(June 13, 2013 at 2:46 pm)Undeceived Wrote:No objection to history or philosophy, as long as it's free of religious dogma.(June 13, 2013 at 5:07 am)Esquilax Wrote: By verified I mean demonstrable. If you can't demonstrate it to be true- or at least provide evidence that it exists- then you can't rightly call it to be factual. Since you could never hope to demonstrate that Jesus was the son of god, you have no right to expect that it be taught as fact in schools, any more than someone who worships any other god has. We simply do not give equal time for unsubstantiated ideas in the educational system, regardless of how many believe them, no matter how fervently; when you learn about World War two, equal time is not given to holocaust denial, because that's got no evidence to support it.
Why would you want to teach things that aren't demonstrated as true in the first place?
So we should only teach science? No history or philosophy? I thought we taught undemonstrable subjects so we could deliberate and flesh them out. Isn't deliberation the purpose of democracy? How else are kids supposed to learn to think critically? What about important topics that are not undisputed? Is it even possible to decide which topics are undisputed unless we deliberate on them?
But if you believe that we should teach that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins, and was resurrected, explain to me why we shouldn't also teach that Zeus is the child of Cronus, and is the supreme being and ruler of all the gods?
Do you also believe that we should teach that Jesus was just another prophet, that Muhammad was the last prophet -- and that Abraham was actually really a Muslim?
And I don't mean teaching in a historical sense here, I'm talking about teaching the theological significance in each case. Do you not see the problems with this?
On what basis can you justify teaching only your particular flavor of dogma?
