Teach the opposite in religion classes?

[plmarquette]

what the government insists on teaching, the parents of the children do not always agree with, those who are paying the bills, raising the children...would like both sides of the issue presented, rather than coming accross as a blanket endorsement of a "secular truth"

being aware of issues, evils, misnomers and embracing them are two very different issues...

 

[MattRose]

what the government insists on teaching, the parents of the children do not always agree with, those who are paying the bills, raising the children...would like both sides of the issue presented, rather than coming accross as a blanket endorsement of a "secular truth"

The problem is that it's not just "both sides of the issue". You're comparing a theory developed using the scientific method (evolution) being taught alongside a religiously inspired theory. Why not throw in every major religions' theories on creation? It's not a comparative history class. It's a science class. I have no problem with all popular creation theories being taught in a non-science class. Actually, that sounds like a cool class.

 

[mulimulix]

The problem is that it's not just "both sides of the issue". You're comparing a theory developed using the scientific method (evolution) being taught alongside a religiously inspired theory. Why not throw in every major religions' theories on creation? It's not a comparative history class. It's a science class. I have no problem with all popular creation theories being taught in a non-science class. Actually, that sounds like a cool class.

This is also exactly what I say! Surely Creationists accept that creationism isn't a scientific theory, therefore, should not be taught in a science class, but apparently, this is not the case!

But to my original point, shouldn't this mean that they should also teach evolution in religion class?

 

[GakuseiDon]

I just read something someone has posted and it got me thinking:

If creationists insist of teaching the opposing views in science classes (specifically evolution), why aren't the opposing views taught in religion classes? What case can a creationist make that would mean teaching creationism in science classes but not opposing Christian views (i.e. biblical contradictions, reasons not to believe etc.) in their classes?

Hahaha! I like it! "Teach the controversy: God or Satan!?!"

But actually there already are comparative religion classes. Are there any religious studies classes that teach just Christianity? I'm not aware of any.

 

[ebia]

I just read something someone has posted and it got me thinking:

If creationists insist of teaching the opposing views in science classes (specifically evolution), why aren't the opposing views taught in religion classes? What case can a creationist make that would mean teaching creationism in science classes but not opposing Christian views (i.e. biblical contradictions, reasons not to believe etc.) in their classes?

I do teach religion (in a Catholic school) and spent a significant part of this afternoon explaining to some year 7s that Genesis-Creation and Evolution aren't in conflict but are both true, answering different sorts of questions.

 

[MattRose]

I do teach religion (in a Catholic school) and spent a significant part of this afternoon explaining to some year 7s that Genesis-Creation and Evolution aren't in conflict but are both true, answering different sorts of questions.

If you sucessfully explained that Genesis-Creation and Evolution aren't in conflict but are both true, then miracles do happen.

 

[ebia]

It's a Catholic school. The Catholic Church sees no incompatibility between evolution and Scripture.

That said, I don't know to what extent I succeeded - it's quite hard for 12 year olds (or even 17 year olds) to grasp if they haven't come across the idea that the stories aren't concretely literal before.

 

[mulimulix]

It's a Catholic school. The Catholic Church sees no incompatibility between evolution and Scripture.

That said, I don't know to what extent I succeeded - it's quite hard for 12 year olds (or even 17 year olds) to grasp if they haven't come across the idea that the stories aren't concretely literal before.

There wasn't a conflict until evolution was discovered and proven, then there was a conflict, and now it's back to no conflict. Sorry, but for many hundreds of years, Catholics and all other Christians believed in literal creation until science intervened and said it was wrong.

 

[Exial]

Of course they would. Atheists aren't atheists because they don't believe in God. Atheists are atheists because they hate God. They hate the idea that there is an authority who holds them to a strict moral standard and, just like the rest of us, atheists love their sin so much that they will fight to the death when anything threatens it.

No, we just don't believe in any god(s).

Just like you don't believe in Allah or Zeus.

So your an atheist too, we just take our atheism one step further

 

[ebia]

There wasn't a conflict until evolution was discovered and proven, then there was a conflict, and now it's back to no conflict. Sorry, but for many hundreds of years, Catholics and all other Christians believed in literal creation until science intervened and said it was wrong.

The primary meanings major Christian theology has drawn from it has not been about it being literally true, and there have been major Christians who've emphasized that from very early.

Sure, there is a period between the emergence of modern interest in literal history and science and the discovery that Genesis doesn't fit that when it was assumed that it did. So?

 

[justaguy78]

I think logically that in a religion class that opposing views should be brought up or at least there should be the ability to question things. It is silly to never allow people to question things because that just makes them lemmings.

I went to both a Catholic elementary and high school meaning I had religion taught every year. As I think about what you're saying, I don't ever recall there ever being any talk in a skeptical or critical way regarding the subject matter and feel there should have been and should be in today's classes.


