Most Noble Science: Math or Theology?

[JohnDamian]

No it is not a good thing. Anything that distracts from science should not be in a science text book, ever, under any circumstances.

Leave the philosophy to the philosophers and the science to the scientists.

Knowlege without context is worthless. Science, like any subject should be taught in regards to how it operated with the world around it, to do any less is to cause pupils, particularily in lower end education (high school etc.) to become unable to connect the information they learn with their experiences of the world, thus hampering their learning and making what little is learned totally worthless.

To compartmentalise too heavily at a school/college level will only leave people disillusioned as to how what they are being taught applies to the world around them. This is not something anyone (religious or otherwise) would want.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Knowlege without context is worthless. Science, like any subject should be taught in regards to how it operated with the world around it, to do any less is to cause pupils, particularily in lower end education (high school etc.) to become unable to connect the information they learn with their experiences of the world, thus hampering their learning and making what little is learned totally worthless.

To compartmentalise too heavily at a school/college level will only leave people disillusioned as to how what they are being taught applies to the world around them. This is not something anyone (religious or otherwise) would want.

We aren’t talking about teaching science in regards to how it operates in the world around it, we’re talking about teaching science alongside lessons in the occult.

 

[JohnDamian]

We aren’t talking about teaching science in regards to how it operates in the world around it, we’re talking about teaching science alongside lessons in the occult.

How is saying that many things are not explained by science, but are instead explained by Religion a problem?!

Or saying that some of the unsolved questions in science are *claimed *to be understood by religious teaching?

Obviously, teaching creationism or the like would not be suitable in science classes, but to state that many people believe the cause of the Big Bang to be God is fine. It is not making the positive claim that it IS caused by God, it merely puts the pupils knowlege (Big Bang) in perspective with what alot of people in the world believe.

 

[Moonstruck888]

How is saying that many things are not explained by science, but are instead explained by Religion a problem?!

Or saying that some of the unsolved questions in science are *claimed *to be understood by religious teaching?

Obviously, teaching creationism or the like would not be suitable in science classes, but to state that many people believe the cause of the Big Bang to be God is fine. It is not making the positive claim that it IS caused by God, it merely puts the pupils knowlege (Big Bang) in perspective with what alot of people in the world believe.

It’s not a problem, as long as it’s not done in science class. In a science class it’s irrelevant. A scientist must practice science unfettered with belief. It doesn’t matter what the rest of the world believes, the scientist must clear his or her mind of all that while they practice science.

On their time off, of course he or she can retain any opinions they want, however wild.

What you’re suggesting is like interrupting a music class to tell them that eight out of ten people eat cornflakes for breakfast.

 

[JohnDamian]

It’s not a problem, as long as it’s not done in science class. In a science class it’s irrelevant. A scientist must practice science unfettered with belief. It doesn’t matter what the rest of the world believes, the scientist must clear his or her mind of all that while they practice science.

On their time off, of course he or she can retain any opinions they want, however wild.

What you’re suggesting is like interrupting a music class to tell them that eight out of ten people eat cornflakes for breakfast.

No.

What I am saying is like placing religion in a music class in terms of explaining something that is relevant to music, and incorporates it; for example Mozart’s Requiem Mass. In the same way as it would be pointless talking about say; transubstantiation in a Music Class, mentioning that Religion inspired Mozart to write many of his pieces, and many of them were themed in this way appears sensible… In the same way, explaining that many people offer non-scientific theories about problems science cannot solve is required in a science class. If a student asks where the universe comes from, one should say “science cannot explain this at present; although religion and philosophy offer some explanations; and refer the student to the philosophy teacher/library section”.

To offer no explanation whatsoever, and to not inform the student of alternate explanations to problems is not education at all, it is absurd.

 

[Moonstruck888]

No.

What I am saying is like placing religion in a music class in terms of explaining something that is relevant to music, and incorporates it; for example Mozart’s Requiem Mass. In the same way as it would be pointless talking about say; transubstantiation in a Music Class, mentioning that Religion inspired Mozart to write many of his pieces, and many of them were themed in this way appears sensible… In the same way, explaining that many people offer non-scientific theories about problems science cannot solve is required in a science class. If a student asks where the universe comes from, one should say “science cannot explain this at present; although religion and philosophy offer some explanations; and refer the student to the philosophy teacher/library section”.

To offer no explanation whatsoever, and to not inform the student of alternate explanations to problems is not education at all, it is absurd.

