|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 5:50 pm
NOTE: for the purposes of this discussion, by Atheism I am refering to either HARD Atheism (disbelief in deity) or SOFT Atheism (lack of belief due to ignorance). This should go without saying, but no insults to Atheists or Atheism is intended.
Guilds were down for such a long time, I actually went and did some stuff back in the ED forums. As usual, not the best place for intellectual discourse, but one thread in particular made an interesting idea come into my head. The thread is one some of you may know, but was asking who or what was responsible for the rising numbers of Atheists in the United States. While the poster pointed a finger at Christianity, I came up with an alternative hypothesis.=
Lack of religious education in schools or elsewhere, plus inadequate instruction about the nature of science, is a cause of increasing Atheism in the US.
While this is of course only a hypothesis and I have no idea if this is supported by the literature, there are quite a few things that point to this as a reason for the rise in Atheism or non-religious individuals (main points are boldfaced for ease of read).
Science is taught and a required subject in schools across the nation. Religion is not. Religion is also a way of explaining the world around you, but it is all but ignored by schools for various reasons. People end up learning only the religion of their parents, if any, and usually remain ignorant of other systems. If they get dissolusioned with their own, they know of no other religions to study and dismiss religion entirely out of ignorance. They then turn to the only other model they have for explaining the world around them: science.
As science is a taught subject in schools, depending on who you are, it gets drilled into your head more than religion. It's a simple matter of psychological conditioning. With schools focusing on logic and science but neglecting spirituality and subjects like philosophy or psychology, it's really no surprise, is it? Kids make sense of the world with the information they have available, and information on science is simply more readily available.
A third support for this is how science is taught in schools. The philosophy of science is not taught, which leads to a misunderstanding of the abilities and limitations of science as a discipline. Children mistakenly conclude that science holds all the answers and that it can, or will eventually be able to explain everything we need to know. They misunderstand that science is not about 'facts', it's about the method. They also seem to misunderstand that no matter how strongly a phenomena has been documented by this method, that doesn't mean it holds true in all conditions or is absolutely true.
There are undoubtedly other reasons for the rise of Atheism... disillusion with Christianity is certainly among them. But disillusion without the above wouldn't be resulting in a rise in Atheism, we would simply be seeing people convert to other religions. So what do you guys think of the hypothesis and its three supporting points? Is it supported by what you have observed from your perspective? Have an alternative hypothesis you'd like to propose?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 7:18 pm
I don't know. I don't think science and religion are mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:14 am
SyphaBelnades I don't know. I don't think science and religion are mutually exclusive. Some self-proclaimed Atheists (among others including theists of course) seem to think that is the case, though, and I wonder why? I wasn't trying to imply here that they are mutually exclusive; I hope it instead got across that they are complimentary. I cut some stuff out for length, though, so maybe that didn't get across as strongly as I wanted it to. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:21 am
I hope that everyone who reads this knows your hypothesis only fits according to public schools, and some private schools.
