Thought Experiment: Atheism and the establishment clause
Posted on: April 28, 2008 - 5:03am
Offline
Thought Experiment: Atheism and the establishment clause
Query: Can the united states take an official position of atheism?
In order to avoid what I might consider off-topic speculation.. I do not mean as a practical matter, only as a legal matter: i.e., does an government's official position of atheism constitute an unconstitutional respecting of an establishment of religion? or, i.e., could the government take your position (as an atheist) on religion and not run contrary to the establishment clause of the first amendment?
- Login to post comments
This is only when religion accepts science's claims and tries to rationalize them with their religion's unscientific claims(ie bible...earth has four corners, snakes can talk, men lived for hundreds of years at one time, earth is roughly 6000 yrs old). Science illuminates facts, the facts are not neutral toward religion. Many of these facts directly contradict many of the claims made by religion, as those mentioned above. Compartmentalization of your mind can allow a person to believe inherently contradictory things, but regardless of those thoughts, the facts remain the same. In that sense, science is in direct conflict when religion makes claims of observable/testable ideas that have been disproven.
Read this, then rethink your statement. Science is based on facts not opinions
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
It I determine that the world is round through scientific methodologies, I do so irrespective of any religious belief. I do not say, "wo, that religion believes the world is flat, let me set out to disprove it."
Science does not address religion, it exists within itself without a concern for a religion. Some religions tend to make it an issue for themselves, still, I would contend that science doesn't really care what a religion believes--it will make its findings regardless of religious beliefs.
This is the essence of neutrality (at least as we have been using it in this thread).
Now.. if "science" came along and said "There is no God"--then that would be non-neutral. But it doesn't.
2+2 = 4.
A methodology for math has been created, I plug in the numbers, I get an answer.
A methodology has been created for physics, I plug in the facts, I get an answer.
2 + 2 does not equal "No God" or "X religion is wrong"
You obviously did not read the article or you wouldn't have offered these poor refutations that don't address the underlying question, which is..Can Science be neutral with respect to religion? I would say the things that make up a religion, would be essentially the claims they make. Here is a snippet of the article, and to better understand the question you have asked and to subsequently deconstruct the strawman you created of said question, I would ask you again to read the article.
"
The past few hundred years have witnessed a significant degree of tension between science and religion. Since very early on, religion has provided a certain way of making sense of the world -- a reason why things are the way they are. In modern times, scientific explorations have provided their own pictures of how the world works, ones which rarely confirm the pre-existing religious pictures. Roughly speaking, science has worked to apparently undermine religious belief by calling into question the crucial explanatory aspects of that belief; it follows that other aspects (moral, spiritual, cultural) lose the warrants for their validity. I will argue that this disagreement is not a priori necessary, but nevertheless does arise as a consequence of the scientific method.
It is important from the outset to distinguish between two related but ultimately distinct concepts: a picture of how the world works, and a methodology for deciding between competing pictures. The pictures of interest in this paper may be labelled ''materialism'' and ''theism.'' Materialism asserts that a complete description of nature consists of an understanding of the structures of which it is comprised together with the patterns which those structures follow, while theism insists on the need for a conscious God who somehow rises above those patterns. (These categories can be found, for example, in Richard Swinburne's Is There a God? (Oxford, 1996). I don't mean to pick on the conference organizer, but this short book is a well-presented and paradigmatic example of the kind of view I want to contrast with mine.) Science is most often associated with a materialist view, but the essence of science lies as much in a methodology of reaching the truth as in any view of what form that truth might ultimately take. In particular, the scientific method is an empirical one, in contrast to appeals to pure reason or to revelation. For the purposes of this paper I will assume the validity of the scientific method, and simply ask what sorts of conclusions we are led to by its application.
Within this framework, there are two possible roads to reconciliation between science and religion. One is to claim that science and religion are not incompatible because they speak to completely distinct sets of questions, and hence never come into conflict. The other is to assert that thinking scientifically does not lead to rejection of theism, but in fact that religious belief can be justified in the same way that any scientific theory might be. I will argue that neither strategy succeeds: science and religion do speak to some of the same questions, and when they do they get different answers. In particular, I wish to argue that religious belief necessarily entails certain statements about how the universe works, that these statements can be judged as scientific hypotheses, and that as such they should be rejected in favor of alternative ways of understanding the universe."