I don’t think our ideas of what constitutes a good education coincide. I don’t want to be a jack of all trades and master of none when I go to school, I want to prepare for a career by concentrating exclusively on the subject at hand and avoiding any kind of lateral baggage that could be thrown in with it.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think our ideas of what constitutes a good education coincide. I don’t want to be a jack of all trades and master of none when I go to school, I want to prepare for a career by concentrating exclusively on the subject at hand and avoiding any kind of lateral baggage that could be thrown in with it.

So there is no room for **lateral thinking **in your approach to education?
Over-specialisation is self-defeating…

 

[inocente]

So there is no room for **lateral thinking **in your approach to education?

The obvious compromise is to synchronize the syllabus so that after learning the big bang theory in science class, students learn what that may or may not mean in the philosophy and religion classes.

 

[inocente]

Geremia - here’s another simple argument against God-of-the-gaps in case you haven’t seen it:

…how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (theopedia)

In a debate with friends, everyone else maintained that God is restricted in one way or another, e.g. God must be rational, but I argued (and lost) never to put God in a box.

The true God, the Trinity, is Logos, Reason.

God is Reason + We are made in His image + Love is irrational = does not compute (to me)

Little help?

 

[Hooding_Trees]

OMG theology is NOT a science.

 

[davidv]

OMG theology is NOT a science.

Only if one artificially restricts the meaning of “science”.

Theology is a science within meanings 1, 4, 5 and 6 below
=dictionary.com (science):

**1. **a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: *the mathematical sciences. *
**2. **systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
**3. **any of the branches of natural or physical science.
**4. **systematized knowledge in general.
**5. **knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
**6. **a particular branch of knowledge.
**7. **skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

Only if one artificially restricts the meaning of “science”.

Theology is a science within meanings 1, 4, 5 and 6 below

Err no. Knowledge and theology do not go.

Theology = study of made up stories. That my friend is NOT science…

“Theology is the study of a god or, more generally, the study of religious faith, practice, and experience, or of spirituality.”

^^^ THIS IS NOT SCIENCE!

Tell me one piece of scientific knowledge that theology has contributed to mankind.

Maths = Bachelor of Science. Theology = Bachelor of Arts

 

[davidv]

Err no. Knowledge and theology do not go.

Theology = study of made up stories. That my friend is NOT science…

Nice example of the strawmen fallacy.

“Theology is the study of a god or, more generally, the study of religious faith, practice, and experience, or of spirituality.”

^^^ THIS IS NOT SCIENCE!

Only if you restrict the definition.

Tell me one piece of scientific knowledge that theology has contributed to mankind.

Maths = Bachelor of Science. Theology = Bachelor of Arts

Why do you insist on “scientific knowledge”? The definitions of “science” contain no such limit?

Are you saying that there is no knowledge gained in acheiving a BA?

 

[Dhelenmarie]

This is a deistic “God-in-the-gaps” theology, in the gaps of our understanding or in the processes of nature. It is what the Protestant Intelligent Design (ID) movement supports; it is not Catholic. God, being outside of time, is responsible for the very being of everything created and the government of the universe; if He were not constantly creating everything created, created things would cease to exist. He did not just create the universe at a moment in time—e.g., at the Big Bang—and leave it alone. He is not a super-powerful natural agent, especially when it comes to explaining life. Just because life is complex does not mean that nature cannot be its proximate cause. God is especially not an empty explanation for what we do not know!

Read these things:
“Thomas Aquinas vs. The Intelligent Designers”
**
Creation Mingled with Works of Nature? No.**

St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica: “Whether creation creatio ex nihilo or “out of nothing”] is mingled with works of nature and art?” While ID advocates would say “Yes,” St. Thomas says “No.” He says that “in the works of nature creation does not enter, but is presupposed to the work of nature.” This is fully consistent with God simply letting things be. He does not say, e.g., “I create light!” but “Let there be light.” (Genesis 1:3). Nor does He say “I bring forth the living creature!” but “Let the earth bring forth the living creature.” (Genesis 1:24).

