Letters to the Editor
-
michaelben
Psychology and sociology are both relatively young sciences that touch on those issues.
As to various "spiritual" beliefs which when put into practice have historically worked - it was not belief that made them work - in my honest opinion, I don't think it was belief that really introduced them.
It was very human, very scientific observations of the world around us that then got translated into superstition as people sought easy explanations for why doing things a certain way worked.
-
Midnight04
I'm pretty sure you're assuming the man is a teacher in a public school. He's not. He's teaching in a "Christian" school. And I'm quite willing to bet he's not a certified teacher or even a college graduate. Nobody in our "school" ever was.
-
Religion is religion and Science is Science
I have a bumper sticker that says: "What our schools need now is a moment of science."
As a teen, I was a devout Catholic. I remember asking my 9th grade biology teacher to explain the contradictions between evolutionary biology and what I had been taught about Adam and Eve.
He said, religion is religion, and science is science, and this is science class.
His tone of voice was matter of fact and I don't recall feeling confused or offended as a Catholic.
This was in 1987, before Intelligent Design controversy, and several years after the Scopes trial(which we learned about in 11th grade American History).
My mother is still a devout Catholic. I'm not.
While I was still in high school, I decided it would be a good idea (good in the "moral" sense of the word) to read the whole bible cover to cover. My Mom said, don't do that, it won't make any sense. She'd been taught in Catholic school not to read the bible, but rather, to read the missilette, the little book of bible excerpts approved by the Catholic Church.
I read the Bible cover to cover. What an absurd soap opera!
That might have been the beginning of my 15 year journey from Catholicism to Spiritual New Ageism to Agnosticism to Buddhism to Atheism. So my Mother probably had good reason to try to dissaude me from reading the bible.
I never had a science teacher try to persuade me from belief, though.
Now I am probably a cultural Catholic, so to speak, since I appreciate the traditions even if I don't actually believe the myths. And I am raising my kids in my husband's "faith"-- cultural Judaism. My in-laws are doctors-- research scientists, and observant Jews. For them, religion is religion and science is science.
My cousin has lymphoma, and I in her honor, I am donating to the Lymphoma Society so that science can find a cure. I am donating blood to the local cancer treatment center. And I am also lighting candles for her once a week at the local cathedral, because she is a faithful Catholic who appreciates the prayers.
Intelligent Design is for the weak-minded religious who can't hold competing ideas in their minds. The resulting cognitive dissonance threatens their faith. It is too bad their kids have to be lied to.
-
Indoctrination
I am not a creationist, but I am a Christian, and I find the tone of this letter offensive, though not for the reason one might expect.
It doesn't bother me that the writer is an atheist. We have those, and always will. Nor does the writer's obvious arrogance bother me. He seems to delight in telling us that his friend realizes religion is "full of holes" and thinks it is funny that his friend has periodic episodes of doubt. (Personally, I think anyone who never doubts his own views is dangerous, but that's another story.)
What bothers me is the statement that teaching creationism is akin to child abuse. As if children are little machines that we program, and they grow up and simply spout off whatever garbage is dumped into their heads when they were young.
If that were true none of us would ever think anything their parents hadn't thought first, something we all know is not true. By thinking this way, the writer buys into the same silly logic conservatives use when they say college professors are brainwashing their students into liberalism.
In the 1960s and 70s, we had some of the most liberal university faculties in history, and the kids then certainly played the liberal part. But what happened? The kids grew up, became Reagan Republicans, and were much more conservative than their parents, often more conservative even than their great grandparents. If colleges are so good at brainwashing students, why did the 80s and 90s produce so many MBAs and yuppies? Because -- surprise! -- the kids took in what their liberal profs had to say, and rejected it.
People think for themselves. They grow up, and come up with their own ideas. Anyone who thinks he cannot outgrow his indoctrination needs to look at his own mother and ask if his opinions are co-identical with hers. I know my mom and I think differently.
If your own mom can't perfectly indoctrinate you, nobody can. Religious belief is not brainwashing, and it changes as people grow up. Mine did. Worrying about kids that are being taught creationism is worrying too much.
-
@ michaelben
If Nature includes human nature, then science, to be complete, must include seeming facts about human nature in its matrix of falsifiable propositions.
That is true. Human beings are a part of the natural world. But, I repeat, human beliefs don't keep airplanes flying, or bridges from collapsing, or medicines from attacking the wrong cells, or plastic bottles from outgassing poisonous vapors into carbonated beverages...and on and on and on.
Science, as many other posters have pointed out, is a process by which one observes, thinks about, and draws testable conclusions about the world around us. Someone who has been taught their beliefs trump evidence, who doesn't understand the importance of the process, has not been taught science and is not qualified to build airplanes, erect bridges, develop medicines, and do all those other countless things that keep our civilization from tottering back to the dark ages.