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
I have now read it.. and I still answer the same way.
Can science be neutral towards religion?
The answer is yes.
The problem is HOW DO YOU DEFINE NEUTRAL? Which is what most of this thread has been about.
If you define neutral as "not addressing X as X," then science can be considered neutral towards religions because it does not address "religion as religion" but rather "religion as (in the words of your article) a set of scientific hypothesis."
If you define "neutral" as "not address X at all," then, yes, you would be correct, science cannot be neutral.
Are you taking religion to mean an idea, such as Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity, then asking...Which one do you prefer Science?, or are you neutral to them? It is not the task of science to pick a religion and say this one is good, this one is bad, this one is just right... if that is what you are saying. The question...Can science be neutral towards religion? Is a yes in that sense, because science doesn't pick favorites of belief systems hinging on an unfalsifiable supernatural being.
The underlying fundamental question that your question begs is, Is science neutral to the claims of religion(those that can be empirically observed/tested)? The answer to that question is an emphatic no. I take both questions to be completely attached and inseparable from the other, but it seems you are arguing that they are separate questions. I think in that sense, you are asking a question so that you get the answer you are looking for and are not really asking a question, but really redefining an idea so as to confuse and misrepresent the reality of what is actually occurring...that many of the claims that Religions have made and are making claims that either have been disproved or will be disproved once the technology to test them is available.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
That's fine and dandy that you think that.
No.
You are failing to understand the point, and I believe you are doing so in ignorance of this entire thread.
I do not disclaim your point that science happens to address certain claims that religion makes that can be empirically observed/tested.
For instance, a "the religion that the world is flat." Science covers that. But it is not on the basis of "religion" that it addresses it. It merely addresses it incidental to its main focus to address "empirical data."
Whether the claim is religious or not, Science doesn't care.
As I have been saying in this thread time and again to other people... in the same way that a law that says "we will give money to all accredit schools" might encompass funding religious accreditted schools.. doesn't change the fact that the law itself is facially neutral.
Science is "facially neutral" in the same way as well. The fact that in studying the shape of the world its determination may point to roundness, does not mean that it is nonneutral respective of religion.
At least not by the aforementioned definition of neutrality.
There is no "redefining" of the idea.
I'm tired now.. j&col has drained me. I need sleep.
G'night all. Deal with this in the futre.
Well it took a few posts, but I think we are finally in agreement here. Science addresses all claims the same be it from Charles Darwin, to the Bible, to the Scientologists, to homeopathy. It doesn't set out to disprove one's idea while proving another's for its own interests. Facts are facts and you are correct in stating....Whether the claim is religious or not, Science doesn't care.
If this is the neutrality of science concerning religion, then science is neutral towards religion, it debunks all baseless claims equally regardless of the number or stature of the people who espouse those claims.
Good night, I'm not sure whether j&col is a reference for jack and cola or a joint and a colonoscopy...regardless, sleep well. Jk about the last part.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
Quote: In the court cases in which the SC ruled against a school district which had banned the teaching of evolution it was not because evolution was banned, it was because they tried to replace it with creationism, a clear violation of the EC.Untrue. The first of these cases was a state just banning the teaching of evolution. The second was the state requiring equal time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epperson_v._Arkansas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard
Sorry, the decision in Epperson v. Arkansas was based on the foundation of the law which prohibited the teaching of evolution. That foundation was religious. In the Epperson decision the court made five findings. Four of those findings involved religion:
(b) The sole reason for the Arkansas law is that a particular religious group considers the evolution theory to conflict with the account of the origin of man set forth in the Book of Genesis. Pp. 103, 107-109.
(c) The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion. Pp. 103-107.
(d) A State's right to prescribe the public school curriculum does not include the right to prohibit teaching a scientific theory or doctrine for reasons that run counter to the principles of the First Amendment. P. 107.