Yes, Yes, Geremia. I do agree with you. I just did not have time to get into all of it in a short post. And the ideas in your post is what I do convey or draw out to, and with, the students. (and thank you, by the way, for the links. I will study them.) Anyway, what I mentioned in my post was a way to get the conversation started. (There are always a couple of teenagers who clain to be athiest in the class - and posing questions like this gets them to start to think about things on a larger scale.) And "the big bang’ was just one example out of many other aspects covered in class. Remember, these are 14 year-olds who do not yet think or comprehend the world like adults! They are just beginning to be confronted with the questions of life. They could not even read or begin to understand the link you suggested. What does our pope say about scientific thought - for example on evolution??? My point is that there is no conflict between science and Catholic teaching. Truth is truth. And we here in the Canadian Catholic school system, are to bring Catholic teaching and Catholic values into all of the courses taught in our Catholic high schools and elementary schools - not just in “religion” class. Are we only to be good Catholic Christians only when we are in religion class or just when we go to church? No. Our beliefs should permeate everything we do, and the way we live our lives. We, as teachers, are to be role models of Catholicism - not just "givers of subject information’. Then we would be no different than our public counterparts. We have daily prayers, Mass, prayer services, visits from our priest, retreats, etc. etc. along with conveying the same course content in history, geography, math, and…science!

 

[Hooding_Trees]

Nice example of the strawmen fallacy.

Only if you restrict the definition.

Why do you insist on “scientific knowledge”? The definitions of “science” contain no such limit?

Are you saying that there is no knowledge gained in acheiving a BA?

Science refers to as method. The method can be applied to certain disciplines to gain knowledge. Maths is one such discipline, theology is not. **The definition is restricted to disciplines that the method can be applied to, hence what we know as the sciences. **Theology is out with this, simply it is not a science.

Now you can claim it is, however you cannot give me ONE SINGLE example of how we can apply the method to theology to gain knowledge. Furthermore you cannot provide me one example of a Seat of learning that runs a theology course which awards a scientific degree. In short you are living in your own little wonder world.

So give me ONE SINGLE example of how we can apply the method to theology to gain knowledge, or provide me one example of a Seat of learning that runs a theology course which awards a scientific degree. If you can we will continue this debate, it you can don’t bother to reply, theres a good chap .

 

[davidv]

Science refers to as method.

Not according to the definitions I provided in post #111.

The method can be applied to certain disciplines to gain knowledge.

But not all disciplines.

Maths is one such discipline, theology is not. **The definition is restricted to disciplines that the method can be applied to, hence what we know as the sciences. **

Why should I accept this definition?

Theology is out with this, simply it is not a science.

Now you can claim it is, however you cannot give me ONE SINGLE example of how we can apply the method to theology to gain knowledge.

Would you use a hammer to turn a screw?

Furthermore you cannot provide me one example of a Seat of learning that runs a theology course which awards a scientific degree. In short you are living in your own little wonder world.

So what? This doesn’t prove your point.

So give me ONE SINGLE example of how we can apply the method to theology to gain knowledge, or provide me one example of a Seat of learning that runs a theology course which awards a scientific degree. If you can we will continue this debate, it you can don’t bother to reply, theres a good chap .

Why would I give you a contradiction? The scientific method is properly applied when dealing with the physical/material world. However there is more to reality than the physical/material.

 

[Moonstruck888]

So there is no room for **lateral thinking **in your approach to education?
Over-specialisation is self-defeating…

I don’t agree. You select subjects that are going to be useful to you in your career and study them. What’s the point in teaching epistimology to someone who wants to learn to be a motor car mechanic? What’s the point in teaching Geology to someone who wants to learn to play a piano? What’s the point in teaching philosophy or theology to someone who wants to learn science?

Lateral thinking is a pointless distraction. You don’t learn to run before you can walk. Learn your trade and then you can try to push the boundaries of it by lateral thinking.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t agree. You select subjects that are going to be useful to you in your career and study them. What’s the point in teaching epistimology to someone who wants to learn to be a motor car mechanic? What’s the point in teaching Geology to someone who wants to learn to play a piano? What’s the point in teaching philosophy or theology to someone who wants to learn science?

Lateral thinking is a pointless distraction. You don’t learn to run before you can walk. Learn your trade and then you can try to push the boundaries of it by lateral thinking.

So you think Liberal Studies are a complete waste of time?

 

[Moonstruck888]

So you think Liberal Studies are a complete waste of time?

Je ne connais pas. I’m not familiar with the particulars of the US curriculum. I haven’t heard of liberal studies.

 

[tonyrey]

Je ne connais pas. I’m not familiar with the particulars of the US curriculum. I haven’t heard of liberal studies.

How about General Studies? Or have they been abandoned in this age of excessive specialisation? I used to teach it (them!)…