That makes sense, but not every culture has the same moral code. How did people decide what was right and wrong in the first place?
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Creationist school's plea is denied by state board
- Thread starter The Scotsman
- Start date
That makes sense, but not every culture has the same moral code. How did people decide what was right and wrong in the first place?
Werbung:
Not at all.
Morality is merely the FIXED yardstick by which the value of human actions are measured.
To say that morality is relative is simply absurd. It is tantamount to saying that there is no morality, and that good and evil are merely functions of one's own sentiment.
But, we, as human beings, have an intuitive knowledge of what is good or evil, no? In fact, I cannot imagine human existence without it.
The golden rule isn't an exclusively christian value. The major religions of the world has some form of the golden rule incorporated in them.
To answer your question -- of course you can abide by the golden rule and reject christianity. What makes christianity a distinct theology is not the golden rule.
I beg to disagree.
A moral good is merely a COMMAND OF REASON. In this sense, the theology of st thomas acquainas overlap abundantly with the secular moral philosophy of kant.
What made christianity revolutionary during its conception is the assertion that the creator is both pure love and pure reason. This paved the way to the inexorable union of secular morality with the realm of the spiritual.
Because it is imbedded in the order of creation, in the same way that rational laws are imbedded in the motion of all things.
The truth is, all rational human beings have an intuitive foreknowledge of good and evil. The fact that this manifests differently in different cultures does not detract from its truth.
Then, the Islamic fanatic who believes he will go to heaven by slaying as many infidels as possible does so out of an intuitive forreknowledge of good and evil?
Actions like honor killings and stoning of sinners are also due to that same intuitive foreknowledge. Of course, I see your point now.
Eh?
I said a moral good is a command of reason.
What exactly in honor killings and stoning to death would make you believe that they are commands of reason, hmmm?
The same way we come up with new laws in society all the time. Something bad happens... it affects people in some way... we come up with a way to avoid it in the future and/or penalize people from doing it through some type of punishment.
Actually that's why you see such a wide range of religious consequences. Because the world wasn't just Christian based. It like all religions started in a spot and spread out from there.
In some religions they still believe in cutting off a finger or a hand for things like stealing. (Boy... that makes the don't steal statement huh...
) Christianity itself obviously isn't the guide for moral right & wrong everywhere... there are many paths that have nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity contains information that has it's way to go down a path to some moral values. But one can also be extremely moral and not be Christian at all.
Native Americans had a set of morals before the white man came and brought Christianity. Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims and Jews and even Scientologists all have their own pathways to moral values.
And for that matter one needs no formal religion at all to have morals. You don't need religion to know not to steal or kill or bare false witness etc. because an intelligent human being can on their own form an understanding of how that would feel if same was inflicted onto them.
Morals evolved from human experiences. All religion did was take those experiences, catalog & preach them.
The Scotsman
Well-Known Member
16% of US science teachers are creationists
Some further reading for you from New Scientist
............................................................................................
Despite a court-ordered ban on the teaching of creationism in US schools, about one in eight high-school biology teachers still teach it as valid science, a survey reveals. And, although almost all teachers also taught evolution, those with less training in science – and especially evolutionary biology – tend to devote less class time to Darwinian principles.
US courts have repeatedly decreed that creationism and intelligent design are religion, not science, and have no place in school science classrooms. But no matter what courts and school boards decree, it is up to teachers to put the curriculum into practice.
"Ultimately, they are the ones who carry it out," says Michael Berkman, a political scientist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park.
But what teachers actually teach about evolution and creationism in their classrooms is a bit of a grey area, so Berkman and his colleagues decided to conduct the first-ever national survey on the subject.
'Not shocking'
The researchers polled a random sample of nearly 2000 high-school science teachers across the US in 2007. Of the 939 who responded, 2% said they did not cover evolution at all, with the majority spending between 3 and 10 classroom hours on the subject.
However, a quarter of the teachers also reported spending at least some time teaching about creationism or intelligent design. Of these, 48% – about 12.5% of the total survey – said they taught it as a "valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species".
Science teaching experts say they are not surprised to find such a large number of science teachers advocating creationism.
"It seems a bit high, but I am not shocked by it," says Linda Froschauer, past president of the National Science Teachers Association based in Arlington, Virginia. "We do know there's a problem out there, and this gives more credibility to the issue."
Better training
When Berkman's team asked about the teachers' personal beliefs, about the same number, 16% of the total, said they believed human beings had been created by God within the last 10,000 years.
