3 edits
Originally posted by Pianoman1"the staggeringly ignorant dictum that faith is more important than evidence... " Would the premise allow that all three means of the human acquisition of knowledge (empiricism, rationalism and faith perception) play varying dominant and/or passive roles in both teaching and learning, depending on the educational status of the student and scope of the topic?
To teach young children today that the world is less than 10,000 years old amounts to the most awful abuse. To warp young minds with the staggeringly ignorant dictum that faith is more important than evidence is more harmful than sexual abuse. To deny the youth of today access to scientific empiricism because it doesn't corroborate a fable written by a wan ...[text shortened]... love of knowledge. I believe the teaching of Creationism in schools to be a very serious crime.
Footnote: And that physical, emotional and mental abuse of children are all criminal activities?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWhat is 'faith perception'?
Would the premise allow that all three means of the human acquisition of knowledge (empiricism, rationalism and faith perception) play varying dominant and/or passive roles in both teaching and learning, depending on the educational status of the student and scope of the topic?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by twhiteheadim having doubts, it seems harsh using the word 'abuse' . it probably just being a bad parent. maybe it should only be called abuse if the child is made to feel bad or scared to express a different opinion than their parent.
Is not doing so child abuse?
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfieI think the concern in the OP, is how long lasting the effects are. For example if you are taught as a child to respect your elders whatever they do, this may have an impact on your life even as an adult.
maybe it should only be called abuse if the child is made to feel bad or scared to express a different opinion than their parent.
In fact members of societies where that is the norm might even say not teaching a child respect for their elders is child abuse.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadAt an earlier time in your life, you learned the basics of chess from a mentor or book. One day your accumulating knowledge included the option of being able to promote a lowly pawn to one of four other more powerful pieces when it was moved to an opponent's first rank. Though you hadn't yet experienced this transformation nor able to fully explain its rationale, you accepted this new perception on faith because you accepted the authority of the mentor or author of a book on chess.
What is 'faith perception'?
In third grade I learned about a place named "Australia" from our Geography teacher Mrs. Keefe; a few weeks later she taught the class about another place named "Austria". Lights went on. I raised my hand and when recognized said, "Oh, Austria must be quite close to Australia". "Not quite, Bobby. They're located many thousands of miles away on other sides of the globe." My eyes were opened to a new fact which violated my reasoning. To this very day I believe those two places exist (though I've never visited either) because of my trust and confidence in Mrs. Keefe's authority at the age of eight.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWhy the odd terminology? Why not just call it learning from others, or learning from authority?
Though you hadn't yet experienced this transformation nor able to fully explain its rationale, you accepted this new perception on faith because you accepted the authority of the mentor or author of a book on chess.
Thank you everybody for your incisive and interesting thoughts. It is continually amazing to me how fertile the human imagination is. As Albert Einstein observed without imagination we are nothing. I would liken this thread to the human brain, with millions of synapses making connections with millions of other synapses to enable lateral thought and great leaps of "faith" to travel effortlessly from one idea to another. The perfect way to conduct a forum. So far we have covered:
*Creationism
*Evolution
*Child abuse
*Atheism
*The nature of faith
*The nature of humanity
*Indoctrination
*The Qu'ran
*Zen Buddhism
*Obamacare
*Science
*Maths (Math for our Us friends)
*Healing Testimonies
*General Relativity
*Violent crimes in 13th century Europe
*John and Revelation
*Last Thursdayism
*Moderation
*The Omphalos Hypothesis
*Freedom of thought
*Setterfield's decay of the speed of light
*Sun / Moon discussion and relative light properties
*Genesis
*Dice throwing
🙂
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI use whatever terminology I know and try to use the best amongst that set. I am not saying your terminology is wrong, I just find it strange. I googled it and couldn't find any other references to that term whereas empiricism and rationalism immediately give me their wikipedia pages.
Maybe I read all the wrong books at Northeastern University in Boston and since.
May I ask how do you manage to employ correct terminology consistently?
I am just curious as to where you got the phrase. Which book at your university used that phrase?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI believe in the scientific method and I am also a young earth creationist. The scientific method does not prove evilution. Evilution is a belief by some, not because of the scientific method, but because of a philosophy of science.
No, I do not. But then I am not sure such things can be compared anyway. Is stealing from a shop worse than punching someone in the face? Which is worse, torture or rape?
PS. And his OP does not say 'teach faith'. He is specifically referring to the practice of teaching children young earth creationism and then supporting this by teaching them that the scientific method is wrong.
The Instructor