CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
At my public high-school in New Zealand the science department has some posters up which support atheism. One such example is a poster which quotes Richard Dawkins saying *"How thoughtful of God to arrange matters so that, wherever you happen to be born, the local religion always turns out to be the true one."* There are other atheist and anti-theist posters up around our science department.
My question is: Is this okay?
I thought this would be interesting, as the usual conversation about this sort of thing is centered on public schools condoning religion, especially in the U.S. I definitely believe that to put up posters supporting a religion in a public school is wrong, and I'll post my argument concerning atheist posters (and similar things that condone atheism) below.
NOTE: I am not looking for an argument as to whether or not it *is* legal, but as to whether or not it *should be* legal. Also, anybody who says that atheism is a religion, will be banned immediately. As per usual, keep things civil in this debate. I also don't want this debate to get into whether or not a god exists, let's try and remain neutral here.
I'm an atheist.. I believe in NOTHING.. I've said repeatedly on these pages, that you can't promote NOTHING.. If you're TRYING to promote something, it ISN'T atheism..
Upon further reflection, I thought these posters were pro science, rather than pro atheism.. But they certainly might be trying to convert people.. And proselytizing ISN'T something a REAL atheist does.. So, I changed my mind. Public schools should not teach science by promoting atheism.
If it's worth anything, I appreciate you taking the time to further reflect on this. If it had been a poster about science or about evolution, it wouldn't matter to me but the saying in that poster isn't meant to further science; it's a mocking commentary with no educational value. Personally I like his "By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out." quote.
If it is the school itself putting up the posters, then it is acceptable only if it also puts up pro-theism posters. If it is teachers or students putting up the pro-atheism posters, it is acceptable only if teachers and students are also allowed to put of pro-theism posters.
I don't believe that avoiding the expression of positions is desirable, or even possible, in an educational institution. Avoiding exposing students to controversial ideas doesn't equip them to navigate controversial ideas. It leaves them unexposed to different ideas, and inexperienced in navigating disagreement. So long as there is equal opportunity for expression, I don't see an issue.
An interesting idea, but then you would have to represent each religion and denomination equally. Since there are about 4,200 religions and 45,000 denominations of Christianity. Estimating that each religion has the same number of denominations that's approximately 189,000 combinations.
I don't want to see a science room with all the 189,000 combinations of religion and denomination. There would be no room for anything else including the periodic table.
Furthermore, which religion gets placed where? The competition for the prime spaces in the front center part of the room. Do we place the Fundamental latter day saints? The Satan worshiping poster? Or a picture of Thor? In conclusion, your proposition of equal opportunity is impossible.
My sentiments, exactly. NO religious posters, NO Atheistic posters, at least in public schools (and public places). Believe what you wish but keep it from being propagandized! If I still wanted to believe in Zeus or Neptune, etc. I should have that right. Putting that belief out in public would make me look a little crazy, wouldn't it?? (O.K. Outhouse60, I gave you an opening no 7th grader would pass up ... waiting for your 7th grade response). ;-) We shouldn't have to be showered with anyone's crazy beliefs, if everyone kept them to themselves, we might finally achieve world peace ..., nice!
Why do people have to keep publicising their beliefs ?
Over here no one ever really talks about their religious beliefs and it's seen as rude to do so , that's from a country that's steeped in the Catholic tradition
You're correct if people just kept to themselves that would have the desired result
Why should you have that right to belief? Why shouldn't you have to be showered with others' beliefs? Is it strictly predicated upon the social outcome you predict? I'm just curious.
"At my public high-school in New Zealand the science department has some posters up which support atheism."
Crazy AL the poster is talking about New Zealand public high school did you pay attention to the subline of the heading ? Or is it you just wanted to rant as you normally do ?
Thank you, I agree completely. If one wants to suggest they are better for their belief (or non belief) then they should act better and not fall back on the same actions they mock others for doing. That's for both/all sides. If you hate how one side presents itself, don't go about doing the SAME thing to prove your own point. Ya know?
Did we have enough of it from the religious because it was indoctrination or because it was indoctrination disagreeable with our own values and beliefs? It seems to me that "indoctrination" is just the word that gets used to refer to instruction one disagrees with whereas "education" is used to refer to sort of instruction one agrees with. I'm dubious that it's even possible to not indoctrinate so long as we're committed to instruction in some form. It's just down to a matter of opinion what is agreeable and what isn't.
Further, if condemning others for using indoctrination is useful to advancing one's values and using indoctrination is also useful for the same end... then why shouldn't one do both? I don't see that consistency necessarily has any value in its own right.
Very much as an aside... Atheism isn't a religion by most definitions of the word, but it can be a belief system if it goes beyond the singular claim that god does not exist. And just as with theism, there are various ways to be an atheist. If it's Dawkinsian or Harrisian atheism, then the only remarkable difference is that the truth valence for the proposition god is reversed. While that's not religion per say it's nevertheless fairly indistinguishable (and a significant part of why some theists claim atheism is a religion).
We had enough of it because we were never given any choice in the matter ; education could hardly be called 'indoctrination ' as one is learning mostly factual agreed upon information as in Geography, language , Math etc,etc, non of theses subjects are down to a matter of opinion.
I first started hearing Atheism is a religion from American believers and it was always used in a sneering way as if to imply ' well you're down on religion but you guys are a religion also '
For me like most Atheists, Atheism is a position on one question and that's it , nothing else .
Learning geography, language, maths, etc. wouldn't be a choice any more than learning religion. The absence of choice seems significant only when not having a choice is concurrent with things being decided in a way one doesn't like. Which returns us to "indoctrination" being ascribed to instruction on the basis that one finds it disagreeable.
That geography, maths, etc. are mostly agreed upon explains why their inclusion in curriculum doesn't tend to be controversial. But it doesn't prove that their inclusion is fundamentally different from what's being regarded as indoctrination, and it doesn't prove that they're correct either. Their soundness is absolutely a matter of opinion, as none of them are actually proved at any point.
Most atheists might just take the singular position, but that doesn't undermine my observation. There are people to whom atheism is a belief system, particularly in the US where Dawkins, Harris, and similar ideologues gained traction. To the American theist, then, the condescending observation of similarity is actually somewhat founded since that usually the atheism they're referring to. It's no more sound for the atheist to say "well, they're not really atheists" than it would be for a theist to say that about other theists.
Jace I've attempted to explain several times what indoctrination is regards religion you obviously have never been religiously indoctrinated, I'm not going on with this any longer .
Most atheists do take the singular position if others wish to turn it into a belief system , fine , I'm happy enough the way I am
No, I haven't been religiously indoctrinated (at least not to notable or direct extent). But I have been indoctrinated, nevertheless. I don't know why you don't want to acknowledge anything else as indoctrination, but your experience alone isn't logically sufficient to support your exclusionary view on indoctrination (because I could appeal equally to my own). You're obviously not obliged to continue the discussion, but those were final clarifying thoughts I wanted to add.
I don't acknowledge what I do not believe is correct , the universally accepted meaning of the word now suddenly becomes my' exclusionary view ' according to you which I find unfair commentary to say the least .
The commonly accepted meaning of 'indoctrination' does not "suddenly" become your exclusionary view. Firstly, because there is nothing sudden to a line of argumentation. Secondly, because that isn't even my argument. My position remains that the commonly accepted meaning of the word is neither relevant in context nor actually the same as your view anyways. Further, as your view excludes a class of beliefs from prospective inclusion under the concept of indoctrination it is necessarily an exclusionary view by definition; that's a matter of fact, not of judgement.
If you should care to identify what in particular about my analysis is unfair and explain why it is unfair, then I would gladly receive that argument. However, misrepresenting my argument and asserting that it's not fair is not a repudiation.
I said .......I don't acknowledge what I do not believe is correct , the universally accepted meaning of the word now suddenly becomes my' exclusionary view ' according to you which I find unfair commentary to say the least .......