Teachers who subscribed to these young-Earth creationist views, perhaps not surprisingly, spent 35% fewer hours teaching evolution than other teachers, the survey revealed.
The survey also showed that teachers who had taken more science courses themselves – and especially those who had taken a course in evolutionary biology – devoted more class time to evolution than teachers with weaker science backgrounds.
This may be because better-prepared teachers are more confident in dealing with students' questions about a sensitive subject, says Berkman, who notes that requiring all science teachers to take a course in evolutionary biology could have a big impact on the teaching of evolution in the schools.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...s.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news3_head_dn13930
................................................................................................
One assumes that there needs to be a stricter oversight from school principals over their departments! If the curriculum requirements are being infringed then surely these "Science" teachers need to be taken out and either trained or dismissed.......or moved to Religious Education classes!
Some further reading for you from New Scientist
............................................................................................
Despite a court-ordered ban on the teaching of creationism in US schools, about one in eight high-school biology teachers still teach it as valid science, a survey reveals. And, although almost all teachers also taught evolution, those with less training in science – and especially evolutionary biology – tend to devote less class time to Darwinian principles.
US courts have repeatedly decreed that creationism and intelligent design are religion, not science, and have no place in school science classrooms. But no matter what courts and school boards decree, it is up to teachers to put the curriculum into practice.
"Ultimately, they are the ones who carry it out," says Michael Berkman, a political scientist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park.
But what teachers actually teach about evolution and creationism in their classrooms is a bit of a grey area, so Berkman and his colleagues decided to conduct the first-ever national survey on the subject.
'Not shocking'
The researchers polled a random sample of nearly 2000 high-school science teachers across the US in 2007. Of the 939 who responded, 2% said they did not cover evolution at all, with the majority spending between 3 and 10 classroom hours on the subject.
However, a quarter of the teachers also reported spending at least some time teaching about creationism or intelligent design. Of these, 48% – about 12.5% of the total survey – said they taught it as a "valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species".
Science teaching experts say they are not surprised to find such a large number of science teachers advocating creationism.
"It seems a bit high, but I am not shocked by it," says Linda Froschauer, past president of the National Science Teachers Association based in Arlington, Virginia. "We do know there's a problem out there, and this gives more credibility to the issue."
Better training
When Berkman's team asked about the teachers' personal beliefs, about the same number, 16% of the total, said they believed human beings had been created by God within the last 10,000 years.
Teachers who subscribed to these young-Earth creationist views, perhaps not surprisingly, spent 35% fewer hours teaching evolution than other teachers, the survey revealed.
The survey also showed that teachers who had taken more science courses themselves – and especially those who had taken a course in evolutionary biology – devoted more class time to evolution than teachers with weaker science backgrounds.
This may be because better-prepared teachers are more confident in dealing with students' questions about a sensitive subject, says Berkman, who notes that requiring all science teachers to take a course in evolutionary biology could have a big impact on the teaching of evolution in the schools.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...s.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news3_head_dn13930
................................................................................................
One assumes that there needs to be a stricter oversight from school principals over their departments! If the curriculum requirements are being infringed then surely these "Science" teachers need to be taken out and either trained or dismissed.......or moved to Religious Education classes!
Exactly what part of my posts suggests to you that honor killings and stoning to death are moral goods, hmmm?
While I am inclined to agree with everything you said in principle, there is really no need to belittle the contributions of theology to human knowledge.
What the secular moral philosophy of kant calls a categorical imperative is simply st thomas' divine law in summa theologia. And while kant used logical rigor to arrive at the categorical imperative, st thomas started with the unwavering faith in the existence of the creator to discern his divine law.
Two paths towards the same conclusion. Your choice.
I apologize if it appeared I was belittling the contributions of theology. That was not my intent. I feel that there has been importance in explaining & organizing the good & bad, right & wrong that make up moral values.
I believe whole heartedly that everyone should take some time to research & explore a wide range of varying religions and their teachings. I feel it gives one better perspective as to if they really relate to any particular religion.
Or if they come away with so many doubts that they really don't want to participate in any formal religion. Some people remain spiritual in their own private way... others just don't believe in any of it.
I'm big on... to each his own... so I hope we're good.
Go back and check it for yourself. I'm tired of doing your homework for you.
Werbung:
Re: 16% of US science teachers are creationists
But, how many of the principals also subscribe to the young earth fantasy, and how many are intimidated by the number of parents who do?
But, how many of the principals also subscribe to the young earth fantasy, and how many are intimidated by the number of parents who do?
