But are religion and personal, private belief the same thing? — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Ah, so your question was exactly that: is there anything on the Geertz side, say, that at least aspires to scientific rigor as Harris did? Harris may not have succeeded but at least he properly identified the goal. Yes?... — Srap Tasmaner
So what do you think of the sort of cracker-barrel statistical approach I presented earlier? — Srap Tasmaner
It says to me that culture structures intellectual functioning and that policing my own personal "beliefs" won't change anything at the group level--that something like a Kuhnian paradigm shift is needed to prevent outcomes like war, genocide, impoverishment, etc. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Of course not, and like with virtually every complex phenomena, there is no bright demarcation line. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be considered distinct at points outside the blurry lines near demarcation. At the most private, personal beliefs are not publicly shared, and then are not subject to public scrutiny or critique. At the least private are proselytizing religions, which are most open to the same critique. I would suggest that Daniel Dennet's proposal that all children be taught about all of the major religions of the world without a suggestion that one or another is the "right" one at public schools would be a great way to approach the subject, to counteract what could be considered the indoctrination of children into a particular religious heritage and dogma. — Reformed Nihilist
We're still waiting, as Billy Bragg said, for the great leap forward.
But you're back in the usual bind here. Granting for the sake of argument that Kuhn is right about how one paradigm replaces another, and that the reasons are extra-scientific, it remains that the coming paradigm has to have been created, has to be seen as a contender, has to have achieved some prestige for it to be in a position to take over when the old guard retires or dies.
People still have to do stuff for change to happen, even if you can't just make change happen by doing stuff. — Srap Tasmaner
Regardless of your opinion on Dennett in general, I would be curious if you dispute that it would be a worthwhile enterprise to teach the cultural/social phenomena of religions to children in public school, and if so, on what grounds? — Reformed Nihilist
http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/In Pew Research Center polling in 2001, Americans opposed same-sex marriage by a margin of 57% to 35%.
Since then, support for same-sex marriage has steadily grown. And today, support for same-sex marriage is at its highest point since Pew Research Center began polling on this issue. Based on polling in 2017, a majority of Americans (62%) support same-sex marriage, while 32% oppose it.
Snyder comes in here not as someone denying that beliefs are important, but as resisting that oversimplification. For instance, he says you misunderstand Hitler's radicalism if you think of him as being really, really, really anti-Semitic. He refuses to explain what happens in Lithuania, for instance, by saying that Lithuanians must be more anti-Semitic than other Europeans. Snyder is controversial, but the book is absolutely worth reading. — Srap Tasmaner
I would suggest that religion offers little of value that can't be acquired otherwise, and there is at least some reason to believe that it underpins some of the worst parts of our nature — Reformed Nihilist
I think the spirit is that indoctrination is bad, and making sure that children can make properly educated decisions regarding religion. I would hope that we all could agree with that. I think it would be wrong to pass any judgement, either pro or anti. Just teach kids what people believe. Like Joe Friday used to say "just the facts ma'am ". — Reformed Nihilist
You're free to choose whatever method you prefer to arrive at your conclusions, however I would personally recommend choosing academically researched, peer reviewed studies over personal intuitions. That's the route I'm going to take on this matter anyways. — Reformed Nihilist
Again, you're free to use whatever method you choose, but I'll take studies over your intuitions. — Reformed Nihilist
Of course you will as most others. That is why Banks and corporations fund these instructions. To make sure their interests are well represented. It's easy to buy academia. Those who don't you the line (as they v did in graduate school) are banished, or worse yet hounded. Academia is a lovely, lowly community. No backbone — Rich
And your evidence for this is what? What you're saying sounds exactly like a garden variety conspiracy theory. Why should I believe it isn't? — Reformed Nihilist
You understand why anecdote is not a good basis for drawing conclusions?... — Reformed Nihilist
I really don't find your anecdote very compelling... — Reformed Nihilist
not only because my experience is almost completely the opposite,... — Reformed Nihilist
but more so because I understand the fallibility of anecdotal evidence in principle. — Reformed Nihilist
Are you seeking an academic study on how academia bends over backwards to please whoever gives it give it money? I'll give it a look and see. Maybe, I'll come up with something. — Rich
What about that professor in Colorado who did research--obesity research, I believe--funded by Pepsi or Coca-Cola (I forget which one) that concluded, surprise, soda consumption is not responsible for certain negative health outcomes. I don't remember the exact details, but he got perks from Pepsi or Coca-Cola like staying in expensive hotels, trips to nice vacation destinations, etc. Again, I don't remember the exact details, but I think that that is a fairly accurate outline. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
I never said anything like that. I illustrated, again, "religion" according to people like Daniel Dennett = apples; "religion" as I have experienced it = oranges.
I can't refute Dennett's version of "religion" because, like I said, if every time you see it or hear about it it walks like a straw man and talks like a straw man, it is most likely a straw man. Or a bogeyman. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
I can't refute Dennett's version of "religion" because, like I said, if every time you see it or hear about it it walks like a straw man and talks like a straw man, it is most likely a straw man. Or a bogeyman. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Different people can have different experiences of the same thing. That doesn't make it a different thing. Some people hate cilantro, some people like it, but it's still cilantro. What you and I and Dennett are talking about is the same thing if we're all speaking English and using the word in a conventional sense. I know I am, and I have no reason to believe Dennett isn't, so unless you're intentionally using the word unconventionally, then we're all talking about the same thing. Even if we experience it differently. — Reformed Nihilist
I never asked you to refute his conception of religion. I asked if it was reasonable to teach children the facts about what different religions believe, without treating any one as right or wrong, in publicly funded schools? You could still answer that question if you wanted. — Reformed Nihilist
The way I recall it, you asked me specifically about Daniel Dennett's idea. I responded that if Daniel Dennett is the inspiration then it is a bad idea. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
I then said that if it was going to be done with a spirit more appropriate for a public institution of learning then, by all means, teach children what scholars/intellectuals say about religion. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
The "facts" and "without treating any one as right or wrong" language betray a political agenda. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Instead, teach what archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, historians, linguists, philosophers, political scientists, psychologists, religious studies scholars, and sociologists have said / are saying about religion. It probably won't make many adults happy--the evangelical atheists, the religious conservatives, the secularists, etc.--but objective truth does not take sides and would give children a powerful tool to defend against the various political interests, left and right; agnostic, atheist and theist; secular and traditional, who are trying to control their lives. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
That's the genetic fallacy. You can't conclude an idea is bad based solely on it's source. Even if Dennett was the most fallible, wrongheaded thinker in the history of human thought, even a stopped clock is right twice a day... — Reformed Nihilist
Where did scholars and intellectuals come from? I'm talking about teaching children. I think Aquinas might be jumping ahead a little. How about just teaching them about the basic tenets and orthodoxy of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, etc.? No value judgements or critiques. No justifications or apologies. Just the facts.
How is withholding value judgments betraying an agenda? It is the opposite.
I think you are talking about teens or young adults, not children. I am referring to starting to teach children about religion at the same time as we start to teach them about everything else in school. Basically starting at 5 years old. — Reformed Nihilist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.