How did I misrepresent your argument ?
I claim it's unfair for the reasons I keep stating
I have already explained at length how that statement misrepresents my argument. If you care to actually address any portion of that analysis and explain where I am incorrect then I would be glad to observe that argument. As it stands, though, you've merely evaded the matter through bullheaded denial.
What reasons are those, precisely? To the extent that your preceding commentary ever constitutes argumentation, it doesn't touch on fairness in the least. Asserting that earlier rationales which never even alluded to fairness somehow establish unfairness is evasive. Can you actually point to any particular statement of mine which was unfair? If such statements do exist, then identifying them really shouldn't be as difficult as you're making it.
You said .........It seems to me that "indoctrination" is just the word that gets used to refer to instruction one disagrees with whereas "education" is used to refer to sort of instruction one agrees with. I'm dubious that it's even possible to not indoctrinate so long as we're committed to instruction in some form.......,
You keep misusing the term indoctrinate to describe all instruction , you know very well the meaning but for some reason persist in asserting the opposite, this is the unfairness I speak off
Alleging misuse is a far cry from demonstrating it. Similarly, excerpting my remarks so as to remove their supporting analysis is a far cry from addressing that analysis. I have already explained at length why all instruction is indoctrination, and I am not altering the definition or asserting its opposite in order to draw that conclusion so the misuse and unfairness you allege is baseless. (And if misusing definitions is unfair, then that makes you a guilty party.)
In reiteration...
The definition of indoctrination which you provided is "to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view” or “to teach systematically to accept doctrines, especially uncritically". I am using that definition verbatim and am not confused as to its meaning (even though you keep trying to change it by introducing your preferential biases into its tautology as warrant for your preferential biases). There is nothing oppositional about holding 'indoctrination' and 'instruction' as synonymous, as their respective definitions do not preclude it.
My conclusion follows from epistemic nihilism. If we fail to presume certainty on all matters, against our common instruction, then it becomes evident that instruction is indoctrination because it is the practice of systematically teaching an uncritically received doctrine of certainty where there is none. It is necessary to presume as true that which is not proved true, in order to instruct on concepts advanced therefrom. Any profession of knowledge absent certainty is a profession of high-credence belief... and therefore a preference, a bias. When more than one axiom is presumed, as happens in instruction, there is doctrine. All criteria which must be satisfied by the definition of indoctrination are satisfied by the operative essence of instruction.
The further implication, then, is that any selective ascription of 'indoctrination' to a class of beliefs is a preferential expression of personal bias against those beliefs and in preference for those secured against such ascription. This is because all instruction on any beliefs is indoctrination, but only those beliefs which one is averse to are identified accordingly. Ironically, this hypocrisy is itself a regular consequence of indoctrination into the doctrine of certainty (which is hypocrisy compounding itself).
Yeah atheism is hardly a religion. It contradicts Christianity and makes no sense. They claim there is no God and yet claim atheism is a religious belief? It's just like relativism claiming there is no good nor evil nor right nor wrong but in doing so, the term's definition contradicts itself completely.
Although I myself am an atheist, and don't mind the posters, I still think that it is not okay. One might say that it is different, as atheism is not a belief system, but I don't think that's enough to make it okay. I think it's pushing some sort of view which is not directly related to what is being taught at school, and that the students should be left to make up their own mind. It's not that I worry anybody will be offended, just that it's not the schools job. The school should not be making any comments about the validity of religion, especially since the younger students may be easily influenced by things like this, and won't then make up their own minds. I want atheism to become more popular, but not through underhand methods such as this. If the school's science department thinks that skeptical scientific thinking leads to atheism, then they should teach skeptical scientific thinking, not atheism. I'll leave it at that though, as I don't want to get into a debate about whether or not a god exists here.
I am open to a good reason as to why it is okay to put up these posters though.
What I question in your analysis here is whether students are really so impressionable that the mere exposure to a few posters is going to give them fixed ideas about anything. The idea that we need to shelter them to this extent suggests to me a level of disbelief in students' critical thinking capacity which is inconsistent with trying to develop critical thinking (after all, the capacity has to exist to be nurtured). As long as students, faculty, and staff are allowed to put up pro-theism posters as well then this seems to engage students in an active, real life process of applying critical thought and navigating disagreement.
More radically, maybe we don't want schools to be egalitarian and maybe we do want them to indoctrinate students into a certain way of thinking. If we really believe that theism is a harm, for instance, then we should want to prevent them from being theists. Ideology being about affecting circumstances to the conclusion one desires, I think this is defensible.
The youngest students at the school are 12 to 13, so I would argue that they are impressionable, I was probably a bit impressionable at that age, although I never noticed the posters until I was about 16 (I don't know if they were up then), and already an atheist, so maybe the younger kids just don't care about it?
I think that they already try to develop critical thinking at the school, I remember one lesson where we were learning about the age of the earth, and the teacher gave us an article written by creationist Ken Ham, and asked us to evaluate its reliability. (Everyone seemed to agree it was rubbish) I have no problem with this, as science is directly opposed to creationism. (For that reason I'm okay with the poster(s) that are anti-creationism, and anti-conspiracy theory, etc) I think that they make students evaluate the reliability of sources enough in science, history, etc, that the atheism posters are entirely unnecessary in the development of critical thinking skills.
Also, probably the biggest problem, is that I don't think the staff are allowed to put up pro-theism posters, at least I've never seen any (I'm pretty sure it's just one teacher in particular putting the posters everywhere, not the school). The school has had some (entirely optional) Christian prayers at assemblies though, so you could say that they have endorsed Christianity as well as atheism?. I think the only reason the atheism posters are permitted is that they are under the guise of science (whether or not atheism is a scientific view).
Interestingly, I can't find anything in NZ law addressing things like the putting up of posters that support either theism or atheism.
As to your last point, I understand you, but I think a theist could make an equivalent argument that religion should be encouraged, even if we disagree with their reasoning. For that reason, even if it would be beneficial to endorse atheism, I doubt it would ever happen overtly.
If youth are really so impressionable as all that, then trying to teach them critical thinking seems rather ill-fated from the offset. Either they can't learn it so what's the point in trying (and shouldn't we try to indoctrinate them by our interest before others get to them?), or they can in which case they should be able to autonomously think about a simple poster on their own.
Already, at the point where one has determined even just to teach critical thinking and science a stance has been taken by the educating institute about the legitimacy of ideas. Drawing a line such that anti-creationism and anti-conspiracy are acceptable but anti-theism isn't seems muddled to me, particularly where creationism is a theistic doctrine and religion might be considered a conspiracy.
I'm not inclined to support the instruction of youth in creationism, theism, or what I consider to be conspiracy. I think you're inclinations are quite similar. But the only basis from which to preclude them is to preference the narrative of reason and science over theistic or otherwise non- or anti-reason philosophies. What I'm suggesting is that that isn't actually a problem, largely because the value of egalitarianism has been overstated.
So what if the theist can make the same argument? What matters is whether they can control the preponderance of power necessary to realize their vision. There's nothing inherent in their narratives stopping them from imposing their values through educational institutions, and in fact their narratives often encourage the effort. But egalitarianism's close association with secularism weakens advocacy for pro-reason and pro-science proponents, by limiting how and when theocratic values can be pushed out. If we sincerely value reason and science and are convinced that youth should be educated according to those values, then we have an immediate interest in securing those values against competing interests.
I admittedly don't know the situation in NZ as well as where I've lived, but I'm nevertheless not very convinced that this non-egalitarian competition can't occur overtly. Not only theism but politics broadly has a history of denying the obvious and coming out ahead. Religion claims to be about love but preaches hate, and this did not undermine it (resistance did). Political party claims to be for the people but passes laws which harm them, and this does not undermine them (resistance does). Morality claims to be about protecting the greater good but isn't, and this doesn't undermine it (resistance could). People are not predominantly rational, and presuming they are is a costly strategic error. Why can't we overtly be anti-theistic and just claim that we're not? What actually prevents that?
