Which is more important: Secular or Religious education

Which is more important: Secular or Religous education

  • Secular education

    Votes: 26 92.9%

  • Religious education

    Votes: 2 7.1%
  • Total voters
    28
Lets apply the scientific method.

Any studies on religious participation and scholastic achievement?

Previous research has observed that religious participation is positively related to a wide variety of adolescent outcomes, including academic achievement, but relatively little is known about why this is the case. We focus on a group of related potential explanations for why religious involvement improves educational outcomes. We examine whether religious participation enhances academic outcomes among teens by the way in which it shapes their social ties, or social capital, focusing on both intergenerational relationships and on relationships with peers. We also examine the potential intervening role of extracurricular participation. Using structural equation models to analyze data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), we examine the potential role of social capital and extracurricular participation in mediating the relationship between religious participation and academic achievement, dropping out of high school, and attachment to school. We find that religious attendance promotes higher intergenerational closure, friendship networks with higher educational resources and norms, and extracurricular participation. These intervening variables account for a small part of the influence of adolescent religious participation on the educational
Click to expand...

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20040802


organizedactivitiesasco.png


http://books.google.co.in/books?id=...esult&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Thats how we should have done it all along :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
NiccolòBrioschi said:
I hope that you will agree with me that philosophy is not a religion and that the afterlife is a theory yet to be proven.
Click to expand...

Indeed I do. Hence my clarification of my initial statement.

However, just because something cannot be proven doesn't mean it's not important.

Strictly speaking, reality as we know it hasn't been proven. (Matrix). That doesn't mean it's not important.


But, as I say often enough, I believe evidence exists. Most people just don't ever look for it though.


PS- Is this SAM person for real?
 
NiccolòBrioschi said:
This may be due to the fact that the majority of human beings is religious... Thus statistics are with you.
Click to expand...

Nah, it's on a 4.2 scale, meaning it's gotta be the average GPA over the test group.

Perhaps there's a correlation between social class and religion? Old WASP families who still attend Mass sometimes throwing the curve?
 
fiicere said:
Indeed I do. Hence my clarification of my initial statement.

However, just because something cannot be proven doesn't mean it's not important.

Strictly speaking, reality as we know it hasn't been proven. (Matrix). That doesn't mean it's not important.


But, as I say often enough, I believe evidence exists. Most people just don't ever look for it though.


PS- Is this SAM person for real?
Click to expand...

Something that cannot be proven is a mere theory.

Constructivist epistemiology?

There is no evidence but statistics dismiss religious claims.
 
NiccolòBrioschi said:
I have got a degree in economics... You certainly know that there are some problems when it comes to random samples.
Click to expand...

You mean, correlation is not causation? Sure, which is why I gave the interpretation first from one study and posted the results from a second. Its a fact that religion has a survival advantage, all societies to date have been religious [except the strange Piraha and even they see spirits that no one else can], there could be a myriad reasons for it.

fiicere said:
PS- Is this SAM person for real?
Click to expand...

Sometimes, mostly I'm a simulated articulate machine, hence the moniker. ;)
 
fiicere said:
Indeed. I fail to see the relevance, unless you were referring to my mention of the THEORY that we are not all brains hooked up to a computer.



To be honest, I've not given that enough thought.


Elaborate?
Click to expand...

I was referring to your previous statement.

However, just because something cannot be proven doesn't mean it's not important.
Click to expand...

I will develop the concept. Assuming that a God, or more Gods, exist... Which God is the real God? Allah? The Christian God? The Greek pantheon? Neither of them? Does he appreciate the way we worship him? Does he care about us? There are too many possibilities.
 
S.A.M. said:
You mean, correlation is not causation? Sure, which is why I gave the interpretation first from one study and posted the results from a second. Its a fact that religion has a survival advantage, all societies to date have been religious [except the strange Piraha and even they see spirits that no one else can], there could be a myriad reasons for it.



Sometimes, mostly I'm a simulated articulate machine, hence the moniker. ;)
Click to expand...

This is because the man loves religion.
 
NiccolòBrioschi said:
I will develop the concept. Assuming that a God, or more Gods, exist... Which God is the real God? Allah? The Christian God? The Greek pantheon? Neither of them? Does he appreciate the way we worship him? Does he care about us? There are too many possibilities.
Click to expand...

That is why one looks at the evidence, applies logic, and does a lot of homework. Oh, and constantly revises one's opinion.

Kinda like how scientific theories get weeded out, except when dealing with philosophy, one uses different criteria. (obviously, for example, trial by experimentation is impossible). If Scientists had said "there are too many possibilities!!!" then we'd never have discovered anything, particularly in fields like Biology where the underlying principles themselves are shaky (no, I'm not referring to evolution) or not well known.
 
NiccolòBrioschi said:
I will develop the concept. Assuming that a God, or more Gods, exist... Which God is the real God? Allah? The Christian God? The Greek pantheon?
Click to expand...
If you accept polytheism as a valid option, you open up the possibility that all (or most) of the above exist and it all just depends on which one you personally honour.
 
Michael said:
Which is more important: Secular or Religious education?

By "important" you can take this to mean important for the individual but also for society.

Why?


I think the question is pertinent, this is the sort of question politicians have to ask themselves. They only have so much money and resources to spend on their educational systems.
Click to expand...

Secular education is better than any religious education because all religions divide people, create racism and do NOT treat all people the same . Do I need to say more ? !.:D .
 
fiicere said:
Secular Humanism is a religion.

At the least, it makes just as many unsupported claims about the nature of the universe as religion does.
Click to expand...

