(October 31, 2016 at 3:07 pm)abaris Wrote:(October 31, 2016 at 3:03 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: ...And yet there are so many excellent Catholic schools and colleges all over the world.
Oh, come on. I give you that the Jesuits usually aren't afraid of going against the dogmatic grain, even in the 17th century when they were the only ones being against the witch madness, but they aren't the only ones running schools. There's always the dogmatic clamp in what they teach. A good secular college would be the better choice than any religious institution.
I know you won't like the comparison, but it's valid. Soviet universities also provided knowledge. But they weren't exactly neutral in what they did or didn't teach. And how they taught it.
Contrary to what Dawkins is claiming, my faith never "taught" me to be "satisfied with not understanding the world."
I didn't go to a Catholic college. But I went to a Catholic school k-8th grade and then a public school 9-12 grade. I can say I received far superior education in the former. To say Catholicism hasn't contributed anything to education or to the sciences is silly. Much less claiming that it teaches not to care about knowledge of the world.
I just really don't like that Dawkins guy. He makes some very generalized claims.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