(Interesting that NZ doesn't have clear law on something like posters, but I don't think the US does either. It's mostly in the common law...)
"or they can, in which case they should be able to autonomously think about a simple poster on their own."
I'm not sure that makes sense. I think they can learn it, but simply haven't learned it yet. That means teaching it would make sense, as it would yield results. I think it's better to keep the children free of indoctrination either way until they can understand critical thinking better, and be left to analyse the situation objectively. At the end of the day that's just my opinion about what is right (which I think we both agree isn't enough to make it right), and perhaps perhaps it would be more beneficial to indoctrinate them into out interests, as you put it, but I personally don't think that would be fair, or right.
"Already, at the point where one has determined even just to teach critical thinking and science a stance has been taken by the educating institute about the legitimacy of ideas."
I think it's okay for the educating institute to accept scientific ideas as valid, simply because they seem to work, although this might be unprovable. This means that they shouldn't accept things which are directly in conflict with accepted science, this would be hypocritical. Creationism is directly in conflict, and when I said conspiracy theories I meant ones that were in conflict with science too, like "global warming is a hoax" or "Bigfoot is real" if one would call these conspiracy theories. Things like the existence of God aren't directly in conflict with science - there's no scientific evidence against God.
"The value of egalitarianism has been overstated"
An interesting point. Treating people equally is beneficial to society as a whole I would expect (Can we agree that the goal is to get what's best for society here?) , as it won't result in people rioting, etc. about injustices. I'm not sure how to go about deciding whether or not egalitarianism has been over-valued.
As for your last two paragraphs, you make a good point in saying that egalitarianism prevents both good and bad narratives in this sort of area being put out be govt. institutions. I think if reason and science are as good as we think they are they should take over anyway if it is possible to prevent any sort of indoctrination into non - reason things. I think you might be wrong to say that egalitarianism prevents pro science and reason being advocated for by the govt. There's nothing to stop the govt. promoting reason, just that they might not be able to promote things like atheism, even if they are the product of reason.
When you say "Why can't we overtly be anti-theistic and just claim that we're not? What actually prevents that?" I'm not entirely sure what your point is.
I often wonder why schools do not have classes in critical thinking skills ; over here they are talking about introducing philosophy into classrooms from junior level upwards .
I went to a totally unique school where we had a one hour philosophy class three times a week ; it instilled in me a love of the subject that's ongoing .
Either a reflection on the motives or aptitude of educational infrastructure, no?
My school only offered one semester of philosophy, and it was purely elective (great for me, but not a great reflection on the educational system). Did everyone take the course at your school?
The school was seen as innovative at the time and was totally different to the accepted model ; the ministry of education were trying different approaches to the accepted model at the time , the school was possibly a testing ground for these endeavours .
The course was factored into the school program , one could opt out if one wanted in favour of another class in a preferred discipline .
I'm not sure that makes sense. I think they can learn it, but simply haven't learned it yet. That means teaching it would make sense, as it would yield results. I think it's better to keep the children free of indoctrination either way until they can understand critical thinking better, and be left to analyse the situation objectively.
I didn't put that forward very well. I should clarify that the context is very significant to my observation here; it's a matter of magnitude. If something as minor as some posters can really translate into a fixed idea and prevent the development of critical thinking in youth, then that suggests critical thinking is an exceptionally fragile thing (which makes teaching it rather futile).
If we're speaking more broadly, though, then I do see your point. I still don't agree, but that's because I'm rather cynical about the human capacity for critical thinking. I don't regard it as a common attribute, at least not in any rigorous form. Even if people are taught it consistently and well, I'm not confident the outcome would be critical thinkers. There's just never been sufficient pressure for us to develop that way, and being illogical is sometimes even a greater asset. Reasonable people are the outliers and there's not much education can do about that on my view.
At the end of the day that's just my opinion about what is right (which I think we both agree isn't enough to make it right), and perhaps perhaps it would be more beneficial to indoctrinate them into out interests, as you put it, but I personally don't think that would be fair, or right.
It's an interesting dilemma, isn't it? To have an interest against indoctrination that requires at least the minimal indoctrination into valuing critical thinking to resist indoctrination. I'm curious how you might approach that, while still holding to the view that indoctrination more broadly isn't fair or right. I don't think indoctrination is wrong, so it's not a conundrum I run into myself... and I haven't been able to think of a way around it.
I think it's okay for the educating institute to accept scientific ideas as valid, simply because they seem to work, although this might be unprovable. [...] Things like the existence of God aren't directly in conflict with science - there's no scientific evidence against God.
That seems reasonable to me, and consistent within the value you identified in science. But it still seems to be indoctrination into the value of science at the exclusion of other views, on the basis that they aren't legitimate on a scientific view. How is this not a form of indoctrination? Or if it is, how is it defensible while other forms aren't? (Basically, my preceding question again...)
An interesting point. Treating people equally is beneficial to society as a whole I would expect (Can we agree that the goal is to get what's best for society here?) , as it won't result in people rioting, etc. about injustices. I'm not sure how to go about deciding whether or not egalitarianism has been over-valued.
Usually a safe assumption, but no. I don't believe that society exists, so I also don't believe in the social or collective welfare. Even if I did, it wouldn't be my goal. I'm an egoist. I like a certain bit of interpersonal stability but only insofar as it benefits me and those I actually care about (which, frankly, isn't most people). Egalitarianism isn't necessary for that, just avoiding extreme inequality (and maybe not even that, so long as people feel sufficiently well off themselves).
But beyond all of that, my concern is that I think many people (not you specifically) treat the values of egalitarianism and social welfare as interchangeable when they are distinct. It isn't necessarily the case that social welfare is only or best achieved through egalitarianism, and I think quite a bit is presumed on that score. Personally, I think we would all be better off if we were all more (honest about being) egoistical. There is a fair bit of dishonesty around egalitarianism, which purports to be of value for what it does for people while also using them for ends that aren't their own. I don't like that, and it gives me pause in what I presume it is capable of outcomes that I might like.
I think if reason and science are as good as we think they are they should take over anyway if it is possible to prevent any sort of indoctrination into non - reason things.
You are supposing that if reason and science are really as valuable as we personally find them to be that, absent indoctrination into anything (including science and reason), people would naturally turn to them. I don't think that follows. It presumes a certain intrinsic value to reason and science that simply doesn't exist. It's only valuable because we find value in it, and I don't think it's just indoctrination that keeps people from finding value in reason and science. People are governed by sufficiency, not optimization, and reason and science can be a real inconvenience relative to just accepting things as they suit a person.
I think you might be wrong to say that egalitarianism prevents pro science and reason being advocated for by the govt. There's nothing to stop the govt. promoting reason, just that they might not be able to promote things like atheism, even if they are the product of reason
Taking a positive stand for any thing, reason and science included, is to preference that thing relative to other things. That's not egalitarian. It's preferential. And coming from the government, it's indoctrination.
When you say "Why can't we overtly be anti-theistic and just claim that we're not? What actually prevents that?" I'm not entirely sure what your point is.
It's a bit tangential at this point, but it was in response to your point that if we pursue indoctrination then other people can too. Alongside the observation that others will pursue indoctrination anyways, the gist of this remark was that we can practice double standards and refuse people who disagree with us access to the same avenues of action by denying that we're taking them and then faulting them for being oppressive tyrants (or something to that effect). It's a proved tactic, really (I'm only a little jaded).
For your first segment, the part starting at "I didn't put that forward very well," and ending with "about that on my view," fair enough. I suppose I don't have a lot of faith in people either, but I still think it's worth trying to teach them, as at least a few would likely pick it up.
