We have a settlement

[Bryan]

Having heard the BBC piece on this issue yesterday, I thought I'd look into it and found my way here.  As an educator myself, specializing in sciences and epistemology, specifically Theory of Knowledge, I have an interest in this debate.  I must confess to more than a little surprise that it seems to be ongoing.

Okay, so we know you're unbiased.

From what little I have read so far I think Matthew LaClair is to be commended very highly, the BOE couldn't be more right in their settlement statement.  I wish I had more students like him in my classes, challenging the material being taught and thereby elliciting a sturdy and rational defence of it.

Matthew didn't want the sturdy and rational defense for any other reason than to help bring the matter to a head, fueling his intent to make the sturdy and rational defense impossible in the public (over here that's the government-run) schools.

Matthew's position was that it was inappropriate for the teacher to answer his questions touching religion.

Has a mountain been made out of a molehill though?  I don't think so, although it would seem that some of Matthew's detractors here would happily write pages of argument over the tiniest detail in a post.  The devil, as they say, is in the detail, but it does smack of sour grapes to me.

A pity you've offered no example.

The basic issue in all of this, for me, is the whole church and state seperation idea.  I see this as being very important in a country such as the US which on the one hand espouses a secular system of government and yet which demands religious belief from its politicians so comprehensively.  To an outsider, it seems like a populace winding itself in ever tighter fundamentalist circles as its lawmakers plod steadfastly on in the original spirit of the republican and democratic ideals that the nation was founded upon.

lol

You haven't read enough yet.

The United States Constitution embodied a federalist system that left state and local governments the powers not specifically vested in the national government. With the Civil War, the right of the states to withdraw from the union if they did not feel their interests was forcibly crushed (arguably repudiating the principles delineated in the Declaration of Independence). After that, amendments were passed that were intended to ensure that slaves were freed (13th) and were afforded their full freedom in terms of the law ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws).

The courts later decided that the 14 Amendment expanded the first amendment prohibition against a certain type of congressional lawmaking to the state and local governments--in effect a situation where the courts radically expanded the power of the national government by fiat.

You'll find out more about that as the European Union begins to abrogate laws in your country.

I may be repeating a comment somewhere else in these and related threads but can I ask what people would have said if a teacher with Hindu beliefs had aired them in class? Stating that it was their considered belief that the Big Bang was bunk and that the entire universe sat on the back of a giant elephant standing atop a celestial turtle. Would Matthew have raised similar objections?  I doubt it, I think he'd have been amused. Matthew is worried, as should all Americans be, that the increasing dominance of Christianity in US society is posing a genuine threat to some of the freedoms that the US is supposed to champion.

I think that Matthew would claim to be just as appalled by the expression of Hindu beliefs, since he pretty much has to make it appear that his complaint stems from Constitutional principle instead of from anti-Christian bigotry (a bigotry that Gavin has hinted at more than have the LaClairs at their worst).

Just a reminder, Gavin. You may not be aware of it, but the Framers of the U.S. Constitution were overwhelmingly religious and overwhelmingly Christian. A majority of Christians established the freedoms that the US is supposed to champion.

I suppose that strikes you as some sort of bizarre anomaly, eh?

Evolution, or any scientific theory for that matter, does not have to be accepted by anyone as true.  It is, after all, only a theory and as such it cannot be proved to be true.

If you were Matthew's teacher and had said that in school, I have little doubt that the LaClairs would be suggesting to your bosses that you don't know a thing about science.

What distinguishes it as something scientific is that it sets itself up to be disproven, something that has failed to happen. Creationism is not a scientific theory, it cannot be disproved because it is a belief, lacking any testable qualities it is not amenable to the scientific method and therefore not science.

How would you test for something coming from absolutely nothing, which is the current popular flavor of the Big Bang theory?

Evolution is scientific and as such it ought to be recognized as something worthy of being taught because it is useful. It does actually explain things, with enormous success. Whether or not it is "true" is neither here nor there, it is simply the single most successful interpretation of the diversity of life.  Nothing else, in any pantheon, comes close to the success of evolution in explaining the observable facts.  Any history or science teacher who fails to acknolwedge this must surely be failing their students.  As a math teacher would be if she refused to allow graphics calculators in class, claiming that she didn't trust them and that, anyway, an abacus is a perfectly good tool for performing arithmetic.

So, is it something the teacher did say or something he did not say that you think let down the students?

It is the intolerance of fundamentalist religious conviction that worries the free thinking world.  Intolerance of alternative viewpoints, religions, theories, lifestyles etc.

Matthew's teacher encouraged alternative viewpoints.

Matthew's purpose was to restrict or eliminate an alternative viewpoint.

But the teacher was the intolerant one? Can you explain how?

What amazes me is that there are people in the US who can decry the religious intolerance of the Taliban and then saunter off to their school board and vote to have Creationism taught as part of a science curriculum. It simply isn't science.

Science itself isn't scientific (the scientific enterprise in toto fails the tests of science). Since you know something of epistemology, you'd know that science rests on a particular epistemic foundation--a foundation that is taken as axiomatic (and typically without discussion).

How would you scientifically prove that you are intelligent?

Give that problem some consideration.

As I write, a Malaysian court has denied a woman the right to renounce her Islamic status and become a Christian in the eyes of the law. This is a secular country with a constitutional seperation of Church and State. Ring any bells? Be careful my American friends, be very, very careful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aren't you going to share with us how jolly old England is so wonderful even with a state-sponsored church?

[Guest Paul]

Then what expenses did you charge the town for? You said it was the lawyers?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The information is a matter of public record. Stop being so lazy. Go get it yourself.

However, the town wasn't charged anything. The town wasn't involved.

[Guest Paul]

If you really wanted this over then why did you speak up again at the last Board of Education meeting and pronounce that Matthew is not getting the recognition he deserves in Kearny High?

This was after you received your blackmail paycheck from the Board of Education.

You might be surprised that the students of Kearny High really do know what went on and even though you constant posting  trying to correct your son's wrongs, they still know happened there.  Young minds might be a little nieve at times but they still know right from wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't say that. I mainly read our statement, and said this was an opportunity for a new beginning.

As I've told you over and over again, we received no paycheck.

As for what the students think they heard or are willing to say, the recordings speak for themselves.

[Guest Paul]

Having heard the BBC piece on this issue yesterday, I thought I'd look into it and found my way here.  As an educator myself, specializing in sciences and epistemology, specifically Theory of Knowledge, I have an interest in this debate.  I must confess to more than a little surprise that it seems to be ongoing. 

From what little I have read so far I think Matthew LaClair is to be commended very highly, the BOE couldn't be more right in their settlement statement.  I wish I had more students like him in my classes, challenging the material being taught and thereby elliciting a sturdy and rational defence of it.

Has a mountain been made out of a molehill though?  I don't think so, although it would seem that some of Matthew's detractors here would happily write pages of argument over the tiniest detail in a post.  The devil, as they say, is in the detail, but it does smack of sour grapes to me. 

The basic issue in all of this, for me, is the whole church and state seperation idea.  I see this as being very important in a country such as the US which on the one hand espouses a secular system of government and yet which demands religious belief from its politicians so comprehensively.  To an outsider, it seems like a populace winding itself in ever tighter fundamentalist circles as its lawmakers plod steadfastly on in the original spirit of the republican and democratic ideals that the nation was founded upon.

I may be repeating a comment somewhere else in these and related threads but can I ask what people would have said if a teacher with Hindu beliefs had aired them in class? Stating that it was their considered belief that the Big Bang was bunk and that the entire universe sat on the back of a giant elephant standing atop a celestial turtle. Would Matthew have raised similar objections?  I doubt it, I think he'd have been amused. Matthew is worried, as should all Americans be, that the increasing dominance of Christianity in US society is posing a genuine threat to some of the freedoms that the US is supposed to champion.

Evolution, or any scientific theory for that matter, does not have to be accepted by anyone as true.  It is, after all, only a theory and as such it cannot be proved to be true.  What distinguishes it as something scientific is that it sets itself up to be disproven, something that has failed to happen. Creationism is not a scientific theory, it cannot be disproved because it is a belief, lacking any testable qualities it is not amenable to the scientific method and therefore not science.

