5.13.2005
The Cosmic Religious Feeling
After reading Mike's recent post on the raging creation/evolution debate, I figure I may as well throw in my two cents. Heck, maybe three...
I tend to be sympathetic to those who would like to see Intelligent Design taught in schools. Not in a science class, but in an optional philosophy class fused with science. As far as Evolution is concerned, it's still a theory and should be treated as so, not an absolute truth as some of my teachers have done. It needs to be realized that the scientist can easily become something like a fire and brimstone theocrat, teaching theories as fact and forgetting that much of science is also faith based.
The current debate between creation and evolution does bring to light something largely missing from the classroom.
What is the problem with teaching science today? It's boring. I hated it in highschool because it was mostly made up memorizing data and not the inquiry into the how and why of things. It was completely devoid of the wonder, the marvel we have all felt as we gaze at the star dotted sky or contemplate the unique function of this planet and our bodies. Albert Einstein, in his essay "The World as I see It," rightly dubbed this awe as the "Cosmic Religious Feeling."
"The cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand. . . It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength."
Some of us interpret the Cosmic Religious Feeling as God and attribute it accordingly to our faith, while the rest of us awknowledge it and are humbled, but see no reason to redefine their beliefs. This is fine. Regardless of either side, we need more of or something like the Cosmic Religious Feeling in the classroom.
DATA OUTPUT: Jessi @ 3:20 PM
DATA INPUT = 16
16 Comments:
Jessi, you make some interesting points, but I find part of your argument to be flawed. Specifically in the way you seem to dismiss the importance of something when it has earned the rare right to be a scientifically accepted theory.
I have posted some further thoughts on the topic on my blog and would be interested in hearing your comments!
Yes... lets remember.. that.. the THEORY OF GRAVITY is ONLY a THEORY. :)
Theory is often backed up by scientific fact. Belief is simply, belief.
So, to say evolution is "just a theory" is the ultimate flaw in the fight against evolution. - Mike
Well, I suppose that would be true if I were a warrior in the fight against evolution, which I am not. I'll reconfirm that I see no reason to stop teaching evolution or to include Intelligent Design in a science class because I recognize that ID, despite my feelings about it, offers nothing scientifically. With respect to the scientific method, I concede I should not have referred to it as 'still a theory.'
I do have an issue with teachers openly challenging the religious beliefs of their students, which was mostly my point. My lessons with evolution and the origins of the world began with the teacher's assistant, a grad student, nonchalantly asking "Now class, how do we know that one day is 24 Hours to God? What if it’s xxx-thousand years?" The remainder of the hour was spent in debate on how Genesis should be properly interpreted. We should have been getting science with the assistant ending with "...and this is how/what science credits/believes/concludes on what happened" and not a subtle mockery of religious text.
"I do have an issue with teachers openly challenging the religious beliefs of their students, which was mostly my point."
I agree here. Unless it is a college course. At that age the challenge should be welcome and they should be strong enough in their faith to be willing to consider all the alternatives.
Thing is there are always going to be good and bad teachers. Some teachers who will also force religion on to students rather than teach them evolution. There are even more important flaws in our education system than these. What really scares me are all the kids who seem to slip through the cracks with out being able to read. The funding that’s being cut from schools with this "no child left behind" crap and the lack of arts being taught. I can teach my child what is right to believe in religion and explain to them why the teacher is wrong(if i think that) but I can't teach my child to play a musical instrument I don't know, or information on historical paintings, or many other things that the schools should be teaching. Religion should ultimately be the parents responsibility so I think you should just leave it out of school all together. Church and state should be too seperate things. The lines are being blurred far too much already. FAR TOO MUCH.
So what do you teach? You teach what is most scientifically proven and you cover it very briefly and send home a disclaimer to the parents. Just like they do for sex ed.
