Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

No Establishment of Religion & Science

Ratio_Mentat
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2013 1:14:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Purpose of thread: (1) Build up common background on hypothesis to be discussed and (2) use this common background to be the grounds of debate to answer the hypothesis.

Subjects: First Amendment's Establishment Clause; Empirical Science; General Welfare; Public Education.

Here are Two principles that are found in the US Constitution, and part of the Subject. So this gives common background to work with.

Establishment Clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

General Welfare Clause: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes to pay for the common Welfare of the United States.

Public Education is payed for by Congress having the power to lay and collect Taxes, which is done for the common Welfare of the United States.

The Department of Education has a purpose to "promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access", which leads the Government to "Promote improvements in the quality and usefulness of education through Federally supported research, evaluation, and sharing of information", and "Improve the coordination of Federal education programs".

Empirical Science: "In so far as a proposition is a statement of science, then must be falsifiable, and in so far as they are not falsifiable, they are not statements of science. It must be possible for a scientific system to be refuted by experience."

Here is a general form of the hypothesis that would be debated at some future point, as soon as common background is agreed upon. The hypothesis, or problem, shall be labeled the "Problem of Odin", or PO.

PO: Assume it were that science books did have some deity of a religion in it, then would this violate the respecting the establishment of a religion?

Keep in mind that PO is a counter-factual, which means that it doesn't assert the actual truth of the hypothesis, i.e.it were that science books did have some deity of a religion in it". So when turned out of counter-factual, it says that "science books don't have some deity of religion in it."

So the point to eventually be debated would be about Federal government funding the teaching of Science, more specifically the teaching of specific scientific field that used the PO.
Cogitors Fundamental Postulate: "The mind imposes an arbitrary framework called "reality", which is quite independent of what the senses report."

Ancient Mentat Conundrum: "At last, after our long journey, we have reached the beginning."
Ratio_Mentat
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2013 2:45:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/20/2013 2:00:10 AM, Wnope wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

It appears you are saying that with the Hypothesis presented, The Government wouldn't violate the First Amendment by teaching Science, and Science respecting a deity of an established religion. Is this correct?
Cogitors Fundamental Postulate: "The mind imposes an arbitrary framework called "reality", which is quite independent of what the senses report."

Ancient Mentat Conundrum: "At last, after our long journey, we have reached the beginning."