(e) The Arkansas law is not a manifestation of religious neutrality. P. 109. [copied from findlaw.com]
Quote:Church or not, the money is supposed to come with strings attached. Those strings prohibit using the funds for the purpose of proselytizing or advancing the religion. When oversight is weak or non-existent a church may use such an opportunity to use funds for purposes other than intended. This provides the religion with an opportunity that is not available to other NPO's. Therefor, the State's lax oversight contributes to an advantage for the church. Refer to Jeffersons writings for insight into exactly how he felt about the church/state issue.
My apologies for cutting this off at this point. It's late and I have to get up in about 4 hours.
"Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." Thomas Jefferson
www.myspace.com/kenhill5150
Heh, you don't have to cite me the case.. I know what it says.
Let me reiterate what has gone on here:
Quote you:
Quote me:
Quote you:
Awesome. You state that SC rules against these laws because they try to replace it with creationism. I show you a case merely to show that this assertion is right. You respond by telling me I'm somehow wrong in my showing because the SC ruled against the epperson law for a reason different than what you first stated was the reason SC rules against these laws.
Epperson was not a case about impropriety of trying to replace evolution with creationism, it was a case about the impropriety of trying to cut out evolution for the curriculum on a the basis of a religious motive.
The was no part of the law that said "now replace that subject with creationism."
What money? "No tax" is not "funding" by some semantical understandings.
This really didn't answer the question.
How does "not taxing" infringe?
Unless we consider "not taxing" = "funding."
Which.. is fine, I just happen to disagree.
And refer to Washington for what he thought..
The original understanding of the first amendment is colored by more than just Jefferson. There is non consensus as to what it stood for--in either case, the fact that a pastor was hired very very early on in our history to give prayers at the opening of congressional sessions would seem to suggest that what Jefferson thoughts were in the minority.
My bad. When I read your sentence and looked at the wording I guess I read too much into it, thinking you were deliberately leaving out the religious roots of the law. When I replied I wasn't thinking of the cases involving creationism. I was, or thought I was, presenting the missing information.
Quote:How can you infringe by not getting involved? As a matter of common sense this seems to be paradoxical.
As to the second response... I guess my mind was thinking one thing and my fingers typing another. I meant to state giving money to churches imo is an infringement... My response was based on what I thought I had written. Sorry, it was like one in the morning and I was looking at a 4am wake-up. I really have to stop doing that. I'm going to get some sleep now.
"Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." Thomas Jefferson
www.myspace.com/kenhill5150
Back to the tax thing ... If so and so makes X amount of $ , tax them. To do otherwise is favoritism. Fair taxes is another issue. I build engines for people, and my prices are low. I am doing charity work , getting them back on the road and to work. I do as much ,as one individual, to help the community as any church or charity. Why is the church tax free ???
Atheism Books.
Because the majority of people in the US (as reflected by our democratic republic) disagrees with you. They either feel that you don't do as much for the community as any church or charity that is tax exempt.. or just aren't as deserving for it.
Our system needs fixing. Me and atheist story Jesus no like the devil church temple hypocrites ..... "soe your seed my ass" .... I hate the FCC too .....
Church of Freethought Gets Tax Exemption in Texas, http://atheism.about.com/b/a/258052.htm
Most churches in America have organized as "501c3 tax-exempt religious organizations." This is a fairly recent trend that has only been going on for about fifty years. Churches were only added to section 501c3 of the tax code in 1954 .... http://hushmoney.org/501c3-facts.htm
http://www.baptiststandard.com/1998/11_11/pages/LBJ.html
Political Silence at Church: 28 PAGES http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3736/is_200601/ai_n17177507/pg_1
PAGE 3 Tax exemptions for churches under the federal tax system existed as early as 1798
THE POWER TO DESTROY
Christians face threat ,pushing Bible beliefs
Churches to lose tax-exempt status , for denouncing same-sex marriage? http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39971
Google: When did the church first become tax exempt? ETC
Go, ACLU says tax the churches. Church fights back. http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005/07/28/aclu-opposes-tax-exemptions-for-all-churches/
Atheism Books.