Something that I've heard put up on the table before from others is a class that teaches possible beginnings. Such as this, intelligent design, which I think is far from intelligent, and evolution. We have in this country though far more than two ideas on how life came to be on this planet and if we were to teach them all it would be far too much. Just the native American beliefs alone would be too much.
Church and state should be too seperate things. The lines are being blurred far too much already. FAR TOO MUCH.
Certainly, though schools should teach about religion. Our children need to know about the world after all.
There is a terribly important factor on the seperation of Church and State that few people consider, especially the Prayer in School advocates. A student is free to pray on his own and should always be. But if you put religion into a government institution like public schools, you invite government into religion. Should politicians and teachers be trusted to decide what the 10 Commandments really mean? With the concept of political correctness, the notion of an official state version of the Bible and other religious text is something to be worried about.
As for Intelligent Design, I maintain that I see nothing wrong with it being taught in something like a philosophy class. Just not science, because ID is not science. It's not exactly a religion either, even though its advocated by religious people.
We have in this country though far more than two ideas on how life came to be on this planet and if we were to teach them all it would be far too much.
I'd be very interested to hear an alternatives to ID or evolution. Do you have any?
Metachlorians.
Religion should not be taught in elementary or even jr. high or high school.
If you want your child to learn about the world, history, and ohter such courses can teach about the world. Religion is not the world.
If religion is going to be taught then it should be taught at the college level. A child is in no place to choose what they believe in at a young age.
As for origins of life stories alomst as valid as the bible. (hehe... you can hit me later)
Here are just a couple of hundreds out there. These are native american ones only I'm not even taking other countries into consideration.
http://members.cox.net/academia/origins.html
http://www.asu.edu/lib/archives/religion.htm
and this site which i liked the best.
http://www.indigenouspeople.net/legend.htm
Not everyone goes off to college. Learning about religions/culture/traditions of other countries is important.
How do you teach a course on say... India, without including their faith which happens to be a large part of Indian culture? What about history? Are you going to give lessons on the Crusades without going into some depth about the religious motivations involved?
I'm not advocating spirituality here. It is possible to teach about religion objectively.
This discussion was started over on a message board friends and I frequent. The following is a quote from a friend.
ID is a copout of "I/we/you don't know something so it *has* to be caused by a superior intelect". It insults scientific methods and enlightened thought, all under the pretense of being part of such. It's a farce; to call it a "theory" is a sign of ignorance of the very basic principles of science.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Troll dung. That last bit is a useless and unconstructive addition to this discussion. Haven't the positions of ID and science been acknowledged several times within the comments of this blog?
Here I go, once more for the record. The idea of a Designer does not seem unreasonable to me because I am person who has much reverence towards the beauty of natural phenomena. I find the notion that life as we know it was caused by some cosmic accident to be a bit incredible. My personal philosophy aside, I respect the scientific method because science works and realize ID can't offer anything particularly useful to the Science.
No one here has proposed ID as science, so what exactly are we arguing now?
Jessi will you be my girl friend?
jessi... i didn't think we were arguing. :(
(hugs)
matt. You have to get my approval first. I'm the big brother.
Aww, Ash. Sorry. I feel like such a jerk now. :-(
http://www.kcsaclan.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=6853
The discussion we have been having about ID which also involves a pastor in training. This is the conversation i mentioned to you last night at Draft Picks
Remember, I said ID should be taught in a philosophy class. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was talking about when I said the classroom needs more of the "Cosmic Religious Feeling."
Have you ever stood and stared at it, marveled at it's beauty, it's genius?
I could care less about the science that dictates boring statistics. Tell me about worm holes, dark matter or the Andromeda galaxy. Tell me more about our own Mars or Titan. Tell me what happens to dear Terra when our sun finally expires?
Even better... tell me about the future use of nanotechnology to destroy cancer or change the molecular structure of one item into something else. That should get the attention of any kid.
We are an amazing race who lives on an amazing planet in an absolutely amazing universe. Teach the kids this, thats all I'm saying.
Post a Comment
<< Home