Exial,

Allah is Arabic for God and is the same God recognized in the bible.

 

[ebia]

We teach the Catholic faith, not much comparative religion, but I encourage students to think critically, voice their disagreements, form their own view, and so forth, and for students of non-Christian faiths to voice their perspectives.

 

[mulimulix]

The primary meanings major Christian theology has drawn from it has not been about it being literally true, and there have been major Christians who've emphasized that from very early.

Sure, there is a period between the emergence of modern interest in literal history and science and the discovery that Genesis doesn't fit that when it was assumed that it did. So?

It's not that it isn't assumed, it was fact for about 1700 years and STILL IS for about 30-40% of Americans! The point is that changing stories are never reliable! If someone changes their story in court because of recently uncovered evidence, is that reliable?

 

[ebia]

It's not that it isn't assumed, it was fact for about 1700 years and STILL IS for about 30-40% of Americans!

It's anachronistic to impose modern concepts onto pre-modern thinkers. Serious Christian thinkers have always read those early chapters of Genesis as primarily theological.

The point is that changing stories are never reliable! If someone changes their story in court because of recently uncovered evidence, is that reliable?

only an idiot never changes his view on anything as new information becomes available. As new categories of thought emerge it takes time for thinking within and meta-thinking about those categories to emerge.

Reading the Genesis stories as answers to theologically questions has always been around. For some periods as other questions have been at the front of peoples minds they have tried to use the stories to answer those questions, and sometimes got in a muddle doing so. It's sad that some keep hammering square pegs into round holes.

 

[mulimulix]

It's anachronistic to impose modern concepts onto pre-modern thinkers. Serious Christian thinkers have always read those early chapters of Genesis as primarily theological.

It is in no way anachronistic. People KNEW that the Earth was ~6000 years old and that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and then science proves otherwise. It isn't anachronistic, it just proves the other hypothesis wrong.

only an idiot never changes his view on anything as new information becomes available. As new categories of thought emerge it takes time for thinking within and meta-thinking about those categories to emerge.

Ok, this is like saying this:

I have been suspected for murder and am appearing in court. My story is that I was at a supermarket at the time of the murder so there is no way I committed it. Then, they check surveillance at the office building where the murder occurred and see a video of me. What you're saying is that I am not wrong, but I can just change my story and then all is good?

 

[ebia]

Are you trying to say everybody who has ever changed their mind on anything is inherently unreliable?

 

[ebia]

It is in no way anachronistic. People KNEW that the Earth was ~6000 years old and that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and then science proves otherwise. It isn't anachronistic, it just proves the other hypothesis wrong.

They knew those things in the sense that mattered to then - that is that they are theologically/mythically true. They weren't trying to do science or distant history, neither of which categories of thought had been developed.

What they were trying to get out of Genesis 1-11 was the answer to theological questions: who are we, who is God, what about other peoples gods, how do we relate to each other and the rest of creation, what are we here for, why is there evil in the world, why doesn't God do something about it,....

Those are the primary questions people have always looked to Genesis to answer, the questions historians tell us it was written and redacted to answer.

Those are the sorts of questions everyone in the ancient world wanted to answer and most answered through myth, because they knew one thing that modern pedagogy has largely forgotten; the power of story for teaching.

 

[mulimulix]

They knew those things in the sense that mattered to then - that is that they are theologically/mythically true. They weren't trying to do science or distant history, neither of which categories of thought had been developed.

What they were trying to get out of Genesis 1-11 was the answer to theological questions: who are we, who is God, what about other peoples gods, how do we relate to each other and the rest of creation, what are we here for, why is there evil in the world, why doesn't God do something about it,....

Those are the primary questions people have always looked to Genesis to answer, the questions historians tell us it was written and redacted to answer.

Those are the sorts of questions everyone in the ancient world wanted to answer and most answered through myth, because they knew one thing that modern pedagogy has largely forgotten; the power of story for teaching.

Yes, I understand that it helped people understand the world with no other answers, but if the first 11 chapters of Genesis were once considered fact, and now considered a metaphor, who's to say the resurrection of Jesus isn't a metaphor?

 

[ebia]

You're still not getting it. The primary reading of Genesis was always about theological questions, not historical/scientific factual questions.

Why isn't the resurrection myth? Because as an account it doesn't share the same set of basic characteristics. It's like comparing a newspaper report and Lord of the Rings and suggesting they need to be treated as the same sort of text.

 

[mulimulix]

You're still not getting it. The primary reading of Genesis was always about theological questions, not historical/scientific factual questions.

Why isn't the resurrection myth? Because as an account it doesn't share the same set of basic characteristics. It's like comparing a newspaper report and Lord of the Rings and suggesting they need to be treated as the same sort of text.

I'm not with you...

What's the difference between Genesis as a theological question and the resurrection as a fact? Surely if both say "This happened then", they are both supposed to be treated as facts?