"I'm curious how you might approach that, while still holding to the view that indoctrination more broadly isn't fair or right."
Let me try: I think indoctrination is morally wrong (I don't believe in objective morality (in that sense anyway), so maybe that's a bit hypocritical of me, but I see it as my subjective opinion) and I want to try to avoid it happening. At the same time I also want to 'indoctrinate' people to think critically, to defend them against indoctrination. It's kind of like the problem where people say there's absolutely no possibility of absolute knowledge, it's a bit self contradictory. Thinking about the question more, indoctrination is to teach one to accept (or reject) a belief uncritically, so teaching people to accept beliefs (or reject them) critically would be the opposite of indoctrination. Perhaps the teaching of critical thinking skills is best done along with the teaching of other things - I'll use an example as I'm not sure how to explain it: In a physics/science class, a teacher teaches the class the basic formula: v= d/t. To do this, they don't just show the students the formula, but they carry out a basic experiment - rolling a ball down a slope with a stopwatch or something (technically, this would only give the average velocity (the ball accelerates) from v=d/t, so this is a bad example and now I'm getting sidetracked, but you get my point). They would then be teaching students to accept the belief critically, by testing v=d/t to see if it works, and therefore not indoctrinating them.
With methods like this, I don't think that teaching critical thinking skills counts as indoctrination. I think that the only thing that can be taught without criticism is criticism itself, there's no other way. Maybe you could criticism critical thinking, but that would be circular.
An alternative way to get around this problem is to just say that, according to my moral beliefs, the good of indoctrinating people with critical thinking outweighs the bad of indoctrination itself, although this might lead to the old slippery slope situation, where you could then try to squeeze other things in. Also, for all of my examples, they already use things like rationality, maybe the act of critical thinking is rational itself? I'm kind of batting ideas about here, as you may be able to tell.
"(Basically, my preceding question again...)"
I'll refer you to my preceding answer then.
"I don't believe that society exists"
Could you maybe give a short reason why you think this, I won't debate you on this but it would be interesting to hear your opinion. In what way does society not exist? (You could just link me something if you don't want to explain.
"It isn't necessarily the case that social welfare is only or best achieved through egalitarianism"
I see that egalitarianism isn't necessarily true, I suppose all people aren't equal, and maybe some deserve better opportunities. Perhaps realization of this would benefit society if that's the goal, more efficient allocation of resources?. I think for now, I'll stick with the goal of getting what's best for society, and I realize now that egalitarianism ins't necessarily the path to that. I also acknowledge that there is definitely egoism in what I personally want - for example, I personally value things like scientific exploration, and might rather see that funded more than things that will directly help people. (You might have seen that in my "should we look for aliens" debate.) At the end of the day though, I would (in a hypothetical situation) probably vote for someone who wants to increase net social welfare over someone who wants to fund NASA more, even though I personally might prefer the NASA option.
"It presumes a certain intrinsic value to reason and science that simply doesn't exist. "
Fair enough, I see your point in this paragraph.
"Taking a positive stand for any thing, reason and science included, is to preference that thing relative to other things. That's not egalitarian. It's preferential. And coming from the government, it's indoctrination."
I think I can somewhat refer you to what I said earlier, about teaching critical thinking as a means of evaluating what students are learning in school for why it might not be indoctrination, at least in the way I gave the example of (the v=d/t thing). I see though that it isn't egalitarian, but as I said in the part before this paragraph, I now see why egalitarianism mightn't necessary for social welfare.
"we can practice double standards and refuse people who disagree with us access to the same avenues of action by denying that we're taking them and then faulting them for being oppressive tyrants"
I see that such a thing would be possible, but as you know, I wouldn't want to do that for my personal moral reasons.
This got lengthy rather quickly... pick and choose as you like?
Regarding whether teaching critical thinking constitutes indoctrination, and the implications.
You observe that indoctrination is to teach one to accept (or reject) a belief uncritically, so teaching people to accept beliefs (or reject them) critically would be the opposite of indoctrination. However, this confuses the axiom of critical thought itself with the observations drawn from it. While something like v=d/t may taught critically, that is different from a critical instruction in criticality itself. But you further observe that the only thing that can be taught without criticism is criticism itself, there's no other way. Maybe you could criticism critical thinking, but that would be circular.* That is precisely the dilemma, though. Criticality cannot prove itself, and to step beyond it to prove it would necessarily disprove it.
You draw a parallel between needing to indoctrinate against indoctrination and the problem of claiming that there's absolutely no possibility of absolute knowledge, highlighting both as self-contradicting expressions. Somewhat unexpectedly, I find that I disagree; I think that we can be certain that we must be uncertain and that this isn't as contradictory as it seems. Critical thought is unprovable and non-falsifiable not because of some certain extant fact of the matter, but as a consequence of its own internal nature. In other words, both the concept of certainty and the the instruments to prove it are internal to the axiom itself. That we can be certain that we must be uncertain is only a contradiction if we presume that certainty is extant outside the axiom of critical thought rather than being of that concept.
Because critical thought cannot be proved or disproved, whether one believes in it is a consequence of its intuitive appeal taken on faith. Therefore, it is indoctrination so long as critical thought is taught as a proved and certain thing because by virtue of itself it cannot claim to be that. Now, it is of course possible to teach critical thought adjacent to this epistemic nihilism... but whether that is desirable or feasible are other matters entirely. I'm dubious most people could grasp the certainty of uncertainty, and attempting to instruct critical thought with that acknowledgment of its nature seems more likely to turn people off of critical thought than towards it. Epistemic nihilism is regularly taken to devalue critical thought although it doesn't disprove it or make any observation of its value to individuals. The effect of teaching critical thought in order to avoid its constituting indoctrination, then, runs a reasonable risk of undermining the very thing one hopes to develop esteem for: criticality.
Because I'm a value nihilist, this isn't a particular issue for me. The course of action is clear: indoctrinate people into critical thinking at the expense of other beliefs that run contrary to it. Consistency in opposing indoctrination strikes me as an impractical exercise in principles I don't place value in. But for you, navigating the trade-off between the practical and the principled effects of the decision seems trickier. Is it possible for you to just accept that you are doing a bad thing as the lesser evil to permitting a worse thing to be done by others? Is there an ethical justification for that, do you think, and if so is it really a bad thing? I guess I'm wondering if "indoctrination is morally wrong" might be a bit less absolute, with certain allowances granted by a broader ethical framework.
Regarding the existence of society
If what is meant by 'society" is "the indeterminant, dynamic and complex series of innumerable interpersonal interactions between persons which affects the conditions of their existences", then I would say that it exists. However, this is not what is commonly meant by it so I say that I disbelieve in its existence. What is commonly meant by 'society" doesn't correspond with an extant phenomenon. It's an abstract concept used to transform complex and dynamic phenomena into simple and fixed ideas, in order that we might discuss that phenomena which is otherwise to complex and dynamic to refer to. I'm not categorically opposed to that, but to the confusion of a simplistic representation as the actual phenomena. In other words, I'm against usage which projects that simplified version of extant reality as a truth. For instance, when society is conferred agency or singular interest as a body itself; things like the "collective well-being" or "social welfare" require an actual object to adhere in - "society" - which I don't believe exists. Put another way, I think there are only individuals and that the collective exists only conceptually. There is social interaction between persons, but no society.
Regarding egalitarianism and egoism
I wouldn't go so far as to say that anyone deserves anything by their merit, but simply that people do get what they get by virtue of their merit. That merit might be provided to them through the power conferred by others valuing their existence and condition, and that sort of transference of power by merit is what underpins the concept of egalitarianism. But it's not even a borrowed power, because one never really owns it. It's a condition of reliance, and not one which the conferrer or the conferee necessarily have the interest or power to assure. I just don't think egalitarianism is practicable, among other concerns.