Evolution is scientific and as such it ought to be recognized as something worthy of being taught because it is useful. It does actually explain things, with enormous success. Whether or not it is "true" is neither here nor there, it is simply the single most successful interpretation of the diversity of life.  Nothing else, in any pantheon, comes close to the success of evolution in explaining the observable facts.  Any history or science teacher who fails to acknolwedge this must surely be failing their students.  As a math teacher would be if she refused to allow graphics calculators in class, claiming that she didn't trust them and that, anyway, an abacus is a perfectly good tool for performing arithmetic.

It is the intolerance of fundamentalist religious conviction that worries the free thinking world.  Intolerance of alternative viewpoints, religions, theories, lifestyles etc.  What amazes me is that there are people in the US who can decry the religious intolerance of the Taliban and then saunter off to their school board and vote to have Creationism taught as part of a science curriculum. It simply isn't science.

As I write, a Malaysian court has denied a woman the right to renounce her Islamic status and become a Christian in the eyes of the law.  This is a secular country with a constitutional seperation of Church and State.  Ring any bells?  Be careful my American friends, be very, very careful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. My only quarrel with this post is the following: "Evolution, or any scientific theory for that matter, does not have to be accepted by anyone as true. It is, after all, only a theory and as such it cannot be proved to be true."

This is a common misconception. A theory may be proved. In fact, most scientists hold that evolutionary theory is proved and is a fact. The Anti-Defamation League will address this point when it conducts its sessions this coming September.

[Guest Guest]

I didn't say that. I mainly read our statement, and said this was an opportunity for a new beginning.

As I've told you over and over again, we received no paycheck.

As for what the students think they heard or are willing to say, the recordings speak for themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its been months since the first of juniors recordings. I am talking about what is being said now about him. Please get your facts straight.

[Guest Guest]

Then what expenses did you charge the town for? You said it was the lawyers?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Geez!!!!! Doesn't anybody know the difference between attorney's fees and hard expenses?

Attorney's fees - hourly fees charged by attorney's to clients for their services.

Expenses (a/k/a "disbursements") - cost associated with the legal matter, i.e. court fees, mailing costs, mileage, etc.

[Guest Paul]

Matthew's teacher encouraged alternative viewpoints.

Matthew's purpose was to restrict or eliminate an alternative viewpoint.

But the teacher was the intolerant one? Can you explain how?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No he didn't. Mr. P made the class a soap box for his political views and a pulpit for his religious views. He misused his position as the sole authority figure in the classroom to shut down the beginnings of dialogues that weren't going his way. He thought Matthew would back down and be easy pickin's. He was wrong.

One of the most ironic things about this extended episode is Paszkiewicz's comment to the effect that education takes us out of our comfort zones. Matthew was the one challenging his classmates and the teacher, and he clearly took them out of their comfort zones. The anger has a lot to do with the fact that he did it very well. What Paszkiewicz was really saying was "I'll take you out of your comfort zone, and it'll be good for you, but don't even think about taking me out of mine." It couldn't have been more transparent.

As for tolerance, Matthew would welcome the discussion that Mr. P initiated. But let it take place in an appropriate forum, and let it be moderated by someone other than the sole authority figure who has a personal agenda.

Do you think Mr. P will be inviting him to have that discussion any time soon?

[Guest Paul]

Its been months since the first of juniors recordings. I am talking about what is being said now about him.  Please get your facts straight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As long as you hide behind your cowardly anonymity, I don't care what "is being said now about him." People say all kinds of nasty things about others, including the greatest and most noble people who ever lived. They weren't always popular in their communities. The attacks on him only make his actions all the more noble. It took more than a renegade teacher to make this story international news. It took people like you, acting in a way that most intelligent and civil people find incomprehensible. So go ahead, keep whining.

I know that Matthew acted courageously and with exemplary integrity, just as the Board of Education has said. I watched it firsthand from inside the house where he lives. It was a pleasure and an honor to watch. Do you know what it is like to admire (look up to) your own son? Well, I do. If you want to say something to me, have the courage and decency to say it to my face.

[Bryan]

No he didn't.

Yes, he did.

Mr. P made the class a soap box for his political views and a pulpit for his religious views. He misused his position as the sole authority figure in the classroom to shut down the beginnings of dialogues that weren't going his way.

For example?

He thought Matthew would back down and be easy pickin's. He was wrong.

Good thing we've got a mind-reader in the house.

One of the most ironic things about this extended episode is Paszkiewicz's comment to the effect that education takes us out of our comfort zones. Matthew was the one challenging his classmates and the teacher, and he clearly took them out of their comfort zones. The anger has a lot to do with the fact that he did it very well. What Paszkiewicz was really saying was "I'll take you out of your comfort zone, and it'll be good for you, but don't even think about taking me out of mine." It couldn't have been more transparent.

Your bias is hilarious. It's hard not to excuse it since he's your son, of course.

What evidence is there that anybody apart from Matthew was taken out of a comfort zone?

Matthew gave no evidence of having been confronted with a theodicy, from what I can tell. Reflecting his great comfort with theodicies, I suppose ...

He jumped to illogical conclusions about Paszkiewicz's statements about evolution and the big bang--and I'd call that evidence of being outside of one's comfort zone.

He also seemed surprised (even shocked) that the Big Bang theory teaches a universe coming from nothing. He reacted in a fashion that fits the cognitive dissonance pattern.

As for tolerance, Matthew would welcome the discussion that Mr. P initiated. But let it take place in an appropriate forum, and let it be moderated by someone other than the sole authority figure who has a personal agenda.

IOW, Matthew could not tolerate the discussion in class, participating only to help ensure that such would not happen again.

Very lawyerly spin you put on it, though.

Do you think Mr. P will be inviting him to have that discussion any time soon?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know, but I'd be interested in seeing it. Both Internet Infidels and Theologyweb have online forums where a debate could take place over time. Would Matthew be interested in that kind of thing?

[Gavin]

Okay, so we know you're unbiased.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think anyone can hope to be truly unbiased. The task is to fight against bias with honesty, humility and integrity. Indcidentally, and forgive me if I imply sarcasm where non was intended , which part of my opening remarks reveals me to be biased? The fact that I am an educator, like Mr. P.? An epistomologist, like yourself? No? Oh, it was that science thing was it? "Four legs good, two legs bad" eh? C'mon, get a grip. Don't tell me it was the fact that I listen to the BBC. Damn, I knew I should have kept my commie pinko atheistic radio station to myself.

Matthew didn't want the sturdy and rational defense for any other reason than to help bring the matter to a head, fueling his intent to make the sturdy and rational defense impossible in the public (over here that's the government-run) schools.

Matthew's position was that it was inappropriate for the teacher to answer his questions touching religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I cannot say what Matthew wanted when he started this. What he obtained was a healthy debate, much of it public, arguably sturdy and rational, and a settlement which reinforced the principle that religious dogma should not be a vehicle for teaching. I am sure that religious dogma itself may still be studied in government-run schools, in the same way that political dogmas are studied. Things like fascism for instance.

A pity you've offered no example.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A goodly proportion of this entire thread would be a good, if somewhat self-referential example. I'll get back to self reference later.

lol

You haven't read enough yet.

The United States Constitution embodied a federalist system that left state and local governments the powers not specifically vested in the national government. With the Civil War, the right of the states to withdraw from the union if they did not feel their interests was forcibly crushed (arguably repudiating the principles delineated in the Declaration of Independence). After that, amendments were passed that were intended to ensure that slaves were freed (13th) and were afforded their full freedom in terms of the law ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws).

The courts later decided that the 14 Amendment expanded the first amendment prohibition against a certain type of congressional lawmaking to the state and local governments--in effect a situation where the courts radically expanded the power of the national government by fiat.

You'll find out more about that as the European Union begins to abrogate laws in your country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This seems no more relevant to this issue than to, say, tax law. raotflmao

However, if I may be forgiven for condensing an entire history curriculum into a single paragraph, big government has been a feature of human history for thousands of years. From the Dukedoms of feudal England, the warring of city states in rennaisance Italy and ancient Greece, the Roman empire, the United States, the EU, the UN. Smaller groups have always had a tendency to get into conflict with each other. They either wipe each other out, one totally dominates and subsumes the other, or they set up a larger entity that imposes a system of laws that enable life to go on without all the tedious fighting and bloodshed that is keeping people awake at night. The general direction that the course of human history has taken would indicate that any smaller entity that fails to recognize the tendency of groups to coalesce under some sort of system of government eventually gets left behind or ground underfoot.

This, all of this, is a digression however and has little to do with the main issue which is about the place of religous belief in the classroom.

