Homeschooling? (Read 1986 times)

Peers who all-to-often reject or submarine work which contradicts their own, regardless of its merits, so that they may stick to their own preconceived notions.

 

Sadly even science and peer-review is political.

Yes, sometimes. (And I should qualify my above post--I'm not talking about all religious folks, that was too sweeping of a statement. Really, it's just folks who don't understand the method of production of ideas.)

But my point was that the well-educated feel strongly about their ideas because they have been hard-won; they are achievements of intelligence. Their stubbornness is a reflection of that achievement (sometimes.) Sometimes it's plain old human stubbornness.

 If you're going to be philosophical, is a person's view of the world fluid and ever-changing or is something to "keep" or "put back" on the shelf like the insurance packages in the Progressive Insurance commercials.

in my humble uneducated opinion, I think people just strengthen their worldview position by evolving it...or maybe it mutates...which then makes it an ever-changing thing...not fluid - but more like a glacier...consider it 'process improvement'.

I don't watch a whole of TV - so I don't see the progressive insurance commercials...I am too busy warping my children's worldview...

 What about your views?  Which of those have you abandoned lately? 

I just spent 5 years in a philosophy Ph.D. program examining all of my fundamental beliefs. Taking them apart, putting them back together. I read literally hundreds of the most intelligent (and stubborn) thinkers in human history. I read religious thinkers, devout atheists, thinkers from the classical period, medieval period, modern period, and post-modern period. I wrote papers on them, trying to articulate where I stood in relation to them. I had other people read these papers and judge them, challenge me on those positions. I read my views before audiences of philosophers who have done the same thing. I examine my views in front of my students. I answer their objections. I learn from them. My job, every day, is to work in a small room with a bunch of people that believe different things and bring up controversial issues in a way that they can be discussed, if not resolved.

During this time, I have developed some views. I have abandoned plenty. I've been confused, too. But I've always tried to stick to one principle: call it my "Socratic faith." To articulate as clearly as possible, without fear, my own positions. That's what I've been doing on this thread, not perfectly. Sometimes hastily. I do not take these actions as a sign of disrespect, but as a willingness to put myself out there, as a gift, in a certain way. The offering of critical intelligence. The offering of a position. Maybe that sounds arrogant or cheesy, but I am both of those things, too.

Yes, it stirs the pot. Yes, I say some things that upon reflection appear wrong to me. Yes, my views offend others. Yes, I am overly argumentative.

But the truth is, I love the exchange of ideas. I love the arguments. I love to see the passion, the life, that people show on behalf of their beliefs. That's what I love, and it's why I do what I do.

This thread just makes me feel like an idiot.

...and I learned that at home.

Ah well.  I got quite a bit out of Jeff's posts today (the ones yesterday I didn't quite grok, though in fairness I didn't try Real Hard).  There's goodness for me in that.

I think I will run.

When you say, "Evolution is central to biology.", this isn't even the argument that is being discussed, unless you explain further what you mean by "evolution".  Evolution within species is observed in nature.  I don't think I said or implied that I didn't believe that. 

 

You say "why not take the trouble to provide them with the truth".  That's pretty weak.  You imply that there is a conscious effort to withold the truth from our children.  I think that you really believe what you say you believe, so to say to you, "why not take the trouble to provide our children with the truth" really has no meaning other than to give you a slightly veiled insult.

 

This "truth" you speak of that "The vast majority of Christians with scientific training acknowledge...", is not Darwin's theory of evolution.

 

Can you explain further what most Christians would resent, because by definition, a Christian is one who believes and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, so I'm at a loss as to where I presented a view that is inconsistent with that.

Evolution of species, not just within species, is central to biology. Accepting that evolution within species occurs is just a partial understanding. 

Regarding truth ... with ID there is a conscious effort to teach kids something that is not scientific truth. Intelligent Design is not science. Claiming that it's an alternative scientific view to evolution is entirely false. It is a religious view. The scientific literature is clear on this and the Dover trial, presided over by a Christian conservative judge examined this too.  If someone wants to state that their faith is in conflict with science and that they don't want to teach their kids modern science that is one thing, but it's incorrect to claim that they are being provided with a scientific education in this regard.

I'm not sure what your point is in the third paragraph. Who is suggesting that Darwin's 'The Origin of Species' is used in a modern classroom anymore than Newton's Principia is used to teach gravitation? Modern evolutionary theory is accepted by scientists as true, including a majority of Christian ones.

And lastly, many Christians who accept modern science do get irritated by other Christians stating that evolution is an atheistic belief and contrary to their faith.  Is that surprising?

The Old Testament is Trent's Bible.  In my Bible, the New Testament released us from The Law described in the old testament.

If ithe bible isn't all true, then how do you decide which parts are not?

If there can be a New Testament, can there not be a newer New Testament?  Isn't that what the Koran is?

And the Book of Mormon.  Don't forget that.

I just spent 5 years in a philosophy Ph.D. program examining all of my fundamental beliefs. Taking them apart, putting them back together. I read literally hundreds of the most intelligent (and stubborn) thinkers in human history. I read religious thinkers, devout atheists, thinkers from the classical period, medieval period, modern period, and post-modern period. I wrote papers on them, trying to articulate where I stood in relation to them. I had other people read these papers and judge them, challenge me on those positions. I read my views before audiences of philosophers who have done the same thing. I examine my views in front of my students. I answer their objections. I learn from them. My job, every day, is to work in a small room with a bunch of people that believe different things and bring up controversial issues in a way that they can be discussed, if not resolved.

 

During this time, I have developed some views. I have abandoned plenty. I've been confused, too. But I've always tried to stick to one principle: call it my "Socratic faith." To articulate as clearly as possible, without fear, my own positions. That's what I've been doing on this thread, not perfectly. Sometimes hastily. I do not take these actions as a sign of disrespect, but as a willingness to put myself out there, as a gift, in a certain way. The offering of critical intelligence. The offering of a position. Maybe that sounds arrogant or cheesy, but I am both of those things, too.

 

Yes, it stirs the pot. Yes, I say some things that upon reflection appear wrong to me. Yes, my views offend others. Yes, I am overly argumentative.

 

But the truth is, I love the exchange of ideas. I love the arguments. I love to see the passion, the life, that people show on behalf of their beliefs. That's what I love, and it's why I do what I do.

I think a few beers with Jeff (as long as he was buying) would be interesting!