Not even close. You can only make the claim that SH is a religion if you redefine religion to omit references to deities and the supernatural. At that point you can begin to at least draw comparisons by saying both are social constructs, therefore their both religions. However, if this were both necessary and sufficient qualities of being referred to as "religions," then we would need a new word to describe those religions which were based on supernatural claims of deities, etc.

fiicere said:
LOL. I'm a secular humanist. Care to try again?
Click to expand...
He may not, but I will: you're a poorly educated secular humanist. But this is okay. Education can be the path to enlightenment and can often be free.

It makes quite a few assumptions about the universe, namely:

1) Objective Truth exists
2) Free flow of ideas is the best way to discover this truth
3) Reason Trumps Faith
Finally:
4) A focus on THIS LIFE, as opposed to the next one.
[/QUOTE]

Four? You said "just as many" unsupported claims as religion. Where are the other several hundred? Indeed, which of these is unsupported? Moreover, neither of these are claims or assumptions generally embraced (at least not honestly) by religion in general.
 
fiicere said:
That is why one looks at the evidence, applies logic, and does a lot of homework. Oh, and constantly revises one's opinion.

Kinda like how scientific theories get weeded out, except when dealing with philosophy, one uses different criteria. (obviously, for example, trial by experimentation is impossible). If Scientists had said "there are too many possibilities!!!" then we'd never have discovered anything, particularly in fields like Biology where the underlying principles themselves are shaky (no, I'm not referring to evolution) or not well known.
Click to expand...

We have not evidence of anything regarding religion. Excuse me, but maybe I used the wrong term... a theory is something that requires a bit of empirical observation... Religion is pure speculation. Religions are not impossible, but they are all equally improbable. With no evidence you can't prove something hence religion cannot be proven, and nothing that cannot be proven should be considered truth.
 
S.A.M. said:
Lets apply the scientific method.

Any studies on religious participation and scholastic achievement?



http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20040802


organizedactivitiesasco.png


http://books.google.co.in/books?id=...esult&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Thats how we should have done it all along :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

SAM,

now you see why i like women over man in many other reason; i believe, in the 'book' women was smart enough to eat the fruit, first.

notice, mankind is still alive as well proven to 'live to the ages'......... I like to thank 'women' for that! Seems the old preachers had it backwards.

We find that religious attendance promotes higher intergenerational closure, friendship networks with higher educational resources and norms, and extracurricular participation. These intervening variables account for a small part of the influence of adolescent religious participation on the educational
Click to expand...

that claim is for/from idiots

religion is not the cause, the 'community' of people associate within a belief setting and some just dump the kids off to be babysitted. (sure they pay the fees and often believe the 'contributions' will get them and their kids a 'better seat'.)

ie..... a baby is born pure, but the church wants to baptize to "clear the sins". Seems reality would share it is a nice way to log the 'new life' into the church and get paid for it, too.

Reality: "baptism" is for bathing. Remember the plague in the 16th century (1600 yrs after Jesus) It was Nostradamus that shared that bathing was the single greatest benefit of reducing the continuous spread.

cleaning of sins could have been misinterpreted and meant 'clean of smell' (stink)

remember, nothing will undo an action imposed to existence, ever! That means, NOTHING can undo a sin! (a loss caused by someones actions)

How many babies can do a 'bad' by choice?
 
NiccolòBrioschi said:
We have not evidence of anything regarding religion. Excuse me, but maybe I used the wrong term... a theory is something that requires a bit of empirical observation... Religion is pure speculation. Religions are not impossible, but they are all equally improbable. With no evidence you can't prove something hence religion cannot be proven, and nothing that cannot be proven should be considered truth.
Click to expand...

Ah, now we get the problem. You're arguing cyclically. Namely, you start off with the assumptions you're trying to prove. For a Secular Humanist, the only logical standard of proof are empirical observations, and falsafiability. In philosophy, or religious humanism, or any number of other ways of thinking, however, ideas may be submitted without such criteria. So you justify Secular Humanism while refuting other beliefs by saying that SH is the only belief system which meets the standards of the Secular Humanists. Well, duh. Whereas you ignore the fact that other groups have their own methods of providing evidence and weeding out poor theories.

In any case, however, your logic, although nearly correct, has numerous tiny flaws. For example, prove that Gravity is dictated by GmM/r^2. You can't. Just because something has always been true doesn't mean that it always will be. For example, I have never died. Yet to say I will never die because I never have is absurd. Similarly, the Universe has never collapsed on itself, but that doesn't mean it won't. Furthermore, I can break your proof even further by implying that you hallucinate, dream, or are otherwise recieving false data and you would have no way of proving me wrong, since the only input you recieve is in your head, and if that is not receiving properly, ALL your data could be skewed. Consider the Matrix. This is why physicists (and other scientists) never claim to have "proofs" only Theories, like the Theory of Gravity. The only people who can claim true proofs are Mathematicians.

That leaves us with Evidence being the only standard, as opposed to hard proof. You claim that there is NO evidence for religion, an argument which I am forced to assume was merely the result of you being tired and therefore overlooking the obvious. If you want me to elaborate, read the page I wrote here (while I will not go so far as to call those arguments proofs, I will say they make very strong pieces of evidence at the least):

http://www.4shared.com/account/dir/18296364/49f11f08/sharing.html?rnd=96
(user: fiicere@yahoo.com, Password: free)


For now, I will state that you overlooked something obvious. Religious texts, are, in fact, evidence in favor of their respective beliefs. Additionally, Science has the potential to offer evidence, for, if God exists, to say that he has NEVER interfered in physical (as in, non-metaphysical) affairs is, well, a very bad theory, even by the standards of SH.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top