I think that Matthew would claim to be just as appalled by the expression of Hindu beliefs, since he pretty much has to make it appear that his complaint stems from Constitutional principle instead of from anti-Christian bigotry (a bigotry that Gavin has hinted at more than have the LaClairs at their worst).

Just a reminder, Gavin. You may not be aware of it, but the Framers of the U.S. Constitution were overwhelmingly religious and overwhelmingly Christian. A majority of Christians established the freedoms that the US is supposed to champion.

I suppose that strikes you as some sort of bizarre anomaly, eh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is precisely my point. Were Mr. P's beliefs anything other than Christian, then his expression of them in class would probably have been ignored in the US. I realise this is a hypothetical area of dicussion but why is that? Why would someone only invoke Constitutional protections in the face of Christian dogma. Why is Christianity such a perceived threat that it causes so much debate? Perhaps it is because Christianity, in the US, is not the benign set of beliefs that many purport it to be. I say in the US because in India, it is Hinduism that dominates and there, one current issue is sex education in schools. Religous beliefs, Hinduism in India, Christianity in the US, are informing what can and what cannot be taught in the state-funded public school classroom. This worries a lot of people. It is not anti-Christian bigotry that drives my thinking, it is a very strong agnosticism about all religion and its innappropriatness in informing any rational behaviour. Mr. P., unfortunately and probably unwittingly, stuck his head above the parapet with his comments in class. He became the lightning rod in a much bigger debate.

Which brings me, rather neatly, to Mr. Franklin, his chums and their religious convictions. "Overwhelmingly" Christian, undoubtedly. But so what? Its is as bizarre or anomalous than the fact that the Apostles were "overwhelmingly" Jewish. In fact, that the authors of the Constitution specifically included (invented? or did the French get there first?) the concept of the seperation of church and state in spite of the fact that they were "overwhelmingly christian" is a pretty clear indication of how important they thought it was.

But isn't it interesting however that Ben Franklin, the principal author of the Constitution, could scarcely be described as a Christian, a Deist, yes, but he struggled with his religious convictions throughout his life. Quite enlightened for a man born three centuries ago and given a Calvinist upbringing. An argument for religious education being innocuous perhaps?

But seriously, the basic facts seem to be that the US Constitution embodies a seperation of Church and state. The public school sytem is part of the state and so religious dogma has no place in public schools. For those that want it, there are plenty of private schools which can provide both the religious instruction for students and jobs for Mr. P.

If you were Matthew's teacher and had said that in school, I have little doubt that the LaClairs would be suggesting to your bosses that you don't know a thing about science.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A hypothetical scenario but any such suggestion has some merit an needs a better defence than any ad hominem refutation. I do not know very much science, there is so much of the darn stuff. Even more worryingly, the longer I live, the more of it I seem not to know! By the time I die, I swear, I'll be completely ignorant!

I do know something of science however. Karl Popper, the eminent philospher of science, describes the falsifiability criterion as being key to distinguishing that which is or is not science. If a theory is capable of being falsified, i.e. testable, then it is scientific. If something is falsifiable then ipso facto it is not necessarily true. So, according to Popper, any scientific theory is, by definition something which is not necessarily true. Paradoxical, I know, but then the juiciest bits of life often are. Its what makes it such fun!

Take Newtonian gravity for example, stunningly successful until realtivity came along and superceded it. The Newtonian theory of gravity was testable, falsifiable and when a better theory came along, it was replaced. It is still in use however as the theory of general relativity is fiendishly complicated and the Newtonian approach is a very good approximation so long as you're not mucking about with singularities or the speed of light.

Or celestial navigation, still in use, very successful, but based on the premise that the Earth is the centre of things. Useful, effective but not true.

Only a mathematical theorem can be proved as "true". Mathematics proceeds, exclusively, by a process of deductive logic wheras science proceeds by a combination of deductive and inductive logic. Mathematics however requires certain axioms before it can begin. Unfortunately, Kurt Godel showed that any axiomatic system cannot be simultaneously complete AND consistent. So, any given mathematics may be either complete, in which case it is inconsistent, or consistent, in which case it is incomplete, or some intermediate. By consistent I mean that, with reference to itself, it does not contradict itself. This is often referred to as Godels incompleteness theorem. Bit of a bummer for the seekers of "truth".

Evolution, as a theory, Darwinian or Lamarckian, is jolly useful at explaining a lot of facts. Don't make it true though. Anyway, if we get hung up on what is or isn't true we'll be here forever. "Truth" is a slippery beast and so is anybody who claims to have found it, especially if they then try to force it down someone elses throat and make them worship it.

I'd rather see a take it or leave it approach to things. Here's evolution, here's what it explains, here's natural selection, see what it can do. Look at how we can apply the principles of evolution to engineering and design so successfully. You want it? Well, you're going to have to pay for it by sacrificing some of your religious convictions. So, do you want this fancy software, the shiny new car, this new drug that will cure your disease? No? Still want to hang on to beliefs that are flatly contradicted by the science that makes all of this stuff you want? Tell you what, you can have it all, the backroom boys will carry on using this science thing to churn out all you want. Keep your beliefs, please, keep them. But keep them to yourself. If you're worried about the techies creating something nasty, then become an ethicist or a journalist but leave your religious convictions at the door. They were invented far too long ago to be of much relevance now.

How would you test for something coming from absolutely nothing, which is the current popular flavor of the Big Bang theory?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is a bit tricky, to be sure. Fortunately there are a number of consequences to the big bang theory that can be checked against empirical observation. The real problem is that the Big Bang theory throws up a number of paramaters which seem to be entirely arbitrary. Many of these paramaters seem so finely tuned to the requirements for a universe capable of sustaining intelligent life as we know it that it has been suggested that the values of these paramaters must have been "chosen". Enter the Intelligent Design theory. Unfortunately, ID does not explain anything at all that cannot be explained by the anthropic principle. That had the parameters been anything other than what they are, we would not be here to observe them. Rather than serve to offer an explanation for anything ID raises the problem of the origin of a Designer. Arguing that a Designer, God, requires no origin, is no different to arguing that the universe, or the multiverse, requires no origin.

Evolution explains how the complex can arise, from natural processes, from the simple. ID requires that we simply accept the existence of a Designer and explains nothing at all. William of Occam wouldn't have had much difficulty with this one.

So, is it something the teacher did say or something he did not say that you think let down the students?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pretty safe to say that I think it's something he did say. There's so much he didn't!

Matthew's teacher encouraged alternative viewpoints.

Matthew's purpose was to restrict or eliminate an alternative viewpoint.

But the teacher was the intolerant one? Can you explain how?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Glad to. The teacher appears to have aired his religious beliefs in class. Repeatedly. I know that there were times when this was simply in response to questions from students but you have to ask why the students were even interested. Now, he seems to have done this in a pretty forceful way, telling students that he thought they would go to hell etc. That's a pretty intolerant way of getting a point across don't you think? Believe in this or suffer eternal damnation, fire and brimstone. For any adult to use that sort of coercion with children is, frankly, appalling. But, you are entitled to an entirely different opinion, it is, after all, the mechanism by which all Abrahamic religions get their point across. Tolerance is not God's strong point.

To quote Richard Dawkins, "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filiacidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." (The God Delusion, p. 31)

Now, would anyone really want that sort of God in their classroom? Anti-semitism is an alternative viewpoint, just because it is does not mean that is espousal by an employee of the government should be condoned.

This is a general argument as to the sense of keeping religious doctrine out of the classroom, as Mr. P. failed to do. Paul's response to this particular point is probably more germaine to the particular issue of Mr. P.'s remarks.

Science itself isn't scientific (the scientific enterprise in toto fails the tests of science). Since you know something of epistemology, you'd know that science rests on a particular epistemic foundation--a foundation that is taken as axiomatic (and typically without discussion).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Science is founded on empiricism and uses epistemology to make progress. I would disagree that empiricism is taken as axiomatic without discussion. What is often confused is the difference between empirical knowledge and scientific theories which derive from it. Hence the claims of "but it is a scientific fact!"

However, if the empiricist viewpoint is taken as axiomatic then it follows that science will always be either incomplete or inconsitsent. (see Godel, above) Similarly, taking the existence of God (or anything else) as axiomatic leads to the same problem. The difficulty for God is that it is claimed he is both complete and consistent. This makes God innaccessible to epistemology or critical thinking and we need an alternative. The only alternative to critical thinking that I can think of is uncritical thinking. Then the barbarians really will not just be at the gate but sitting in my favourite armchair, spilling ale on the sheepskin and eying the family silver with interest.

