After a review of our discussion, I believe us to not really be all that far apart. You seem rational, sensitive and practical. We would definitely get along most anywhere. However, there is one thing about your views that are illogical. If you had agreed on the fairness issue of equal representation in schools, the discussion would be over.
I'm assuming that the reason you failed to answer my question directly is that you still have a hard time with the supernatural foundation of your belief/ethic system.
You reason that just because science can't explain our origins at the present time, that is no reason to assume that it won't be able to at some point in the future.
Now, I have talked to whacked out New-Agers that believe unicorns exist and that it is just a matter of time where their existence will be proven.
Likewise, others claim that the Second Advent will also provide proof of God's existence. And, it's just a matter of time.
The logic of all three are identical.
If you had some demonstratable proof of a something from nothing universe, then your censorship of theists' "First Cause" might have some merit. But, the hard cold facts are that you don't.
Education should be free of political and ideological agenda. Why are the atheists so afraid if schools taught that some ideologies are based on the precept that the cosmos is self-existing? Why not teach it and mention the effects of those ideologies on our societies in the past such as Communism, Marxism, and Eubonics? Surely, you wouldn’t want to re-write history would you?
Did Lenin really murder 80 million people in the name of atheism?
Likewise, a mention of the possibility of a “First Cause” with its subsequent ideologies could be mentioned as well along with its sometimes murderous effects from violating the law of love.
Then, students can see the whole picture…..the good, bad , and the ugly. No, that is intolerable to the Humanist evangelist. I look forward to the day when such biased censorship will not plague our educational institutions.
It is ironic that you condemn science of promoting fairy tales when that is exactly their perception of you.
First of all, no scientist of integrity could condemn me. I have promoted nothing unscientific. I have merely pointed out its limits. I'm all for science....I love it. I just don't worship it.
Furthermore, knowledge will always be obtained inside of an overall template. The templates are outside our verifiable sphere. So, in all fairness, the major templates should be taught so that students could choose the one that they feel is right for them. To do otherwise smacks of totalitarianism and censorship based on ideology, politics, and political correctness.
Ask yourself honestly are you concerned about the integrity of science or the souls of the students.The first could be viewed as noble,the second as an attempt to proselytize in public schools.
I'll ask you a similar question. Are you really concerned about our schools teaching critical thinking or do you really want to live in a world where competing views are simply censored?
The first would be in line with the study of knowledge. The second could only happen when following an ideological agenda.
If you would honestly like to see no theoretical science in the schools,why instead of mearly expressing this have you instead sought to (in all "fairness")bring into the classroom another unproven theory?Yes you are trying to bring religion into school.
I think that you are being unfair in you characterization of my view. Theory is a valuable tool, and occupies a specific place in the students arsenal of learning tools. Censorship is the tool of an evangelist, not a student nor a scientist.
Was I right about Johnson? Has his writing influenced your thinking? His favorite phrase also is "it's not fair".
Hey, that's not fair to say I stole the term , "not fair". :-) Seriously, I have never heard of the man. I probably used the term more though after tuning into Bill O'reilly on Fox News if I'm really honest about it.
I am not an Atheist I am a Nondeist.This means I do not assert there can be no God, rather that there is no objective evidence that there is one.
Pete, you've been awfully honest with me and you've characterized your views and explained your reasons for adopting them. I appreciate that. I will do the same in return.
Where it seems you have suspended judgement, I have moved on to a hypothesis in which to measure my existence. I feel that I can just as logically choose a consious infinity over an unconscious infinity since neither one is demonstratable. For me, it is far more useful as a tool for human development and quality of life to have an exterior model as opposed to a subjective context to develop and arrange meaning through my experiences in life.
However, experiential meaning alone cannot capture the true genius of the human spirit and its magical-like ability to create where nothing should be creatable. Perhaps man has created God. If so, man has wisely seen fit to place the sacred symbolic objects of life outside of himself for safekeeping.
Our symbolic vehicles for creating meaning like family, love, honesty, altruism, (the man on 9/11 who said, "let's roll")selfless bonding in friendship, are all free from distortion and manipulation if the construct for its source is outside of us and lives within God...a conscious infinity.
A big part of my personal victory over the
WBTS was to not let them destroy or taint my free will. It would have been easy to become cynical and distrustful of any unknown and run toward exetentialism as a hideout from the ideology evangelists and manipulators.
After several years of simply withholding judgement, I realized any thought construct will be used as marketing for larger world views. At some point it was time to make a decision and come to some conclusion and worldview for myself. I chose Christianity. Not in a typical religious sense, but more from a Skinnerian model.
I often question if I've done this out of rebellion to the shackles of the Tower. I honestly don't believe that I have, but rather truly believe the teachings of Christ are ideas that, while never achievable in a perfect sense, work well with our goal seeking mental organizational nature to satisfy our need to create, transform, and experience meaningful psychological anchors.
I do not trust these processes in the hands of any human or group of humans and feel they are best preserved in the nature of God regardless if real or imagined.