Morning.
I dislike this definition that gets thrown around a lot. There is an important distinction between rejecting/absence of the belief in a God and believing there is no God. The latter is fine in everyday chat but if you're trying to have a genuine debate with some it's just logically incoherent and should be interpreted as lacking a belief in a God.
Atheism is the equal opposite to theism. The former asserts there is no God (ergo a-theism, deriving from the Greek), the latter asserts there is.
The claims 'absence of the belief in a god' or 'believing there is no god' is simply two sides of the same coin.
Heh. The key difference is facts. The science teacher should be teaching facts. I have no problem with a science teacher teaching facts because these facts don't interfere with my world view. If you mean that they shouldn't be telling students that this proves that God doesn't exist or is therefore unlikely (i.e sharing their atheist-minded conclusions) then I agree. Much like I'd expect a religious science teacher to stick to the facts and not sneak in a "but this doesn't exclude God, children!" or a "... which was all thanks to God!".
No, I'm quite happy for science teachers to teach science. My issue is when they teach the absence of God in science. I want them to leave religion out of the science room ;-)
People get uneasy when religions request equal footing because religion is not on equal footing with Science in a fact-based learning environment. This is something many religious people have trouble accepting.
I don't. I just don't want religion discussed. If you want to teach evolution, fine - be my guest. Just don't suggest evolution is a defeater to God.
I don't really understand why if religion is such a personal/spiritual topic that it can't be taught in the home by family or at Church. That being said, elective religious classes don't bother me too much, as long as it's not core/compulsory.
That's a secular mindset.
It needs to be taught because to not teach it means ignoring an enormous part of human history, the human condition and an integral part of coexisting with people who hold other points of view to you.
Ignorance is the lack of knowledge. I don't want an ignorant generation.
How does one even teach secularism? The point of secularism is to be free from religious based rulings and teachings. When religious subjects are only elective and not compulsory, I'd argue you've achieved a reasonable level of secularism. Don't get me wrong, I'd totally be in favour of complete separation, but surely this is a decent middle-ground.
You've answered your own question. Teaching secularism
is teaching people 'to be free from religious based rulings and teachings'. Its suggesting church and state be separate, its suggesting humanist morality and ethics rather than religious or spiritually based morals and ethics, its creating a worldview for the kids to view things through that is devoid of any religious aspect at all.
That's the beauty of science. It's true whether one chooses to believe it or not.
Agree.