The idea of "better for society" is not coherent to me, as you know now. I'm curious how you go about determining it though. You say you might rather see NASA funded than things that will directly help people, but also that ultimately you would act contrary to that. This leads me to wonder whether you really would rather see NASA funded more than tings that will directly help people. I think everyone is descriptively egoistic, and that our behaviors as much as our thoughts demonstrate the hierarchy of our interests. In your case, there seems to be interest in the social betterment that you conceive of independent from your own interests though; I'm interested in what that looks like if you'd care to elaborate...
As a practicing as well as descriptive egoist myself, I tend not to have so much discrepancy between what I feel I want and what ends I act to achieve. For instance, if I'd rather see NASA funded then I wouldn't vote for someone who would fund the alternative first. People are often somewhat repelled by my approach, but frankly I find altruistic claims disgusting (but that's rather another matter I suppose).
"Is it possible for you to just accept that you are doing a bad thing as the lesser evil to permitting a worse thing to be done by others? Is there an ethical justification for that, do you think, and if so is it really a bad thing? I guess I'm wondering if "indoctrination is morally wrong" might be a bit less absolute, with certain allowances granted by a broader ethical framework."
Yeah, I suppose that makes sense. Indoctrination into critical thinking will prevent against more indoctrination in the future, overall it's a lesser evil (assuming it's evil, etc) to indoctrinate into critical thinking. Like that 'if you could go back in time and murder Hitler while he was an innocent kid would you do it?" question, to which my answer would be yes. I think it would be worth it.
I get what you say about society, and agree.
"I'm interested in what that looks like if you'd care to elaborate..."
Basically, I'm following my own morals here. I don't always fully want to do that, as is understandable, but I feel a duty to do what I think is right, even if it is illogical. Then again, maybe it is logical to follow your own emotions and morality? I have a philosophy about morality that there are no intrinsically moral/immoral actions, e.g. you can't say murder is definitely wrong, but that it is (objectively?) moral to follow your own subjective morality, and do what you think is right, even if you don't entirely want to. Then again, perhaps if you have to choose between what you 'want,' and what you think is right, whatever choice you make will actually be what you want. In that respect, If I choose to vote to fund an alternative to NASA because I think it's morally right to fund the alternative, then maybe I did choose what I want. Did that last part make sense? In other words, I want to fund NASA, but I want to be what I think a good person is even more. Although, on the day I might vote differently depends on what I want more, don't know for sure yet, too young to vote.
But... Here's a question: Even if there is a form of objective morality, would it be rational to follow it? (assuming no side-effects like eternity in hell) Is emotion/wants a good enough reason? I think emotion can be a good reason to do things, we are humans after all. I don't want to think I'm bad, so I'll do what I think is right - that seems rational enough.
You'd be humoring my purely tangential curiosity is you'd answer... but I'm curious about your views on the value of moral principles (based on your comments here). Do you value them for their own sake at all, or solely for their effects?
You say Basically, I'm following my own morals here [...]
If I weren't a value nihilist, then I'd be a moral egoist. Personal want and personal morality are the same thing on my view, so the two operating at odds with one another doesn't even seem possible to me. I view the tension you've highlighted in the NASA vs alternative scenario rather differently than you. So I'm curious... why do you think it is understandable that you don't always want to do what is moral?
I agree with your view that there are no intrinsically moral or immoral actions, though our reasons may differ (I'm not sure). Your observation that it might nevertheless be (objectively) moral to follow one's own subjective morality is intriguing; you're suggesting it might be the case that the only intrinsic (possibly objective?) moral truth would be that one should follow their moral beliefs? Related, do you think it is immoral to preference a mere want before a moral want?
You ask: Even if there is a form of objective morality, would it be rational to follow it? Is emotion/wants a good enough reason? I think emotion can be a good reason to do things, we are humans after all. I don't want to think I'm bad, so I'll do what I think is right - that seems rational enough.
Really interesting question! I think... emotion is the only reason to do things (unless one counts instinct as a reason). Rationality is merely the most efficient means to achieving what one wants. There is a rational way to pursue an end, then, but nothing rational about the selection of the end itself which is strictly down to preference. If that is good or bad on some objective moral account, then there's nothing we could do about it nor do I see that it changes what is rational (though it would pass a moral verdict on rationality, perhaps).
So... if your end is not to think that you're bad and doing what you think is right achieves that, then it is rational to do what you think is right. But that doesn't make what you want or how you get it rational....... on my view anyways!
"I'm curious about your views on the value of moral principles (based on your comments here). Do you value them for their own sake at all, or solely for their effects?"
I'm not sure if value is the right word. The reason I follow them is mainly because I'll feel bad if I don't. Rational behavior to satisfy irrational desires, as you said in your last paragraph. I'm not really sure if I actually value my moral principles themselves, so I guess I don't value them for their own sake, I just value the effect of following them.
"Why do you think it is understandable that you don't always want to do what is moral?"
Temptation. Everyone who follows a set of moral principles will surely be tempted to disobey them for personal gain. I might always want to do what I think is moral, but I might want to do something else even more.
"you're suggesting it might be the case that the only intrinsic (possibly objective?) moral truth would be that one should follow their moral beliefs?"
Correct. I thought to add: We might already see some degree of adherence to this idea in that (I think this is true, it at least looks this way on T.V.) someone can't be convicted of a crime if they are unable to understand what they did wrong, at least in some countries.
"Related, do you think it is immoral to preference a mere want before a moral want?"
I think 'preference' might not be what you meant, as one can't decide what one prefers, so I don't see how that could be considered immoral. If I can replace 'preference' with 'choose (to satisfy)' then it makes more sense. In that case my answer would be (for myself) yes it is wrong (just off of emotions & instinct etc), but for others it would of course depend on whether they thought it would be wrong (although they might necessarily think it is wrong?) if I'm to follow the philosophy I mentioned to you. This kind of gets topsy turvy as an answer, let me know if it's unsatisfactory. There might be some circular reasoning in there. Perhaps my philosophy about doing what you think is right only works for people who believe the philosophy?
"There is a rational way to pursue an end, then, but nothing rational about the selection of the end itself which is strictly down to preference."
Exactly Mack. Science in fact was created by God Himself and evolution even cannot explain how life began. Most atheists were believers until something went wrong along the road for them. Thus their faith died. Some atheists have even explained near death experiences and saw Jesus and God. Then they started to believe again. These are legit stories from individuals who lost faith in God and then regained his or her faith. God is real and atheism makes zero sense. Atheists contradict themselves 100%.
I don't think any publicly funded school should be allowed to enforce any type of worldview.
This includes political parties and religions. While atheism is not a religion it is still a worldview. You can be a quiet atheist just as you can be a quiet Republican or a quiet Christian, but it remains something that shouldn't be forced on anyone.
Having a secular school is fine as it doesn't favour any one religion. Having a multi-faith school is something I'm OK with.
Having a school promoting atheism (rather than simply free-thinking) makes me uncomfortable as much as a school promoting Christianity, Marxism or anything else would make me uncomfortable.
I think it's dangerous to put up pro-atheism posters in a science department because it encourages the belief that science is directly opposed to theism when this is not the case.
Something like, "Question Everything" would be more appropriate as it's not pushing atheism but still encouraging young people to be independent thinkers -- something which a pro-atheism poster is actually not doing.
Something that'll help humanity irrespective of an individual's personal opinions, something that actually can give them jobs to earn money, something that you and me have learnt till date, only that it probably might be better in the future.
This presumes that preventing harm and optimizing benefit for the social collective is the better thing, but that's not necessarily the case. Why shouldn't individuals come first? Why is there any value in the well-being of the social collective?
Perhaps more importantly, how is the idea of a "greater good" coherent in the first place if we can't agree on what constitutes it? The very thing in contest around indoctrination is what is of value and worthy of being taught, so to suppose there's enough agreement on what's good for the collective isn't sound.