Other private schools and religious schools (such as the abundant catholic schools) could easily ruin your hypothesis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:41 pm
chaoticpuppet I hope that everyone who reads this knows your hypothesis only fits according to public schools, and some private schools. Other private schools and religious schools (such as the abundant catholic schools) could easily ruin your hypothesis. ok, some private schools i can understand, but the catholic schools have a rather narrow religious studies. and from looking at the people in my school who went to catholic school until 8th grade, it makes even more atheists than the public schools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:14 pm
Schildkrote chaoticpuppet I hope that everyone who reads this knows your hypothesis only fits according to public schools, and some private schools. Other private schools and religious schools (such as the abundant catholic schools) could easily ruin your hypothesis. ok, some private schools i can understand, but the catholic schools have a rather narrow religious studies. and from looking at the people in my school who went to catholic school until 8th grade, it makes even more atheists than the public schools. I can't say I would know, but considering that kids who go to private schools are a minority, it doesn't negate the hypothesis. A hypothesis does not have to hold true under all circumstances. A theory does, but I'm not proposing a theory. whee It is interesting to look at religious schools, though, and how that might effect people's adherence to a particular faith. Common sense tells you that it would influence it in favor of keeping the religion, but is this really the case? It's unwise to say without doing a good scientific survey. Good idea to think about at any rate, so thanks for brining this up. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:28 pm
Starlock I can't say I would know, but considering that kids who go to private schools are a minority, it doesn't negate the hypothesis. A hypothesis does not have to hold true under all circumstances. A theory does, but I'm not proposing a theory. whee While it is true that a hypothesis need not serve a universalality, however, the closer to a universal one can make a hypothesis makes it seem as a better hypothesis (until the point where it becomes a theory). In other words, a narrower hypothesis, in this case, would be best. Possibly an if, then statement would be even better. Something like "if kid x goes to a public school, then kid x is more likely to become atheist..." Quote: It is interesting to look at religious schools, though, and how that might effect people's adherence to a particular faith. Common sense tells you that it would influence it in favor of keeping the religion, but is this really the case? It's unwise to say without doing a good scientific survey. Good idea to think about at any rate, so thanks for brining this up. 3nodding If I knew enough about Jay Haley and his pyschological experiments regarding paradoxical intent, I would be able to argue how it is quite clear that common sense is wrong. Unfortunately I don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 2:13 am
Starlock Science is taught and a required subject in schools across the nation. Religion is not. Religion is also a way of explaining the world around you, but it is all but ignored by schools for various reasons. Religion and science cannot be compared so easily, methinks. Neither really 'explain the world', and what one does explain is usually quite different from what the other does. Also, which type of religious education do you think should be taught? Starlock With schools focusing on logic and science but neglecting spirituality... There's a reason for this, ma'am. [Perhaps too] simply put, science is based on reason while religion [and most 'spiritual' beliefs] are usually based on faith. When one makes a decision about one's beliefs, one should have a reliable way of telling which one is more likely to be true, yeah? This can only be done with reason, really . Furthermore, the effectiveness of scientific thought is demonstrated by it's present accomplishments. Starlock But disillusion without the above wouldn't be resulting in a rise in Atheism, we would simply be seeing people convert to other religions. So what do you guys think of the hypothesis and its three supporting points? Is it supported by what you have observed from your perspective? Have an alternative hypothesis you'd like to propose? Back in the olden days, there really was only one choice of rleigion; the religion of whatever culture you were in. However, there are many alternatives nowadays; and it is when people make a choice, that people critically analyse their options. It makes no sense, ma'am, to believe that one thing is true, unless you have reason to believe that it's more likely to be true than the other options. But since practically every religion makes non-falsifiable claims, it's not particularly easy to say that one is more likely to be true than another. Thus, one does not choose any religion. That is, I think, one cause of rising incidence of atheism. Anyway, I agree about how the philosophy of science is not taught enough. I've never actually had a class where the reasoning behind experimentation or falsifiability or anything like that was taught. Eh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:50 am
Mechanism Religion and science cannot be compared so easily, methinks. Neither really 'explain the world', and what one does explain is usually quite different from what the other does. Also, which type of religious education do you think should be taught? I don't claim to know nearly as much on the theology side of this, as it isn't a major field of study for me like science is. To try to keep the initial post shorter, I didn't elaborate as much as I should have on 'explaining the world.' Religion focuses on why things are they way they are from a more philosophical standpoint while science explains the patterns of how they are that way. So science, in some senses, gives you a less emotionally deep explanation that is less emotionally fulfilling than one from a religion can give you. I can't even count the number of times I've sat in my biology classes and wondered why that particular function was that way... you know.. *really* why. Although science ususually can provide a reason, there nearly always seems to be something more to it than that. Maybe that's just my sheer amazement with the world in general getting to me, but that's something spiritual, not rational. whee Mechanism [Perhaps too] simply put, science is based on reason while religion [and most 'spiritual' beliefs] are usually based on faith. Those who have faith in something have as much reason for having those beliefs as those who believe in science. Perhaps a better distinction would be science is based on empiricism and religion