based on that 😉
Originally posted by Mindship
Absolutely: the power lies in the subject, and if you have a good subject (and you're a good "guide"😉, some pretty cool things can be accomplished.
K, 😉 had to throw my skepticism out there.
Now, you mentioned an education in psychology, did you do undergrad and grad work in psychology?
Originally posted by Alliance
psychology is as skeptical as religion.
I agree as far as Cognitive Psychology, Psychoanalysis, Humanistic Psychology, Positive Psychology and Gestalt Psychology are concerned. Behavior Analysis and Physiological Psychology are as solid as the majority of "Hard" sciences are.