Education
Bertrand Russell chats about God, Christian dogma [1959]
From AtheistMediaBlog
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aPOMUTr1qw
-
Ethics [still] vs Scripture
Far from any religion, and especially Christianity, being essential to the development of a sound ethical sense, it is a destructive hindrance from whose influence all children, but especially those in our public schools, should be protected.
Prominent clerics in New South Wales are claiming that ethics which are not based on Christian teaching are somehow not proper. They are labouring under the delusion that ethics and religious belief are interdependent. In fact, religion is to ethics as pseudoscience is to science. In each case, the proselytisers of the former try to establish a right to make significant statements about the latter by presenting the latter as being somehow owned by the former.
In NSW, the anxious clerics are even going to the extent of insisting that they should have a prominent role in evaluating the ethics courses being tried out in ten schools because, as they falsely argue, ethics is a subset of religion.
In fact, far from the churches being allowed some role to play in the design or evaluation of ethics courses in schools, they should be not allowed within a bull’s roar of them.
Ethical and religious teachings are both concerned with how people should behave in particular situations and to this extent have a seeming similarity, but there are at least three ways in which they are starkly different and largely incompatible.
Objective:
Ethics concerns itself with how people should behave so as to secure the greatest possible well being of all human beings in this life. Religion concerns itself with how people should behave so as to secure the greatest possible well being for themselves in the next life. Ethics is about securing benefits for everyone in the one existence we know we all shall have; religion is about securing benefits for yourself in a future existence that many (maybe most) do not even think will happen.
Methodology:
Ethical conclusions are reached from rational analysis of the effects on everybody concerned of all available ways of behaving. Religious conclusions, certainly Christian ones, are handed out by influential human beings who claim that they know the wishes of a god. In making an ethical judgment, people have to work out the course of action that will minimise the total amount of personal discomfort in the world. In making a religious judgment, people have to work out what to do to avoid hell.
To be ethical, you have to open your mind and engage your brain. To be religious, you have to close your mind and open your ears. The hallmarks of ethical behaviour are intellectual engagement with issues and their consequences. The hallmarks of religious behaviour are unquestioning obedience to received articles of faith and to observance of rituals.
-
Ethics vs Scripture
Ten Network’s ’7 PM Project’ bring Kitty Flannigan’s views on the teaching of ethics to Aussie school children – resisted feverishly by religious beneficiaries.
“Ethics should not be offered as an alternative to the Bible” – Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen — Circa 2010
-
“If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”
- Jesus (Luke 14:26)
-
“I have wiped out many nations, devastating their fortress walls and towers. Their cities are now deserted; their streets are in silent ruin. There are no survivors to even tell what happened. I thought, ‘Surely they will have reverence for me now! Surely they will listen to my warnings, so I won’t need to strike again.’ But no; however much I punish them, they continue their evil practices from dawn till dusk and dusk till dawn.” So now the LORD says: “Be patient; the time is coming soon when I will stand up and accuse these evil nations. For it is my decision to gather together the kingdoms of the earth and pour out my fiercest anger and fury on them. All the earth will be devoured by the fire of my jealousy. “On that day I will purify the lips of all people, so that everyone will be able to worship the LORD together. My scattered people who live beyond the rivers of Ethiopia will come to present their offerings.”
- God (Zephaniah 3:6-10 NLT)
Intelligent design: scientifically and religiously bankrupt
© Online Opinion, by Michael Zimmerman:
In case you had any doubt, the last nail was just placed in the coffin of intelligent design (ID). And, in case you had any doubt, that last nail joins many others that have been in place for quite some time.
The latest attack appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) and provides conclusive evidence that the design of the human genome is incredibly imperfect, or, in other words, very far from being intelligently structured. As John Avise, a University of California-Irvine biologist, noted in the paper, his focus “is on a relatively neglected category of argument against ID and in favor of evolution: the argument from imperfection, as applied to the human genome.”
The basic concept of intelligent design comes in two parts and is as simple as it is satisfying for those unwilling to think deeply about the natural world, science, or the nature of religion. Part one, stretching way back to the ancient Greeks, notes that nature is so perfectly integrated that it must have been designed just as we see it. Part two, largely attributed to Lehigh University biologist Michael Behe, says that while some aspects of nature might certainly have changed (evolved?) over time, others are so complex that they must always have existed in the form we find them in today. Indeed, he coined the term “irreducibly complex” to explain such structures. Change anything at all in these irreducibly complex structures and they fail to work.
Both parts of ID are spectacularly wrong.
Indeed, demonstrating imperfect design in humans has become something of a fascinating cottage industry. Listen, for example to Abby Hafer, a physiologist at Curry College, discuss five serious flaws, from the blind spot in the human retina to the placement of human testicles, on NPR’s Here & Now. In his PNAS article, Avise simply extends this analysis to the human genome discussing myriad serious problems arising from “gratuitous gene complexities” that no self-respecting designer would tolerate.
As Avise notes, Charles Darwin rebutted the intelligent design argument offered by William Paley in 1802. In chapter 14 of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Darwin said, “On the view of each organic being and each separate organ having been specially created, how utterly inexplicable it is that parts … should so frequently bear the plain stamp of inutility.”
Full article: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10424

-
Search
Atheist Age: Live Stream 11pm Tuesdays
Help promote equal rights, science literacy and human tolerance
Tags
Blogroll
- Atheist Foundation of Australia
- Australian Skeptics
- Bad Astronomy
- Center For Inquiry
- Evolution
- Fifteen Answers to Creationist Nonsense
- Freethought Multimedia
- Humanist and Ethical Union
- Humanist Society of Victoria
- Infidel Guy
- Melbourne Atheists
- Pharyngula
- Point of Inquiry
- Rationalist Society of Australia
- Religion News in Brief
- Skepticality
- Understanding Evolution
- University of Melbourne Secular Society