generally is not? Both are based on reason... vitually all controlled human thought has some rational course to it. Both require an element of faith as well. Mechanism It makes no sense, ma'am, to believe that one thing is true, unless you have reason to believe that it's more likely to be true than the other options. But since practically every religion makes non-falsifiable claims, it's not particularly easy to say that one is more likely to be true than another. Thus, one does not choose any religion. No, it doesn't make sense from a certain point of view, however, that doesn't preclude a person from having a religion. There are those who are faithful in the absolute, and then there are those who are more open-minded. You can believe in your given system, but not neccesarily believe it is the absolute end-all truth. You believe it because it is what makes the most sense to you, not neccesarily because you think your answer is more right than another. Some might classify this as an Agnostic Theistic point of view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:12 am
Starlock So science, in some senses, gives you a less emotionally deep explanation that is less emotionally fulfilling than one from a religion can give you. Agreed. (Although, personally, I don't care so much about emotional fulfillment from an explanation.) Starlock I can't even count the number of times I've sat in my biology classes and wondered why that particular function was that way... you know.. *really* why. I don't quite know what you mean here. 'Why' something is, is it's causes, right? So, the direct causes of something are 'why' that something is. Starlock Those who have faith in something have as much reason for having those beliefs as those who believe in science. Well, by 'faith', I meant 'belief or trust which is unevidenced/unsupported'; by faith, I was referring to dogmatic religions, I suppose; as far as I've seen (although I've mainly seen Christians), most people just believe in their religion with no real reasoning behind it- they just believe it. Starlock Both are based on reason... vitually all controlled human thought has some rational course to it. Both require an element of faith as well. Not really. Reason is only used in verifying truth, but it seems that most people will just an accept a religion without really questioning it. That's not to say that some spiritual beliefs can not have logical reasons behind them, but there are many causes besides reason for a belief in something. Emotional causes. Also, it's theoretically possible to believe that scientific theories are true purely by reason; which wouldn't involve any 'faith', by my definition of the word. Starlock No, it doesn't make sense from a certain point of view, however, that doesn't preclude a person from having a religion. Right. But I still think that that's one cause for the higher amount of atheism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:12 am
Mechanism Starlock I can't even count the number of times I've sat in my biology classes and wondered why that particular function was that way... you know.. *really* why. I don't quite know what you mean here. 'Why' something is, is it's causes, right? So, the direct causes of something are 'why' that something is. Okay. I didn't elaborate to avoid making the post uber long. Heh. Basically, I ask myself, why is the mechanism this way instead of that way? Why, out of the infinite possibilties, is it like this instead of some other thing? It captures a sense of wonder and amazement at the world. Then you always wonder if science truly has the right answer, and if there even is such a thing as a right answer. The senses of humanity are limited after all. Science is the best observational model we have right now, but I think it's important to not forget the entire field holds a huge species bias. Mechanism Starlock Those who have faith in something have as much reason for having those beliefs as those who believe in science. Well, by 'faith', I meant 'belief or trust which is unevidenced/unsupported'; by faith, I was referring to dogmatic religions, I suppose; as far as I've seen (although I've mainly seen Christians), most people just believe in their religion with no real reasoning behind it- they just believe it. Yeah, I've noticed that there are those who seem to come to this conclusion about faith. I make a point of correcting it where I see it. Faith =/= blind faith. One can be theist or atheist and still question one's beliefs. True faith includes confronting the uncomfortable questions and resolving them, not turning a blind eye to challenges. The reason why I said science involves faith as well, is because you have to have confidence in the methods used and in your data. Any good scientist knows that the human element introduces subjectivity no matter what you do but you trust yourself and the instruments anyway (ie faith). You trust your ability to reason, even though you know you are only human, that theories change, and new data will come along that may disprove it. More fluid forms of religion (often called spirituality in today's lexicon) are exactly the same. If anything, faith (or put another way, arrogance/confidence) is involved in trusting your own ability to reason, is I guess what I'm trying to say. And if you have studied psychology, humans are not nearly as rational as they think they are. wink I can throw you out an example if you'd like. Humans are prone to make severe errors in judgement under many different circumstances. It's almost laughable if it weren't so embarassing. whee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:50 pm
Starlock Mechanism Starlock I can't even count the number of times I've sat in my biology classes and wondered why that particular function was that way... you know.. *really* why. I don't quite know what you mean here. 'Why' something is, is it's causes, right? So, the direct causes of something are 'why' that something is. Okay. I didn't elaborate to avoid making the post uber long. Heh. Basically, I ask myself, why is the mechanism this way instead of that way? Why, out of the infinite possibilties, is it like this instead of some other thing? It captures a sense of wonder and amazement at the world. Then you always wonder if science truly has the right answer, and if there even is such a thing as a right answer. The senses of humanity are limited after all. Science is the best observational model we have right now, but I think it's important to not forget the entire field holds a huge species bias. the short answer is that's what came about first. with Evolution, if it's not broke, it doesn't get fixed in a sense. do you have any more specific examples?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:12 am
Aaah, it can be difficult to understand if one has not thought in this way before. You have to forget about the scientific mechanisms for a second, and forget all the evidence for them.