"Something like question everything" - That's philosophy. You can take that optional course in university. There is also religious studies which is optional in universities as well. It's not forced upon. I also agree, you can definitely be a Christian, republican, atheist in peace. I will tell you who are not acting peacefully though, those lgbt snowflakes. They need to be banned pronto. They are an issue to adults and to youth alike.
In my opinion, schools should be neutral on this, it is not their right to tell others to pick on religion or atheism, however I wouldn't mind debates, as that'll get the kids thinking, when we talk about schools, we are talking about people getting education and knowledge, what they(students) want to believe in should be none of their business. People from different religious beliefs come to study and we expect a school to be just as secular as egalitarian.
Why is the expectation that schools be egalitarian reasonable?
Egalitarian:
believing in or based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.
I think that should make it clear, it is reasonable.
Why isn't it the school's right?
A school is where people get education, on particular subjects, if religion was a subject, I have no problems with atheism and and religion posters being put up everywhere in the school.
Defining egalitarianism doesn't prove that it's reasonable, anymore than defining hierarchy proves it's reasonable. You've only established what egalitarianism is, but I'm asking if you can warrant your belief that it's reasonable. So, can you?
Similarly, defining a school as somewhere that people learn things isn't an explanation for why schools cannot teach certain things. So, again, why can't schools teach that either theism or atheism is wrong?
Defining egalitarianism doesn't prove that it's reasonable, anymore than defining hierarchy proves it's reasonable. You've only established what egalitarianism is, but I'm asking if you can warrant your belief that it's reasonable. So, can you?
I wouldn't have to, if you would have made sense of the definition. If not for egalitarianism, certain kids will not be given opportunities , with some being given opportunities. That means all kids won't get the same kind and quality of education, which in turn leads to untapped potential, which might end up being harmful for the nation, do I need to go on?
Similarly, defining a school as somewhere that people learn things isn't an explanation for why schools cannot teach certain things. So, again, why can't schools teach that either theism or atheism is wrong?
Little bit of logical reflection would be appreciated, I don't have any problems with math, or science or sports being taught in school, they don't cause any damage to people's personal opinions, and clearly, we are talking about kids here, who haven't reached their complete mental maturity to reflect upon what is supposed to be deep and
subjective. It's their choice after all, and talking about schools, you are referring to a place with a specific purpose, to learn. Keep religion and atheism as another subject, and It will come under what a school should cover. Schools trying to impose their ideology on a kid, seems crazy to me, so according to what you've said, why should terrorism not be taught in schools?
Nothing in the definition establishes reasonableness; that's not actually what definitions do. Now you've shown what the absence of egalitarianism might look like, and even ignoring the obvious deployment of an alarmist slippery slope you're still making a number of assumptions that aren't proved. Firstly, that not harming nations is reasonable. Secondly, that an absence of egalitarianism is requisite for healthy nations (and this is resoundingly contradicted by thousands of years of governments not only existing alongside inequality but thriving off of it). Finally, the soundness of every causal connection you claim exists.
That math, science, and sports don't harm anyone is entirely your opinion and not a matter of objective fact. It constitutes an inegalitarian preferencing of your own ideas about what constitutes a harm or benefit, at the expense of any and all competing conceptions of the good. You're contradicting your own value here!
To say simultaneously that it's their choice and that they're too immature to make choices isn't even the least bit coherent. Either they can make their own choices and this isn't an issue, or they can't so we have to choose something to teach them at which point we're necessarily preferencing some conception of value over others.
Why is the purpose of schools to learn, as opposed to indoctrinate? Just because you feel that's what they should do that doesn't mean they must be about that.
There isn't any objective reason that terrorism shouldn't be taught in schools. In some schools, arguably, it is. The only thing that keeps it from being taught is anti-egalitarianism which treats terrorism unequally be preventing it from being taught. That's really quite obvious I should think. If you're being a consistent little egalitarian, then you should insist that terrorism be given equal opportunity in schools!
You make a very good point here ......There isn't any objective reason that terrorism shouldn't be taught in schools. In some schools, arguably, it is..........
It certainly is taught in some schools and it comes under the guise of freedom fighting when it's taught , the subject came up daily and was normally part of our ' History class ' .
I went to a strictly Catholic school in the Republic of Ireland and we were left in no doubt as to what our duty was as so called ' Irishmen '
I don't have much to add in response, except that I appreciate the added perspective. I hadn't actually thought of it in that particular context, and didn't realize that that point of view was actively taught in that way (makes sense, though). Thanks for sharing.
Nothing in the definition establishes reasonableness; that's not actually what definitions do. Now you've shown what the absence of egalitarianism might look like, and even ignoring the obvious deployment of an alarmist slippery slope you're still making a number of assumptions that aren't proved
It certainly does, if you actually make sense of what the definition conveys and not just read it the way it is. Assumptions that haven't been proved?
those are what could possibly happen, because neither you nor me, know what is to come in the future.
That math, science, and sports don't harm anyone is entirely your opinion and not a matter of objective fact.
Well done, you choose to stick to calling it subjective rather than sticking to practicality, so in that sense everything is subjective and you have just proved that there cannot be any objective effect, something common for everyone... good luck with the subjective lounge, does it have a buffet?
To say simultaneously that it's their choice and that they're too immature to make choices isn't even the least bit coherent. Either they can make their own choices and this isn't an issue, or they can't so we have to choose something to teach them at which point we're necessarily preferencing some conception of value over others.
Kids change opinions over candies. Let's just say you're not the biggest fan of practicality.
Why is the purpose of schools to learn, as opposed to indoctrinate? Just because you feel that's what they should do that doesn't mean they must be about that.
Wow, so according to you schools are meant to indoctrinate, is it?
They are for educating children, not indoctrinating them.
The word school refers to a place where people get educated.
Oh wait, it must be different for everyone isn't it? since because you believe everything is subjective..
There isn't any objective reason that terrorism shouldn't be taught in schools. In some schools, arguably, it is. The only thing that keeps it from being taught is anti-egalitarianism which treats terrorism unequally be preventing it from being taught. That's really quite obvious I should think. If you're being a consistent little egalitarian, then you should insist that terrorism be given equal opportunity in schools!
this is exactly why I choose to quote definitions
egalitarianism: the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.
egalitarianism is based to giving opportunities and equal rights to people
it does not refer to ideologies.
you might say that by not providing opportunities, we restrict people from becoming terrorists, the opportunities are just the same, it's just that whether people are accessible to it, if you look for an electronic gadget in a store that sells clothes, you are definitely not going to find it, however, I would have to clear myself on what I mean by egalitarianism... , I refer to it in the more practical sense, rather than anything completely by the name of it, provided the debate title is raising an issue within practicality.
It certainly does [...] know what is to come in the future.
If you are doing anything other than reading the definition as it is, then you have stepped outside the definition itself and are bringing external ideas to it that the definition itself doesn't support. I told you which assumptions these are; they were the series of three identified with 'firstly', 'secondly', and 'finally' (you've addressed one). That something is possible does not mean it is certain, which is why the onus is on you to warrant your claims that those things happening is actually probable.
Well done, you choose to stick to calling it subjective rather than sticking to practicality, so in that sense everything is subjective and you have just proved that there cannot be any objective effect, something common for everyone... good luck with the subjective lounge, does it have a buffet?
Your opinion about what is practical is a subjective belief, based upon what is subjectively practical to you. Any opinion about anything is subjective, but it isn't logically entailed from there that everything is therefore subjective. Incidentally, subjectivity doesn't scare me; why do you think it's a problem?
Kids change opinions over candies. Let's just say you're not the biggest fan of practicality.