How would you scientifically prove that you are intelligent?

Give that problem some consideration.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cogito ergo sum. Done. No problem.

Well, not quite. I can prove to myself that I am self aware, that's just about it. As I've mentioned above, a "scientific proof" is really inaccessible in philosophical terms, as I suspect you well know. What, anyway, do you mean by "intelligent". It is a complicated term. I'm not even sure I know exactly what "intelligent" means myself, it seems entirely relative.

Could you prove you believe in God? I mean, you could say or do whatever but there's no real way of looking inside your head and examining your beliefs. You could always just be faking it. Like, I suspect, so many US politicians who go through the motions of religious conviction because the realize they are unelectable if they do not.

How about this, you could call me unintelligent, I could sue for libel, and we'll let a jury decide. That really is the only "proof" we really deal with on a day to day basis, the sort that's handed down by the courts. What is true or untrue is ultimately decided by men and women. That is why Ben Franklin was so very careful, he knew the pitfalls of letting matters of faith interfere with matters of government. It is also why I and others are concerned at the emergence of a right wing political movement that uses faith to inform policy. The bible is such a horrendously cruel and wide rangingly barbarous text that it can be used to justify almost anything in the name of faith. Eating shellfish could become a capital offense!!! Seems ludicrous? Yes, it is, just as we find slavery ludicrous today, or the salem witch trials. What will our great great grandchildren think of us?

Of course, I could say that my intelligence, meagre as it is, has been revealed to me by an angel of the lord. Would that constitute proof?

Aren't you going to share with us how jolly old England is so wonderful even with a state-sponsored church?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope. Dreadful place. Well, some bits are okay I guess. But you can't get a decent cup of coffee anywhere. I got out as soon as I considered I had paid my debt to the society that raised me. No, I was not detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, I did a stint of teaching in the UK public sector, about as much fun as prison actually. Then after thanking the secretary of education (he never replied) left for warmer climes with better coffee.

The history of the Anglican church is a pretty awful account of an attempt by Henry VIII to get away with his liscentious attitude to matrimony. An attitude, I might add, that would not be out of place in today's society if you ignore a couple of beheadings. Then we got rid of Charles I and things started to look up from a religio-political point of view. Trouble is that Cromwell's lot were such bloody dour buggers. I mean, no dancing!!!! I think that's what drove the Quakers off to your part of the world. Anyway it got so depressing and bleak that we had to get Charley II back from France and he brought his church with him, along with a lot of very big hats. Since then, we've been stuck with a constitutional monarchy in which the head of the anglican church is decided by heredity! Talk about daft. At least you elect your head of state. I mean imagine how silly it would be if George Bush..... oh, but then, oops. Sorry about that.

Anyway, Liz is alright, she leaves all the religious stuff to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the General Synod. She's also very good at the pomp, and you know how much we love our pomp.

I have, as you will have figured out by now, a pretty low opinion of any organised religion. Spiritual truth is best arrived at through a personal journey of some kind IMHO. Accepting someone elses truth, at face value, is not something I would recommend. That so many people are willing to do so astounded me until I realized that there were certain evolutionary advantages to accepting things on faith. In fact, and you'll get a real kick out of this, religious belief is only really explicable in terms of natural selection and the structure of early hominid society. Having invented it, we then proceed to indoctrinate our young with it. So, we end up with religious beliefs that are simply an accident of birth. If I had been born in Malaysia I would almost certainly be muslim. And, no matter what doubts I might have as to my faith, there is nothing I can do to apostacize, let alone get my foreskin back.

Now, things are not quite as bad as that in the US, but the plight of young people, brought up with an unquestioning faith in christianity, who suffer in fear of hellish torment should they stray from the path has to be acknowledged. It is one thing for parents to impose their religious beliefs upon their own children, although I would argue that it does, in some cases, consitute abuse, but for it to be reinforced in the classroom is a very, very serious cause for concern.

So, Matthew can be proud of taking this matter in hand, I am sure he had some idea of the possible consequences for him personally and that takes courage. Even with the support of his family, life at school must have been, perhaps still is, very difficult for him. I applaud his courage.

I would encourage the debate to move on from the specifics of Matthew and Mr. P. and on to the wider issues that have been raised.

[Guest Guest]

No he didn't. Mr. P made the class a soap box for his political views and a pulpit for his religious views. He misused his position as the sole authority figure in the classroom to shut down the beginnings of dialogues that weren't going his way. He thought Matthew would back down and be easy pickin's. He was wrong.

One of the most ironic things about this extended episode is Paszkiewicz's comment to the effect that education takes us out of our comfort zones. Matthew was the one challenging his classmates and the teacher, and he clearly took them out of their comfort zones. The anger has a lot to do with the fact that he did it very well. What Paszkiewicz was really saying was "I'll take you out of your comfort zone, and it'll be good for you, but don't even think about taking me out of mine." It couldn't have been more transparent.

As for tolerance, Matthew would welcome the discussion that Mr. P initiated. But let it take place in an appropriate forum, and let it be moderated by someone other than the sole authority figure who has a personal agenda.

Do you think Mr. P will be inviting him to have that discussion any time soon?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

These are just your views and since you are reporting secondhand and you were not there firsthand either, we are relying on what we have heard from our children. As far as what you believe Mr. P would or wouldn't have done that is pure speculation on your part since the path your son chose was that which is least taken. As you as well I have listened to the tapes a number of times and as you try to project that Matthew was out of his comfort zone, it was him that was asking most of the questions on the matter, seemingly baiting him for the answers.

As far as the discussion between your son and Mr. P, it should be done in a private area and just the two of them discuss it in a reasonable and professional mannor. No news reporters, no Administration, no parents, no tapes. Its what mature invididuals would do. There need not be a modirator. This is not a debate but hoping that each other clears the air and moves forwards.

The only thing transparent is your goals.

[Guest Guest]

The information is a matter of public record. Stop being so lazy. Go get it yourself.

However, the town wasn't charged anything. The town wasn't involved.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are just too scared to mention how much you received here. That's all.

[Strife767]

These are just your views and since you are reporting secondhand and you were not there firsthand either, we are relying on what we have heard from our children.

Everyone's got firsthand evidence. Hello? Recordings? Remember?

As far as what you believe Mr. P would or wouldn't have done that is pure speculation on your part

I think some inference is reasonable considering what we know about how Paszkiewicz 'goes about things' from the recordings. There's also the fact that Paszkiewicz is still unwilling (as far as I know) to take any blame or admit to any wrongdoing, so that says even more about him.

since the path your son chose was that which is least taken. As you as well I have listened to the tapes a number of times and as you try to project that Matthew was out of his comfort zone, it was him that was asking most of the questions on the matter, seemingly baiting him for the answers.

As capable as I or anyone else may be to address the things Paszkiewicz said, I certainly would agree that it is certainly not within a non-Christian's comfort zone to be told what Paszkiewicz told his students.

As far as the discussion between your son and Mr. P, it should be done in a private area and just the two of them discuss it in a reasonable and professional mannor. No news reporters, no Administration, no parents, no tapes.  Its what mature invididuals would do.  There need not be a modirator. This is not a debate but hoping that each other clears the air and moves forwards.

Well, the problem with this is that Paszkiewicz is totally unwilling to have that discussion, as Paul just said.

The only thing transparent is your goals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, it's pretty easy to tell that this is a simple case of making sure that public school preaching isn't tolerated. That's always been the stated goal, and that's all they ever tried to accomplish. For one thing, they could have seriously cashed in on the Board's blatant negligence on the matter, no question--but they didn't.

[Strife767]

You are just too scared to mention how much you received here. That's all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"As I've told you over and over again, we received no paycheck." --Paul LaClair

Pay attention, stupid. You didn't even have to look outside this thread (less than 10 posts back) to see that.

And why would he be scared of people finding out public information? Are you off your meds or something? How absurd.

[Bryan]

Gavin, your green will become red in accordance with my usual convention once the quote function is exhausted (10, in case you're curious).

I don't think anyone can hope to be truly unbiased.  The task is to fight against bias with honesty, humility and integrity. Indcidentally, and forgive me if I imply sarcasm where non was intended , which part of my opening remarks reveals me to be biased?  The fact that I am an educator, like Mr. P.?  An epistomologist, like yourself? No?  Oh, it was that science thing was it?  "Four legs good, two legs bad" eh? C'mon, get a grip.  Don't tell me it was the fact that I listen to the BBC.  Damn, I knew I should have kept my commie pinko atheistic radio station to myself.