Then look at something like a tree, and wonder how it got to be the way it is. Why does it grow as tall as it does? Why does it have that shape?
Science can give us some of these answers, but do we ever really know the whole answer? It'd be pretty arrogant of humanity to think that it can, given our species bias and sensual limitations. What if the way we see things is off by a bit? By a lot? Can we ever know, then, why a thing is the way it is in terms of absolute truth?
In other words, while science is an excellent tool for discovering mechanisms of why things are the way they are, it's unlikely they can provide the whole picture. As a good scientist, you keep asking all those questions anyway even if you think you know the answer. To me, that means acknowledging the limitations of science and the human senses to understand the nature of all things.
Is there a divine essence in all things? Is there a divine creator? I don't claim to know, but something else is probably going on that we just can't see as human beings. That opens one up to the possibility of things outside the realm of science. I also feel part of being a good scientist is to not close out possibilities even if you cannot currently test them.
In the end, people follow the paradigm that works best for them. If nobody else agrees with what I've said or even followed all of it, that's okay. Following straight science and being secular is no better/worse than following straight theism if it serves the needs of its believer well. As someone who is more in the middle, I have trouble understanding sometimes how people can restrict themselves to one side or the other, though. whee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 11:51 am
Okay, I apologize for not reading the whole of everyone's posts, but c'mon people.
Now then, it appears the main conflict is that science and lack of religion in schools cause atheism, and the old conflict of science vs. religion has cropped up again.
My view.
In the US, the seperation of church and state is one of our most important philosophies. At least in my view. If religion was taught in schools, at least adherance to a certain religion, we would be suppressing the right for everyone to choose a religion. If we did not teach science in schools, we would not have valuable skills needed to get a job in our society. The right of schools to teach from a secular point of view prevents any religion from insinuating itself as the main religion and getting instant converts. Though Christianity has always been out main religion, if we taught all young children to be, say, Hindu, that would quickly end. Brains are most malleble at their youngest age. I'm not saying Christianity or Hinduism are bad. I'm just saying it is the child and the parents choice what religion they will study.
Now, if we taught the main ideas of world religions, from a secular point of view, I think that would be a great idea. We are exposed very little to opposing points of views as children, which leads to ignorance of other religions, which of course leads to misunderstandings, and causes such problems as prejudice and "holy war." I have encountered many who were ignorant towards islam, and those ones believed such propaganda as evidenced by the "Muslims believe killing Christians gets you into heaven, it says so in the Koran!" Which, while fringe groups may believe things like this, Islam actually says none such in the Koran. I'm so sorry I took so long to finish this, and I see my debate is probably no longer relevant....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:10 pm
People are not educated in religion or other matters of philosophy. I guess I never quite flat out said that the kind of education I was speaking of was religious diversity. I made a thread on that in here (or some forum) earlier, so apologies for not making that clear. Teaching religious diversity would not only help people see there is no 'science vs. religion' (for the moment I don't want t elaborate on this, just read some of the above posts and some of that idea comes out in them) but also help foster tolerance. Ignorance is lack of understanding. Lack of understanding can evoke our basic fear of the unknown, and we shun such things as a reflex.
Oh, and a reminder, I think the words I used were that lack of religious education may be *a* cause of Atheism, certainly not the only one. I haven't done my research into correlational or experimental studies. It's on a long list of things I want to look into. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