To the contrary, I place great personal value on practicality and nothing I've said actually suggests otherwise. Not that speculation about my preferences is a responsive argument to my point here. If you believe that kids change opinions over candles, then they don't get fixed ideas so indoctrination shouldn't even be possible on your own account and this is all a non-issue.
Wow, so according to you schools are meant to indoctrinate, is it? [...] you believe everything is subjective.
No. I don't believe they are meant for anything in particular. Their function has varied across time and place considerably. I'm asking you why you think they are meant to educate and not indoctrinate (presuming that's a real distinction, of course).
egalitarianism is based to giving opportunities and equal rights to people it does not refer to ideologies.
It does if freedom to expression is considered a right. If you don't believe that people should have equal access to expression in public institutions they have to help fund, then there's no basis for you to be opposed to indoctrination since by your own reasoning now that's not in-egalitarian.
If you are doing anything other than reading the definition as it is, then you have stepped outside the definition itself and are bringing external ideas to it that the definition itself doesn't support.
Understanding and applying the definition to the context of debate?
Your opinion about what is practical is a subjective belief, based upon what is subjectively practical to you. Any opinion about anything is subjective, but it isn't logically entailed from there that everything is therefore subjective. Incidentally, subjectivity doesn't scare me; why do you think it's a problem?
Science would be subjective then, wouldn't it?
But we have an aim through which we use the subjectivity, that is to use it for certain purpose, for understanding and making sense of something, this case makes subjectivity not so subjective to a considerable degree, which is in turn called practicality.
To the contrary, I place great personal value on practicality and nothing I've said actually suggests otherwise. Not that speculation about my preferences is a responsive argument to my point here. If you believe that kids change opinions over candles, then they don't get fixed ideas so indoctrination shouldn't even be possible on your own account and this is all a non-issue.
Well said,Of course they change opinions over candies, that's what proves to us that they aren't mature enough to pick sides, (which has it own consequences if indoctrinated), as kids have their own way of responding to issues, and when we know that they don't get indoctrinated, why try in the first place? which again leads me to believe that a school that is secular is better, as they don't waste resources and time on any particular thing(theism and anti-theism, in this case).
No. I don't believe they are meant for anything in particular. Their function has varied across time and place considerably. I'm asking you why you think they are meant to educate and not indoctrinate (presuming that's a real distinction, of course).
The most common purpose and reason to schooling is education, be it in today's world or in the past, that was one thing common in all the other things schools have done. Indoctrination was not the case throughout, and as I have mentioned earlier, the word school as we use it refers to place that is meant to educate.
It does if freedom to expression is considered a right. If you don't believe that people should have equal access to expression in public institutions they have to help fund, then there's no basis for you to be opposed to indoctrination since by your own reasoning now that's not in-egalitarian.
Indoctrination, leads to certain groups believing in something and that causes drift between them and other groups..(not necessarily in all cases, but definitely a difference in opinion), and when certain groups want to impose their ideology onto others,
Understanding and applying the definition to the context of debate?
But that's not what you're doing. You're adding multiple assumptions to the definition that it doesn't contain, and then claiming that those assumptions are a part of the definition when they plainly aren't since they aren't ever mentioned in it.
Science would be subjective then, wouldn't it?
The belief in the value and soundness of science would be, yes. Whether science itself is subjective isn't knowable, and that's rather the point here.
But we have an aim through which we use the subjectivity, that is to use it for certain purpose, for understanding and making sense of something, this case makes subjectivity not so subjective to a considerable degree, which is in turn called practicality.
Pragmatism doesn't make something less subjective at all. You don't transmute the nature of something just by assuming things about it and acting as though those assumptions are sound. And at any rate, "we" don't all have a singular aim so what's practical won't be consistent be between all people. That's why indoctrination exists.
[...] Of course they change opinions over candies, that's what proves to us that they aren't mature enough to pick sides, (which has it own consequences if indoctrinated) [...]
You haven't followed my point and your analysis here isn't coherent. If they aren't mature enough to pick a position and stick to it, then there can't be any consequences to indoctrination because indoctrination would be impossible. To be indoctrinated requires a capacity for holding a fixed position, which you've claimed kids don't have.
The most common purpose and reason to schooling is education, be it in today's world or in the past, that was one thing common in all the other things schools have done. Indoctrination was not the case throughout, and as I have mentioned earlier, the word school as we use it refers to place that is meant to educate.
Can you found this through reason or evidence in any way? It's also very vague; what constitutes "education" isn't necessarily consistent across time and place. It's very rare that anyone overtly calls what they're doing indoctrination, and they'll almost always call it education or instruction instead (and may even believe that's what it is).
Indoctrination, leads to certain groups believing in something and that causes drift between them and other groups..(not necessarily in all cases, but definitely a difference in opinion), and when certain groups want to impose their ideology onto others, egalitarianism is threatened.
This is non-responsive. Whether egalitarianism is threatened by indoctrination is immaterial to whether it is a contradiction to egalitarianism to oppose indoctrination. It's a dilemma for precisely this reason: egalitarianism cannot advocate for itself or oppose indoctrination without invalidating itself, but is weakened by indoctrination that disagrees with its outlook. The only way egalitarianism can serve itself is by invalidating itself, so it cannot serve itself.
That is a little too much. I'm an atheist and seeing a religious poster in school would tick me off a bit, so for a religious person to see a poster encouraging atheism or promoting it at the least would be very offensive. It's okay to not have the same beliefs and live different lifestyles, but you cross a line when you start disrespecting people's beliefs
I agree that the posters shouldn't go up (and I am an atheist too), but I'm not sure it's about disrespect, so much as it is about a public school to be supporting a certain position in these matter. I have no problem with religious posters going up, even ones that make fun of atheism, so long as they're aren't in any way supported by the government.
"you cross a line when you start disrespecting people's beliefs"
What exactly is wrong with disrespecting people's beliefs, especially if you think you have good reason to do so? With the classic extreme example; I see no problem with disrespecting a Nazi's beliefs. In fact I think it would be wrong to respect a Nazi's beliefs if you are against them.
(Note: I'm not trying to outright disagree with you here, just trying to understand what your opinion is, also note this not a question regarding the right to have the belief (I think they should of course have that right), rather, it's about whether people should have the right not to have their beliefs disrespected)
No, I believe that schools (Catholic and secular or no) should remain ideologically neutral, and only fulfil their purpose - being a centre of education and learning. You can't do that when you're propagandising an ideology, especially one that slams religion for doing that exact thing.
If the school is religious, it's not even okay to promote anti God content. If it's public schools, you obviously already have non believers who just want to finish school etc etc. So yeah, agreed, public schools should remain neutral. Lgbt content should be banned because it is sinful and immoral for kids regardless of religion or not. It's just common sense. Public schools are for normal education such as history, sciences, social studies, math etc etc etc not for immoral sexual subjective toxicity nor religious studies unless it's university where it's an option for those who want to understand God and the Gospel of Christ better.
I would not support allowing putting up pro atheism posters unless the school allows pro religion posters. They should have the same rules as religious posters.
If the school is private and religious, anti God posters are not allowed. Those are the rules. In public schools, neither side should be allowed because it will just drive everyone off the main goal of finishing their education and achieving a degree or diploma.
I completely agree with the sentiment of the posters; but school is not there to try and promote one religion over another, or promote lack of religion over religion, it's there to teach.
They don't need posters to promote one thing over another, just a focus on teaching Critical thinking and logical analysis and everything will come out in the wash.
Teaching is the promotion of one thing over another (well, really of many things over many other things). Why is it okay for things like critical thinking and logic to be preferenced, but not a religious or areligious view? Or, for that matter, why isn't it okay for illogicality and unreasonableness to be preferenced themselves?
I usually defend non-believers but I see no valid basis whatsoever to display pro-atheist propaganda in a publicly funded school.
By the way though, I notice that was in New Zealand. I don't know what laws or legal precedent or constitutional principles dominate in that country. I'm speaking from my own experience and opinion based on the USA.