Done?

Great.

It was this:

"I must confess to more than a little surprise that it seems to be ongoing."

Why the surprise?

I cannot say what Matthew wanted when he started this.

You think that Paul LaClair lies when he tells what Matthew wanted?

What he obtained was a healthy debate, much of it public, arguably sturdy and rational, and a settlement which reinforced the principle that religious dogma should not be a vehicle for teaching.  I am sure that religious dogma itself may still be studied in government-run schools, in the same way that political dogmas are studied. Things like fascism for instance.

That's technically true, but public school employees tend to steer away from it because of the threat of lawsuit.

And, of course, college professors are able to receive a government paycheck while advocating their own political views, such as communism, in the classroom. That area of concern is less legally volatile, apparently.

A goodly proportion of this entire thread would be a good, if somewhat self-referential example.  I'll get back to self reference later.

And don't forget your specific example of sour grapes. You seem to have forgotten it in the midst of supposedly providing an example.

This seems no more relevant to this issue than to, say, tax law. raotflmao

So you think you made a mistake by suggesting that the basic issue is the church/state separation issue?

"The basic issue in all of this, for me, is the whole church and state seperation idea. I see this as being very important in a country such as the US which on the one hand espouses a secular system of government and yet which demands religious belief from its politicians so comprehensively. To an outsider, it seems like a populace winding itself in ever tighter fundamentalist circles as its lawmakers plod steadfastly on in the original spirit of the republican and democratic ideals that the nation was founded upon.

It kind of amplifies your hint of anti-Christian bigotry to object on church/state bounds not because of U.S. law but because of the threat to the world posed by those crazy Christians, don't you think?

However, if I may be forgiven for condensing an entire history curriculum into a single paragraph, big government has been a feature of human history for thousands of years.  From the Dukedoms of feudal England, the warring of city states in rennaisance Italy and ancient Greece, the Roman empire, the United States, the EU, the UN.  Smaller groups have always had a tendency to get into conflict with each other.  They either wipe each other out, one totally dominates and subsumes the other, or they set up a larger entity that imposes a system of laws that enable life to go on without all the tedious fighting and bloodshed that is keeping people awake at night.  The general direction that the course of human history has taken would indicate that any smaller entity that fails to recognize the tendency of groups to coalesce under some sort of system of government eventually gets left behind or ground underfoot.

This, all of this, is a digression however and has little to do with the main issue which is about the place of religous belief in the classroom.

It would directly address what you identified as the "basic" issue if that supposedly basic issue were rooted in U.S. law instead of (apparently) in an anti-Christian bias.

Apparently you don't give a flip about U.S. law. You're just worried that militant U.S. Christians will crush the world under booted heel (or something like that), so you want church/state separation on basis of personal pragmatism.

This is precisely my point. Were Mr. P's beliefs anything other than Christian, then his expression of them in class would probably have been ignored in the US.

I want the rest of the LaClair supporters to see that standing by itself. They'll get a kick out of it, since they've argued precisely the opposite.

I realise this is a hypothetical area of dicussion but why is that?  Why would someone only invoke Constitutional protections in the face of Christian dogma.  Why is Christianity such a perceived threat that it causes so much debate?  Perhaps it is because Christianity, in the US, is not the benign set of beliefs that many purport it to be.

Ah-ha! Now we're getting somewhere.

I say in the US because in India, it is Hinduism that dominates and there, one current issue is sex education in schools.  Religous beliefs, Hinduism in India, Christianity in the US, are informing what can and what cannot be taught in the state-funded public school classroom.  This worries a lot of people.  It is not anti-Christian bigotry that drives my thinking, it is a very strong agnosticism about all religion and its innappropriatness in informing any rational behaviour.

(IOW, he thinks that people who act on the basis of their religious beliefs are non-rational to the extent that they act on the basis of their religious beliefs, and that's supposedly not bigotry)

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bigot

Mr. P., unfortunately and probably unwittingly, stuck his head above the parapet with his comments in class.  He became the lightning rod in a much bigger debate.

Which brings me, rather neatly, to Mr. Franklin, his chums and their religious convictions.  "Overwhelmingly" Christian, undoubtedly.  But so what?  Its is as bizarre or anomalous than the fact that the Apostles were "overwhelmingly" Jewish. In fact, that the authors of the Constitution specifically included (invented? or did the French get there first?) the concept of the seperation of church and state in spite of the fact that they were "overwhelmingly christian" is a pretty clear indication of how important they thought it was.

So, you would suggest that the separation of church and state was part of the Constitutional framework because the Framers had little regard for their Christianity?

It would be a bit more subtle for you to have "I'm biased against religion" tattooed on your forehead.

But isn't it interesting however that Ben Franklin, the principal author of the Constitution, could scarcely be described as a Christian, a Deist, yes, but he struggled with his religious convictions throughout his life. Quite enlightened for a man born three centuries ago and given a Calvinist upbringing. An argument for religious education being innocuous perhaps?

But seriously, the basic facts seem to be that the US Constitution embodies a seperation of Church and state. The public school sytem is part of the state and so religious dogma has no place in public schools.

Remember that whole "federalism" thing you skipped over so blithely?

If you want to talk about the role of church/state separation (intelligently) in terms of U.S. law then you're obliged to educate yourself about the radical changes in the structure of U.S. federalism. You can go back and review the stuff you claimed was off-topic now, if you like.

For those that want it, there are plenty of private schools which can provide both the religious instruction for students and jobs for Mr. P.

Perish the thought that those who want it can try to recapture the actual intent of the Framers of the Constitution, right?

A hypothetical scenario but any such suggestion has some merit an needs a better defence than any ad hominem refutation. I do not know very much science, there is so much of the darn stuff. Even more worryingly, the longer I live, the more of it I seem not to know! By the time I die, I swear, I'll be completely ignorant!

I do know something of science however. Karl Popper, the eminent philos[o]pher of science, describes the falsifiability criterion as being key to distinguishing that which is or is not science. If a theory is capable of being falsified, i.e. testable, then it is scientific. If something is falsifiable then ipso facto it is not necessarily true. So, according to Popper, any scientific theory is, by definition something which is not necessarily true. Paradoxical, I know, but then the juiciest bits of life often are. Its what makes it such fun!

It's only paradoxical if one fails to adequately understand what "necessarily" means in terms of logic.

Take Newtonian gravity for example, stunningly successful until realtivity came along and superceded it. The Newtonian theory of gravity was testable, falsifiable and when a better theory came along, it was replaced. It is still in use however as the theory of general relativity is fiendishly complicated and the Newtonian approach is a very good approximation so long as you're not mucking about with singularities or the speed of light.

Or celestial navigation, still in use, very successful, but based on the premise that the Earth is the centre of things. Useful, effective but not true.

Only a mathematical theorem can be proved as "true". Mathematics proceeds, exclusively, by a process of deductive logic wheras science proceeds by a combination of deductive and inductive logic. Mathematics however requires certain axioms before it can begin. Unfortunately, Kurt Godel showed that any axiomatic system cannot be simultaneously complete AND consistent. So, any given mathematics may be either complete, in which case it is inconsistent, or consistent, in which case it is incomplete, or some intermediate. By consistent I mean that, with reference to itself, it does not contradict itself. This is often referred to as Godels incompleteness theorem. Bit of a bummer for the seekers of "truth".

Not really, since the Incompleteness Theorem refers to the impossibility of all-encompassing truth, not to individual statements of absolute truth.

Plus I suspect that infinite set theory could toss a hefty spanner in the works. Is an infinity "complete" according to the theorem?

Evolution, as a theory, Darwinian or Lamarckian, is jolly useful at explaining a lot of facts. Don't make it true though.

There's another statement that could get the LaClair crosshairs on the space between your eyebrows.

It's not easy making the LaClairs happy, is it?

Anyway, if we get hung up on what is or isn't true we'll be here forever.

Nonsense. Paul LaClair will settle it for you. Or sue you if you fail to agree.

"Truth" is a slippery beast and so is anybody who claims to have found it, especially if they then try to force it down someone elses throat and make them worship it.

Is that the truth?

Is your lecture on "self-referential" coming next?

