There is so much teaching in religion. And it is tough to get an unbiased
single viewpoint. From my eyes - you need to distill comparative religions
to capture the truth in any one. And there are many recurring themes.
>> help a kid broaden his or her worldview is a great thing.
Never mind the kids, I think its essential learning for me.
Eric
_____
From: Jim Campbell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: September 28, 2004 5:03 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Here we go again....
I absolutely think comparitive religion should be taught in public
schools. It's highly relevant to current events, and anything that can
help a kid broaden his or her worldview is a great thing. Being able to
learn about the history of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. as well as
Atheism in a non-slanted, non-judgmental way.
Education begets understanding, as far as I'm concerned.
- Jim
Eric Dawson wrote:
>my favourite quote of late
>
>"..the scientific method is anecdotal"
>
>
>
>? Should religion be taught in schools?
>
>* maybe comparative religion should be?
>
>
>
>Eric
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>From: Won Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: September 28, 2004 10:20 AM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: Re: Here we go again....
>
>
>
>
>
>>Okay, that didn't make sense. Calculus is calculus is calculus. It
>>gets a little bit more advanced every day, but the basics haven't
>>changed since Newton and Liebnitz laid them down. Newton's Limit Method
>>for determining the slope of a curve at a given point is still perfectly
>>accurate, if tedious and extremely difficult to use under certain
>>circumstances. What does Eienstein have to do with this?
>>
>>
>
>1) I shouldn't have put those two sentences together. I didn't mean that
>there is a relationship between them. I actually never should have
>included it in the first place. I was just trying to make a point that
>everything they teach in class isn't 100% correct either. That doesn't
>mean that we shouldn't teach it in class though. Because what we are
>really teaching is a way to think and try to inspire new ideas and possible
>new answers. The best part is that new answers create new problems. Which
>is great. Again this is just my opinion. But if one's argument is, let's
>not teach creation in school because it's wrong then it would be
>irresponsible to teach anything that isn't 100% proven to be correct.
>
>2)
>
>http://www.math.wichita.edu/history/men/newton.html
>
>Some of Newton's discoveries were later refuted by Albert Einstein in
>reference to his theories of gravitational pull. However, Einstein and
>others still contend that Newton was indeed a very important force in man's
>quest for knowledge and is highly regarded for his contributions in many
>different areas of science.
>
>I shouldn't have taken it at face value but my calc prof did say that
>Einstein refuted Newton's physics by proving some of this integral calculus
>to be incorrect or incomplete.
>
>
>
>
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