Because school is a neutral playing field. Schools should not postulate one way or the other whether or not a God exists. Teachers should only present the evidence and let the chips fall where they may. I don't believe schools should allow biblical teaching but I also don't think they should openly state that there is no God
Agreed. Consequences always come with actions. Individuals will soon realize his or her mistakes. Actions aren't without consequences. Christianity is and always will be absolutely justified. But immoral content? Absolutely not! Especially drag queens and perverted twisted ideas of what love really is about.
a school should be a place were your ideas, NOT innocent values, are challenged, if you can put up pro-atheism posters, pro-theistic posters should also be allowed.
Exactly, tsun. Exactly. Double standards kicks in. Best for public schools to have normal education. No atheism, no biblical content. I believe that religious schools are needed more than ever for kids who want to learn about God and for those who have grown up that way. There is too much sin in this world. On the contrary, there are those who would promote immoral sinful content, therefore biblical content is justified. Religious studies should be taught by real professionals not biased subjective anti God promoters such as feminazis who hold no license nor knowledge of the Bible but subjective opinions. You are correct that it is individual's ideas that are challenged not moral innocent values such as Christian ones. Law school is all about debate and also around absolute objective truths. How a law student is able to find absolute truth is through the objective test. The three steps are to Think, analyze and finally resolving the given case. In law school, you will always find yourself debating on topics that you do not like nor feel comfortable about such as things like "Should we have neutral bathrooms" or "should gender reassignment occur if an individual' doesn't feel like a male or a female". Those are ideas that can be challenged because of morality itself; right vs wrong. Yes there is a fine line in law school and man, I am looking forward to taking a course in that.
No it is not okay. Is evolutionists promoting hatred of creationism okay? Never. Is upholding morality righteous? Yes because it is objective and absolute.
No because whenever Christians put up pro Christian posters, it's also complained about. However, Christianity is 100% justified. Atheism has been debunked 1000 times and will be another 1000 times. God is real.
I will say this, if it is a private religious institute, pro atheism should be banned on sight. All religious schools should be on it's guard about atheists disturbing the peace for those who have faith in God. In public schools, there should be a balance. No pro sinful content means(That means all lgbt content will be banned. Zero exceptions. The moment you bring in lgbt content, there will be Christian content. Kids are better off learning about the bible than sinful content that will twist their minds inappropriately. So best to keep that stuff out if you don't want religious people to get involved. Public schools are meant for education not for propaganda of the left extremist side. Snowflakes can't accept it but they should be expelled as well. "Sciencerules" is amongst those screaming snowflakes who supports such abominations) no pro religious stuff. Just basic courses, math, science, history etc etc. As one of the people here has stated, you should not promote faith in public schools nor say there is no God. A public school should be neutral in that and not involved. But these days, we do see promotion of sinful content such as "transgenderism" and lgbt content that are not appropriate for kids. Ban that and you won't see religious promotion as well. Morality exists whether you like it or not.
To add, in most universities and not grade schools, elementary nor Jr High nor High schools, there are optional courses that revolve around religion or philosophy. For students who want to understand the Gospel of Christ and religion, religious studies is such a course. You do not have to take it, however it is there for those who are interested. For students in university who are interested in philosophy, of course there is an optional course for them to take that as well. I took both and I will say, a toxic feminazi took over the religious studies one, causing students to learn nothing useful from it. She only taught propaganda and subjective opinion about the Bible and promoted such things like Christophobia, Truthphobia, pro baby murder aka abortion etc etc etc. She was the worst professor of religious studies I have ever encountered. She lost every debate and even promoted Hinduism which is a false religion and very messed up. As for philosophy, there were many debates about right and wrong. University is all about finding the right class and going towards your desired career so both philosophy and religious studies are optional courses. It's no big deal because it isn't required for you to take those. But if pro atheism posters were to be posted to target those who have faith in God, well I would say that's Christophobia aka irrational fear towards Christians. Public schools is for learning not for indoctrination into ideologies nor philosophies that go towards targeting and brainwashing people. Philosophy isn't what you think, subjective ignorant atheists. It is all about peaceful discussions, not violence and protests to force views down peoples' throats. Truth be told, God nor Jesus never forced their views onto anyone. People chose to follow Christ and some chose not to. Actions bring consequences. The wicked will lose. Snowflakes will melt mentally in a figurative way. Atheists have already been debunked. Christians aren't bothering people. Catholics are a nuisance. The pope is a joke. I am Batman. End of discussion.
The separation of church and state is the best we can do. I'd be much more worried about the biology teacher sneaking in a few creationists or Intelligent design arguments.
I also think a weak argument for slippery slope could be made. Satanism and Buddism don't have any all powerful God, and I'm not even sure of Satanism is a religion. You don't want pro-Satan posters in the school?
Oh really? So you are saying people are allowed to hate God while people cannot love God? Your hypocrisy exposes yourself. I would rather have teachers sneaking in creationist and biblical content than have corrupt drag queens expose nudes in front of minors. You are a criminal in society and your argument is invalidated.
As long as a school is willing to put up posters of any and all religious points of view- be it Christianity, Atheism, Hinduism, Mormonism, Islam, Satanism, etc, etc, etc, then there's no reason it shouldn't be allowed. And frankly, I would love to see an American public school put up Satanic posters, just for the novelty of it.
But, back to the poster at hand. Assuming that the only posters in the school are anti- theist, I would say no, it shouldn't be allowed. This is promoting only one ideology, no different than a school teaching only the political virtues of capitalism or communism. If the objective arguments are all provided in school, and the students are allowed to draw there own conclusions, then there is nothing wrong with that- but they shouldn't be goaded in one direction over any other.
Now, this is not an argument against science, or other objective truths that religion may reject, and do not want taught in schools. If a religion has a problem with a poster that has some sort of display of evolution (as is the most common example), they can get bent. Evolution is a fact. A poster that says "god doesn't exist" is most likely also fact, but that is a matter of religion or direct rejection thereof and not science.
Oh, you're a special kind of mentally ill, even for the standards of this website. I suggest you speak to a licensed psychologist, but while you're not doing that, I can tell we're gonna have a lot of fun together.
Everyone's damned by the standard of someone else's religion, so I remain unworried. But the fact of my objective sexiness stands, regardless of whether you believe my mother's name is actually Mary.
Hypocrite, speak for yourself. You are the mentally ill one claiming to be Jesus. How dare you because 1. Jesus never was an atheist, 2. He debunked all non believers, 3. He forgives all who come unto Him, that includes me, 4. He is the Son of God, 5, He disapproves those who impersonate Him and Heavenly Father aka God Himself. Therefore, the only "special mentally ill" one is you, impostor. Knocks out the false impostor named 'sexyjesus' with seven punches and puts him in Arkham Asylum for life. My sanity is 100% fine compared to your snowflakeism. You've got zero evidence to support your claims. Check yourself before you wreck yourself again, you might want to look in the mirror to just how screwed up you really are deep deep down. You entitle yourself to be special? Ha! Everybody's special in God's eyes. But you? Judging from your hostility and endless nonsense, you are the pinnacle of insanity itself. Making mistakes don't make you mentally ill, but your delusional state unfortunately proves you otherwise. You are what you say others are. Your argument is invalidated.
I've also claimed to be the devil on this website, with about as much credibility. But I also never claimed to be anyone's path to salvation or torment, and is that not what's important? Or is every Mexican named Jesús going to hell too?
You are not Jesus, you are hereby denounced once again and whatever you say is invalidated 100%. Begone demon! You have zero power over my spirit. My testimony in the real Jesus Christ stands unbroken.
I am absolutely correct. You and him are both invalidated and hypocritically, you are delusional as you are. Sucks that you've lost this argument because I just debunked and denounced your deception.