I'd rather see a take it or leave it approach to things. Here's evolution, here's what it explains, here's natural selection, see what it can do. Look at how we can apply the principles of evolution to engineering and design so successfully. You want it? Well, you're going to have to pay for it by sacrificing some of your religious convictions. So, do you want this fancy software, the shiny new car, this new drug that will cure your disease? No? Still want to hang on to beliefs that are flatly contradicted by the science that makes all of this stuff you want? Tell you what, you can have it all, the backroom boys will carry on using this science thing to churn out all you want. Keep your beliefs, please, keep them. But keep them to yourself. If you're worried about the techies creating something nasty, then become an ethicist or a journalist but leave your religious convictions at the door. They were invented far too long ago to be of much relevance now.

Is that the truth?

We can tell the truth via the calendar (hat tip to C.S. Lewis)?

What's the shelf-life for evolution, BTW?

It is a bit tricky, to be sure. Fortunately there are a number of consequences to the big bang theory that can be checked against empirical observation.

How do those consequences help verify something coming from absolutely nothing, please? Please keep your answer in terms of the scientific method.

The real problem is that the Big Bang theory throws up a number of param[e]ters which seem to be entirely arbitrary. Many of these param[e]ters seem so finely tuned to the requirements for a universe capable of sustaining intelligent life as we know it that it has been suggested that the values of these param[e]ters must have been "chosen". Enter the Intelligent Design theory. Unfortunately, ID does not explain anything at all that cannot be explained by the anthropic principle.

The anthropic principle doesn't explain anything. I take it you're referring to the inevitability of self-observation given existence regardless of the cause.

That had the parameters been anything other than what they are, we would not be here to observe them. Rather than serve to offer an explanation for anything ID raises the problem of the origin of a Designer. Arguing that a Designer, God, requires no origin, is no different to arguing that the universe, or the multiverse, requires no origin.

Well, that's apples and origins--er--oranges.

Claiming that the universe came to exist from nothing is positing a particular origin. It is not a claim that the universe requires no origin.

If it were claimed that the universe requires no origin, it would be different from claiming that a designer required no origin. That's because an infinite regress of events in time poses some real difficulties--and the only way out of the infinite regress is to posit some type of timeless existence logically prior to time. You can do that without insisting on personality, but it's not easy explaining how the impersonal timeless X went from impersonal timeless X to something else. A personal timeless X at least might have a purpose, and an ability to act is implied by personality.

Evolution explains how the complex can arise, from natural processes, from the simple. ID requires that we simply accept the existence of a Designer and explains nothing at all.

William of Occam wouldn't have had much difficulty with this one.

You do realize that he was a Christian theist, right?

There are two main problems with what you wrote just above.

What is a "natural process"?

If you take the route I think you'll take, doesn't it make sense to conclude that you are not intelligent? After all, your actions are completely explicable in terms of completely natural processes--are they not?

Second, Ockham's Razor works in terms of sufficient explanations. On what basis is a big bang from a literal nothing a sufficient explanation?

Pretty safe to say that I think it's something he did say. There's so much he didn't!

Your answer doesn't make much sense in terms of what you wrote earlier ("Any history or science teacher who fails to acknolwedge this must surely be failing their students.")

Can you pinpoint Paszkiewicz's active failure to acknowledge "this"?

Glad to. The teacher appears to have aired his religious beliefs in class. Repeatedly.

Correct. He said he doesn't believe in Purgatory, that he believes there were dinosaurs on Noah's ark, and that the universe had to be created by a personal being (not necessarily exhausting the list).

What is your complaint, given that you think that a Muslim (for example) expressing his beliefs wouldn't cause a fuss?

I know that there were times when this was simply in response to questions from students but you have to ask why the students were even interested.

I do?

Now, he seems to have done this in a pretty forceful way, telling students that he thought they would go to hell etc.

You bought a spin job. It's not a perfect transcript, but if you look at the exchange you'll see that the references about going to hell were not directed at the students with evangelical fervor, but done in the context of the Christian explanation of the problems of evil--something that Matthew LaClair asked about.

http://www.dranger.com/classtranscript.html

Paszkiewicz's statements were taken out of context from the moment Matthew brought his accusations. They've been repeated in the media and by the LaClairs until they have been accepted (uncritically) as the truth by many.

That's a pretty intolerant way of getting a point across don't you think?

It would be if it were the truth, but it's not.

If you ask me how to get to heaven under Islam and I tell you that you must accept Allah, the Koran, and the prophet Muhammed (let's assume that I'm correct in that representation, just to avoid digression), am I being intolerant? Does it make a difference whether or not I am a Muslim when I give that description?

Believe in this or suffer eternal damnation, fire and brimstone. For any adult to use that sort of coercion with children is, frankly, appalling.

Should the teacher have explained the Christian explanation for the problem of evil without mentioning Hell or salvation?

Wouldn't be much of an explanation without those things, would it?

But, you are entitled to an entirely different opinion, it is, after all, the mechanism by which all Abrahamic religions get their point across. Tolerance is not God's strong point.

Really? Why does he allow atheists to live even for a little while?

To quote Richard Dawkins, "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filiacidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." (The God Delusion, p. 31)

Dawkins scribed that without apparently realizing the absurdity of suggesting that a god could be megalomaniacal. That's a measure of that particular man (though it hardly exhausts the errors in the brief quotation).

Now, would anyone really want that sort of God in their classroom?

A tolerant person might.

Anti-semitism is an alternative viewpoint, just because it is does not mean that i[t]s espousal by an employee of the government should be condoned.

If we tighten up the analogy to what Paszkiewicz said, then we could reason that anti-semitism should not be mentioned in school.

So much for learning all about WW2 Germany.

Science is founded on empiricism and uses epistemology to make progress. I would disagree that empiricism is taken as axiomatic without discussion.

Your willingness to discuss it hardly rules out the tendency. Philosophy of science gets little attention in American schools. Perhaps your experience is different.

What is often confused is the difference between empirical knowledge and scientific theories which derive from it. Hence the claims of "but it is a scientific fact!"

Talk to Paul. He objects to the notion that accepting scientific claims involves faith.

However, if the empiricist viewpoint is taken as axiomatic then it follows that science will always be either incomplete or inconsitsent. (see Godel, above)

They tend to skip the chapter on Godel in American public schools for some reason.

Similarly, taking the existence of God (or anything else) as axiomatic leads to the same problem.

So you think an infinite god would be either incomplete or inconsistent according to Godel's theorem?

The difficulty for God is that it is claimed he is both complete and consistent.

I don't think that God is claimed to be "complete" in terms of Godel's theorem, but feel free to produce a claim to that effect if you can. I think you'll end up with a fallacy of equivocation.

This makes God innaccessible to epistemology or critical thinking and we need an alternative.

I don't suppose we can consider a critique of your reasoning first?

I think you've both misunderstood and misapplied Godel's theorem.

]The only alternative to critical thinking that I can think of is uncritical thinking. Then the barbarians really will not just be at the gate but sitting in my favourite armchair, spilling ale on the sheepskin and eying the family silver with interest.

Assuming you get past the convert or die phase, of course.

Cogito ergo sum. Done. No problem.

You were pretty quick to substitute philosophy for science, and pretty quick to assume that an argument for existence was an argument for intelligence.

Was either strategy rational and reasonable, IYO?

Well, not quite. I can prove to myself that I am self aware, that's just about it. As I've mentioned above, a "scientific proof" is really inaccessible in philosophical terms, as I suspect you well know. What, anyway, do you mean by "intelligent". It is a complicated term. I'm not even sure I know exactly what "intelligent" means myself, it seems entirely relative.

So you admit the problem.

You can hardly devise a test for something you can't define. But at least you can claim that it isn't necessary in order for complexity to result.

Whatever it is.

Could you prove you believe in God? I mean, you could say or do whatever but there's no real way of looking inside your head and examining your beliefs. You could always just be faking it. Like, I suspect, so many US politicians who go through the motions of religious conviction because the realize they are unelectable if they do not.

Why would I need to prove that I believe in god? Help me out with the relevance.

How about this, you could call me unintelligent, I could sue for libel, and we'll let a jury decide.

On what grounds would you sue for libel if you can't define "intelligent"? How would you perceive the injury? Could you contradict me with science?

I doubt you'd get to the jury stage unless you glommed onto some commonly understood definition. I don't suppose you'd share that definition?

That really is the only "proof" we really deal with on a day to day basis, the sort that's handed down by the courts.

