Do you think science classes in public schools should have lessons for proving each religion wrong as part of their cirriculum?

[TheSpaceGnome]

I do.

If you go far enough in things like physics, natural history, astronomy, geology, chemistry, biology, etc. It prevents and destroys religious beliefs in anyone who can grasp the knowledge.

Updates

1 y

To be clear, I am in fact stating that sufficiently informed people can't believe in religions, as the evidence contradicts them. So education in sufficient amounts kills religion on its own, whether you bring up a given religion or not.

[BCRanger10]

No. For one thing, my religious beliefs aside, that's not what I'm paying public schools for. Public education is just supposed to say "this is what x is, what it does, and how it works."

For another, science has neither the competence nor the authority to disprove religious faith because they concerned with two different things. The natural and physical sciences are concerned with natural and physical things. Religion and faith are concerned with the supernatural, the transcendent, and the metaphysical.

[TheSpaceGnome]

"Public education is just supposed to say "this is what x is, what it does, and how it works.""

Thats what I'm saying though, if that specifically is taught in enough detail, religions by default are proven wrong by just learning how things actually work.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Supernatural and metaphysical things as a whole are proven to be fiction by science, and transcendent topics in your specific context, are as well. And the fact that you (and many others) do not already know this, is why I'm proposing such an idea in the first place.

[BCRanger10]

When, where, how, and by whom?

[CloudMassacre]

I think just presenting the facts is enough. Like I would hate being in geology and have to sit through classes about religions that I don’t care about, I’m there to learn about rocks. Like make a Skeptics Approach to Theology class or something for that religion bullshit

[SnowedIn]

Perfectly said!

[TheSpaceGnome]

I think you misread my question. What you are describing is what I was suggesting.

Normally classes in highschool do not go into detail enough, geochronology for instance, or physics, or evolutionary phylogeny, or genetics, these things tend to discredit religion, and if forced to learn them in school to get a diploma, more people would see religions for the nonsense that they are.

The idea is to make understanding science common, whereas today, most people do not understand any of it, and they sit there wondering who to believe instead of knowing how anything actually works.

[CloudMassacre]

@SnowedIn like for me growing up, my parents raised me “atheist” but just basically told me people believe different things and if I found something to believe in that they would be supportive. And growing up, the other kids kindof bullied me for not believing, and the Bible didn’t make sense with what we know with science and geological evidence, and I tried a few prayer tests to see if a god would interact with me. And after all that I’m still just an atheist 🤷‍♂️ Plus, religious people don’t really follow their book, so it just comes off disingenuous and even hypocritical

[CloudMassacre]

Yeah, but you said “should have lessons for proving each religion wrong” so to me that sounds like specifically mentioning the religions and discussing them in a science class

[TheSpaceGnome]

Geochronology lessons prove isotope dating's accuracy level, making it a lesson that any religions saying that the earth is 2, 6, or 10 thousand years old, are verifiably false.

Stuff like that, should highscool diplomas require clusters of knowledge that debunk religions?

[CloudMassacre]

I think they should just be given straight information without bringing religion up

[TheSpaceGnome]

Again, that is what I'm suggesting. The point is gullibility resistance. Knowledge alone forces each person to abandoned faith when in their own heads they conflict.

[TheSpaceGnome]

You would not need to bring religion up, specific college courses in highschool is enough to do the job automatically.

[Avicenna]

Well, if you think that's needed, you can start and fund your own private school. In the meantime, let's let science teachers do their jobs, which isn't to discuss religion,

Religion isn't as incompatible with science as you claim it is. And this world has plenty of people that believe things that aren't true. Should we force them to believe certain things? That would be worse.

[Lionman95]

What´s the benefit of it? You want an atheistic culture then look to China, if that´s the way you wanna live like this go there for vacation. Because part of a democracy or a republic is a freedom of speech and religion.
I doubt these discussions will lead to anything hence either studies will lie to their teachers about their beliefs or they will leave schools or schools get sued for doing.
I don´t see any benefit in your idea.

[TheSpaceGnome]

I do not think religion has a place in human culture at all, and most of china isn't atheist.

The point is to irradicate religion entirely, by making scientific knowledge become common knowledge, (rather than something only college graduates in specific career fields know), or more specifically, the goal is to increase the average public intelligence level substancially, so that gullibility is substancually lessoned, and as a result, relgious thinking/faith in general just dies out on it's own.

[Lionman95]

I don´t think that you´ll ever increase religion entirely because not all people are 100% rational people. Also many scientific discussions are discussion of college graduates for a reason because those discussions are either too complicated or simply too boring for them.
Besides that one could argue that at least in Europe maybe also in Southern America football has religious attributes already because people spend everything they have for a club they don´t control and they fill most of their life with it. They show behaviors you could find similarly in religious rituals as well.

[TheSpaceGnome]

I honestly don't agree.