So the gods do exist. They wear robes and sometimes funny wigs.

What is true or untrue is ultimately decided by men and women. That is why Ben Franklin was so very careful, he knew the pitfalls of letting matters of faith interfere with matters of government.

It is also why I and others are concerned at the emergence of a right wing political movement that uses faith to inform policy. The bible is such a horrendously cruel and wide rangingly barbarous text that it can be used to justify almost anything in the name of faith. Eating shellfish could become a capital offense!!! Seems ludicrous? Yes, it is, just as we find slavery ludicrous today, or the salem witch trials. What will our great great grandchildren think of us?

You seem to have danced completely around the issue so far.

The Framers of the Constitution were overwhelmingly religious and overwhelmingly Christian. You expected them to prohibit the eating of shellfish in the Constitution, did you not?

Of course, I could say that my intelligence, meagre as it is, has been revealed to me by an angel of the lord. Would that constitute proof?

Hmm. You seem to know what "intelligence" is enough to use it in a sentence. Shall we blame it on Godel's theorem?

The point is that you cannot have an empirical proof in principle. Pointing to the epistemic problems that a revelatory proof might have don't really address that issue, IMHO.

Perhaps that won't stop you from supposing otherwise.

<appreciated the bits of humor, but it was a bit longish; I think Paul thinks you live in a theocracy>

I have, as you will have figured out by now, a pretty low opinion of any organised religion.

And the people who subscribe to it, it seems (see "bigot").

Spiritual truth is best arrived at through a personal journey of some kind IMHO. Accepting someone elses truth, at face value, is not something I would recommend.

You probably ought to refrain from recommending that spiritual truth anyway, for the sake of avoiding self-stultification (but I suppose you can blame Godel).

That so many people are willing to do so astounded me until I realized that there were certain evolutionary advantages to accepting things on faith. In fact, and you'll get a real kick out of this, religious belief is only really explicable in terms of natural selection and the structure of early hominid society. Having invented it, we then proceed to indoctrinate our young with it. So, we end up with religious beliefs that are simply an accident of birth. If I had been born in Malaysia I would almost certainly be muslim. And, no matter what doubts I might have as to my faith, there is nothing I can do to apostacize, let alone get my foreskin back.

(intellect as slave to cause-and-effect. Is there any evolutionary advantage to self-awareness, under the assumption that our choices are beyond our ability to control?)

Now, things are not quite as bad as that in the US, but the plight of young people, brought up with an unquestioning faith in christianity, who suffer in fear of hellish torment should they stray from the path has to be acknowledged. It is one thing for parents to impose their religious beliefs upon their own children, although I would argue that it does, in some cases, consitute abuse, but for it to be reinforced in the classroom is a very, very serious cause for concern.

Fortunately there's a Christian corollary to the fatalism you expressed earlier in the form of hypercalvinism. Straying from the path doesn't make any difference in their view.

In any case, you've provided a substantial distortion of ordinary Christianity, which does not teach hell as a destination for those who "stray from the path" through various sins, but on account of rejection of the gift of salvation. The Roman Catholic Church, in fact, even continues to claim avowed atheists who were once Roman Catholic as inheritors of eternal life (Paul LaClair will get to heaven eventually if the Catholics are correct).

But don't let me stop you from your overgeneralizing.

[Gavin]

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. My only quarrel with this post is the following: "Evolution, or any scientific theory for that matter, does not have to be accepted by anyone as true. It is, after all, only a theory and as such it cannot be proved to be true."

This is a common misconception. A theory may be proved. In fact, most scientists hold that evolutionary theory is proved and is a fact. The Anti-Defamation League will address this point when it conducts its sessions this coming September.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My pleasure, and please accept my congratulations on the settlement and on having such a courageous and intelligent son. My only hope, in entering this debate, is that it be moved away from the specifics of Matthew and Mr. P so that they can both get on with their lives, and into a wider arena where the issues that Matthew drew attention to can be addressed.

I'm sure you've read my reply to Bryan's comments on my post. I do recommend Popper. The history of science is littered with dogma just as pernicious as religious dogma. Many eminent scientists have fallen into the trap of assuming that, in a particular field, the book had been closed and truth established. Then someone finds that years or centuries later, new evidence causes a rethink and a cherished theory has to be abandoned by something better.

Personally, I think that the weight of evidence in favour of the basic tenets of evolution is huge and I cannot conceive of anything which could be discovered that would disprove it. (Well, upon reflection, I can think of some discovery that would allow the theory of evolution to be consistent with the existence of an active creationist god, but I think it highly improbable) But, had I lived 150 years ago, I would have said exactly the same about Newtonian gravitation and eventually would have had to eat my words.

Science is so successful, arguably the most successful human endeavour, that we are often guilty of a sort of scientific hubris and we forget that what we have acheived through science is based upon the very humbling and courageous principle of peer review. "This is what has been observed, this is what I think it means, I could be wrong though. Can anybody prove I'm wrong?"

So long as the answer to that remains no, we have a workable scientific theory, hopefully with some utility. So often though, the jury comes back, after centuries in some cases, and returns a verdict of, "Yes, you're wrong. Look at this observation." It would be presumptious, in my mind it would be a philosophical travesty, to establish evolution, or any other scientific theory, as "fact" or "truth". But lets just run with it for the time being, keep an open mind, and see what happens.

Religion closes minds, so would any fiat that dictated evolution as "true". Science is a long game, possibly infinitely so, its relentless success in explaining the universe and debunking religious myth and dogma is only impeded by establishing scientific theory as dogma. Perhaps this is what is meant by "false idols" in the OT.

[Bryan]

My pleasure, and please accept my congratulations on the settlement and on having such a courageous and intelligent son.  My only hope, in entering this debate, is that it be moved away from the specifics of Matthew and Mr. P so that they can both get on with their lives, and into a wider arena where the issues that Matthew drew attention to can be addressed.

I'm sure you've read my reply to Bryan's comments on my post.  I do recommend Popper.  The history of science is littered with dogma just as pernicious as religious dogma.  Many eminent scientists have fallen into the trap of assuming that, in a particular field, the book had been closed and truth established. Then someone finds that years or centuries later, new evidence causes a rethink and a cherished theory has to be abandoned by something better.

That includes the ideas of Karl Popper.

There seem to be exceptions to each criterion he suggested.

Personally, I think that the weight of evidence in favour of the basic tenets of evolution is huge and I cannot conceive of anything which could be discovered that would disprove it. (Well, upon reflection, I can think of some discovery that would allow the theory of evolution to be consistent with the existence of an active creationist god, but I think it highly improbable) But, had I lived 150 years ago, I would have said exactly the same about Newtonian gravitation and eventually would have had to eat my words.

That's a reasonable position to take.

Science is so successful, arguably the most successful human endeavour, that we are often guilty of a sort of scientific hubris and we forget that what we have acheived through science is based upon the very humbling and courageous principle of peer review.  "This is what has been observed, this is what I think it means, I could be wrong though.  Can anybody prove I'm wrong?"

In fact, it is not at all uncommon for scientists to keep right on pushing for their own theory even when other theories seem to better fit the evidence. And science and technology progress even without peer review.

Sounds less gallant that way, but that's the way it is.

[Guest Guest]

These are just your views and since you are reporting secondhand and you were not there firsthand either, we are relying on what we have heard from our children.  As far as what you believe Mr. P would or wouldn't have done that is pure speculation on your part since the path your son chose was that which is least taken. As you as well I have listened to the tapes a number of times and as you try to project that Matthew was out of his comfort zone, it was him that was asking most of the questions on the matter, seemingly baiting him for the answers. 

As far as the discussion between your son and Mr. P, it should be done in a private area and just the two of them discuss it in a reasonable and professional mannor. No news reporters, no Administration, no parents, no tapes.  Its what mature invididuals would do.  There need not be a modirator. This is not a debate but hoping that each other clears the air and moves forwards. 

The only thing transparent is your goals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, what's transparent is that a proselytizing fundie teacher got caught in the act and his proselytizing fundie comrades don't like it. And we're not relying on "what we have heard from our children." We are relying on the recordings, which make it abundantly clear what this proselytizing, fundie hypocrite was trying to do. The message to proselytizing fundie hypocrites is that if you misuse your positions of authority to miseducate our kids, we're going to take you public on it, so don't do it.

[Guest Paul]

My pleasure, and please accept my congratulations on the settlement and on having such a courageous and intelligent son.  My only hope, in entering this debate, is that it be moved away from the specifics of Matthew and Mr. P so that they can both get on with their lives, and into a wider arena where the issues that Matthew drew attention to can be addressed.

I'm sure you've read my reply to Bryan's comments on my post.  I do recommend Popper.  The history of science is littered with dogma just as pernicious as religious dogma.  Many eminent scientists have fallen into the trap of assuming that, in a particular field, the book had been closed and truth established. Then someone finds that years or centuries later, new evidence causes a rethink and a cherished theory has to be abandoned by something better.

Personally, I think that the weight of evidence in favour of the basic tenets of evolution is huge and I cannot conceive of anything which could be discovered that would disprove it. (Well, upon reflection, I can think of some discovery that would allow the theory of evolution to be consistent with the existence of an active creationist god, but I think it highly improbable) But, had I lived 150 years ago, I would have said exactly the same about Newtonian gravitation and eventually would have had to eat my words.

Science is so successful, arguably the most successful human endeavour, that we are often guilty of a sort of scientific hubris and we forget that what we have acheived through science is based upon the very humbling and courageous principle of peer review.  "This is what has been observed, this is what I think it means, I could be wrong though.  Can anybody prove I'm wrong?"

So long as the answer to that remains no, we have a workable scientific theory, hopefully with some utility.  So often though, the jury comes back, after centuries in some cases, and returns a verdict of, "Yes, you're wrong.  Look at this observation."  It would be presumptious, in my mind it would be a philosophical travesty, to establish evolution, or any other scientific theory, as "fact" or "truth".  But lets just run with it for the time being, keep an open mind, and see what happens.

Religion closes minds, so would any fiat that dictated evolution as "true".  Science is a long game, possibly infinitely so, its relentless success in explaining the universe and debunking religious myth and dogma is only impeded by establishing scientific theory as dogma.  Perhaps this is what is meant by "false idols" in the OT.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think I understand your point. Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of my favorite books. Amazing that it didn't appear until the early 1960s. I have not read Popper.

A lot of this strikes me as playing with words, though. Science is a collection of provisional truths. You seem to be using "true" as an absolute. That's a useful reminder of one thing, but at the end of the day we have to make decisions: do our best science, for example. We can't do it without operational truths, even if they turn out to be flawed, like Newton's gravitational theory to cite just one example.

In the law, which is my field, there are multiple standards for what it means to "prove" something. Among them are beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal cases), preponderance of evidence (most civil cases), clear and convincing (some regulatory and other matters as I recall it), probable cause (justification for a search warrant), and others. "Proof" and "true" are words we members of this symbolic species use to provide ourselves a framework for our actions.

Finally, I do try to read your posts, but Bryan's posts are so long and so vacuous that I pretty much skim through your responses.

[Guest Guest]

"As I've told you over and over again, we received no paycheck." --Paul LaClair

Pay attention, stupid. You didn't even have to look outside this thread (less than 10 posts back) to see that.

And why would he be scared of people finding out public information? Are you off your meds or something? How absurd.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There goes Paul's wifey again and her big no sense mouth.

[Bryan]

... but Bryan's posts are so long and so vacuous that I pretty much skim through your responses.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great to see you're still above resorting to personal attacks!

Don't show that my posts are vacuous. Just tell.

That one wasn't too long for you, was it?

[Guest Paul]

Great to see you're still above resorting to personal attacks!

 

Don't show that my posts are vacuous.  Just tell. 

That one wasn't too long for you, was it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not personal, Bryan. It can't be, since you are faceless to me. All I know of you is what you write here.

My criticism goes to the content and methods of your posts. They are not intellectually honest, as distinguished from honesty of character, which I don't presume to judge in you for the reasons stated above.

The main reason I've spent as much time on your writings as I have is that I truly believe you have the ability to think, reason and write intelligently. But as it is, you pick little points out of arguments and distort them to suit your wishes. You seem to think that you can refute arguments a sentence or even a phrase at a time without considering the whole picture. That method of intellectual operation renders most of your writing meaningless, and so I ignore it. Meaningless in the sense that it's tied mainly to what you have chosen to believe, not to the reality of the world. In a world of unlimited time, I might respond more fully, but this is not a world of unlimited time. I'm not the only one who has told you this, but you're the only one who can listen and do anything about it.

[Bryan]

It's not personal, Bryan. It can't be, since you are faceless to me. All I know of you is what you write here.

Don't be silly. It's child's play to launch personal attacks against someone who is faceless to you. You're going to do it again in your next paragraph.

My criticism goes to the content and methods of your posts. They are not intellectually honest, as distinguished from honesty of character, which I don't presume to judge in you for the reasons stated above.

I've caught you in numerous fallacies and mistakes, and the only one you've owned up to, according to my recollection, was your gaffe on the timeline relating to the BoE's decision to institute a training program and your registration of an intent to sue.

How an insider could make that mistake is beyond me--it's good evidence of a deliberate attempt to mislead the public if we wanted to engage in such things.

You've got nothing remotely close to that on me. Your attempt to accuse me of various fallacies was nothing short of hysterically funny. You might as well have had Strife dictating that response from over your shoulder.

It's implausible, on the face of it, that a lawyer would be that inept at handling logical fallacies. It hints at actual dishonesty.

And that's the basic difference between us on these boards. I back up what I say, and I do it consistently. I make few mistakes.

You're the opposite. You live on bluster, avoidance, and fallacies of distraction (and you make plenty of mistakes). You consistently make claims that you are either unwilling or unable to back up.

This charge of "not intellectually honest" is just the latest among many examples. You make the charge, and you offer no evidence to back it up.

The main reason I've spent as much time on your writings as I have is that I truly believe you have the ability to think, reason and write intelligently. But as it is, you pick little points out of arguments and distort them to suit your wishes.

No, I do not distort points. And good luck in ever making an argument that plausibly shows otherwise. I doubt you have any intention of trying, and it would surprise me if you even had a specific example in mind as you wrote (if you did, then I might expect to see the examples in print from time to time).

You seem to think that you can refute arguments a sentence or even a phrase at a time without considering the whole picture.

But that's not really possible, is it?

In reality, a solid argument may be composed out of a big pile of fallacies.

I don't suppose we get an example of my failure to appreciate the whole picture?

That method of intellectual operation renders most of your writing meaningless, and so I ignore it.

And no example of how that method of intellectual operation renders most of my writing meaningless, either?

This is Paul's method on a consistent basis. Toss out a king-sized whopper such as dealing with a post point-by-point results in a meaningless response, and don't lift a finger to support the statement.

You might as well be trying to counter my arguments by shouting "Abracadabra!"

Meaningless in the sense that it's tied mainly to what you have chosen to believe, not to the reality of the world.

And you can suggest an example where what I have chosen to believe is at odds with the reality of the world?

How about the current post? Why don't you show how I have merely chosen to believe that you haven't backed up a single one of your charges before proceeding to the next one?

In a world of unlimited time, I might respond more fully, but this is not a world of unlimited time. I'm not the only one who has told you this, but you're the only one who can listen and do anything about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If only Paul had more time, he could provide one example in support of his charges.

Pathetic, LaClair. You've fired off numerous posts where you make unsubstantiated charges, and it's the work of a few minutes to find one good example (if there is one) and refer to it repeatedly if you're going to make the same (baseless) charges over and over as you've chosen to do.

This excuse of not enough time is too thin to cover your ineptitude.

[Strife767]

There goes Paul's wifey again and her big no sense mouth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What part of that post didn't make sense to you? Even a child could have understood it.

Don't get mad at others for your lack of comprehension.

[Guest Guest]

It's not personal, Bryan. It can't be, since you are faceless to me. All I know of you is what you write here.

My criticism goes to the content and methods of your posts. They are not intellectually honest, as distinguished from honesty of character, which I don't presume to judge in you for the reasons stated above.

The main reason I've spent as much time on your writings as I have is that I truly believe you have the ability to think, reason and write intelligently. But as it is, you pick little points out of arguments and distort them to suit your wishes. You seem to think that you can refute arguments a sentence or even a phrase at a time without considering the whole picture. That method of intellectual operation renders most of your writing meaningless, and so I ignore it. Meaningless in the sense that it's tied mainly to what you have chosen to believe, not to the reality of the world. In a world of unlimited time, I might respond more fully, but this is not a world of unlimited time. I'm not the only one who has told you this, but you're the only one who can listen and do anything about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just like Strifie does.